CITY OF KINGSTON INFORMATION REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 CITY OF KINGSTON INFORMATION REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE Report No.: PC TO: FROM: RESOURCE STAFF: Chair and Members of Planning Committee Cynthia Beach, Commissioner, Sustainability & Growth Grant C. Bain, Director, Planning and Development Department DATE OF MEETING: SUBJECT: INFORMATION REPORT Appeals to Ontario Municipal Board - Failure of Council to Make a Decision Within the Statutory Timeframe Applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Ontario Inc Isle of Man Lane File No. D , D & D and Applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision B.C. Ltd Isle of Man Road File No. D , D & D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this information report is to advise Council of the appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board and to provide information to Planning Committee and Council regarding the position of the Planning and Development Department with respect to applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision which have been submitted by Ontario Inc. for 2130 Isle of Man Lane and by B.C. Ltd. for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The report includes a detailed overview of the relevant policies governing development in the Province of Ontario and the City of Kingston. It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that neither of the proposed estate residential developments on Isle of Man Road (2611 Isle of Man Road & 2130 Isle of Man Lane) can satisfy these policies. In addition to the policy concerns, each of the applications for estate residential subdivision has some technical concerns that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of staff. 159

2 - Page 2 - The applications submitted by Ontario Inc. propose a 12 lot estate residential subdivision serviced by individual private well and septic systems. A Public Meeting with respect to these applications was held on March 1, The applications submitted by B.C. Ltd. propose a 31 lot estate residential subdivision serviced by individual private well and septic systems. A Public Meeting with respect to these applications was held on April 19, The Planning and Development Department are not in support of the applications for Official Plan Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-Law Amendment for these properties. The Official Plan strongly discourages approval of new areas of estate residential development and the Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement clearly set out policies limiting growth to within the urban boundary or an established settlement area. In addition, the Official Plan intends for the protection of land suitable for agricultural production from scattered development. The proposed estate residential subdivisions will also negatively impact the significant wildlife habitat of identified threatened species. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information purpose only. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES: Cynthia Beach, Commissioner, Sustainability & Growth Group Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Lanie Hurdle, Community Services Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston (N/R indicates consultation not required) N/R N/R N/R K:\D09_Official Plan Amendments\2012 Applications\ _2611 Isle of Man Road\PC _Information Report_Isle of Man.doc 160

3 - Page 3 - OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Origin On January 5, 2012, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications were submitted by FoTenn Consultants Inc. on behalf of Ontario Inc. for the purpose of amending the existing Rural designation and Restricted Rural (A1) zone in order to permit a 12 lot estate residential subdivision. In accordance with By-Law No , a Pre-consultation meeting between the applicant and various Departments and Agencies was conducted on October 14, On January 31, 2012, the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications were deemed complete, in accordance with the Planning Act. A Public Meeting with respect to these applications was held on March 1, On January 13, 2012, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications were submitted by IBI Group, on behalf of B.C. Ltd. for the purpose of permitting the development of a 31 lot estate residential lot subdivision including 2 public roads and 1 open space block. In accordance with By-Law No , a preconsultation meeting between the applicant and the relevant Departments and agencies was conducted on April 27, A Public Meeting with respect to these applications was held on April 19, The two applications have been combined for purposes of the convenience of the Planning Committee in this Report. The two properties are separate and distinct in ownership and have been processed as such throughout the process to date. Although both applications require the consideration of similar policies, the application of policy and the technical review of each separate application has been conducted individually for each property. Site Characteristics The subject property municipally known as 2130 Isle of Man Lane is located at the terminus of Isle of Man Road and is hectares in size (see Exhibit A - Key Map). The site currently contains a dwelling and former farm building. The subject property municipally known as 2611 Isle of Man Road has frontage on Highway 15, Isle of Man Road, and Dane Road and is 41 hectares in size (see Exhibit A - Key Map). The site is presently occupied by agricultural production, rock outcrops, woodland, wetland and a number of derelict structures, which include a cottage, a barn, a house and accessory structures. Applications and Supporting Documentation Each of the proposed rural estate residential subdivisions are intended to be serviced by individual private well and septic systems (see Exhibits B and C Draft Plans of Subdivision Isle of Man Lane and 2611 Isle of Man Road). The plan of subdivision for 2130 Isle of Man Lane proposes the extension of Isle of Man Road. The applications propose to change the Rural designation of the site to an Estate Residential 161

4 - Page 4 - designation and the zoning to a site specific Estate Residential zone. Various amendments to the Estate Residential zone are requested including: a reduction in lot area; a reduction lot frontage; and, to allow a second dwelling unit on Lot 8. In support of the applications, the applicant has submitted the following: Draft Plan; Planning Rationale; Stormwater Report; Traffic Impact Study; Tree Inventory Report and Plan; Environmental Impact Study; Bobolink Survey; Phase 1 Environmental Assessment; Heritage Impact Statement; Archaeological Report; and Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis. The application for 2611 Isle of Man Road requests permission to change the land use designation from Rural and Environmental Protection Area to a site specific Estate Residential land use designation and apply a site specific Estate Residential zone. The subdivision plan proposes 2 public roads and 1 open space block. The following reports and studies were submitted in support of the development applications: A Draft Plan of Subdivision; Stormwater Management Report; Tree Inventory; Environmental Impact Study; Bobolink Survey; Environmental Site Assessment; Hydrogeological Study/Terrain Analysis/Servicing Options; Noise Study; Archaeological Assessments Stages 2,3 and 4; Heritage Impact Statement; and Planning Rationale. Technical Analysis Development review in the Province of Ontario is a practice involving a multi-disciplinary, multifaceted approach to ensure long term sustainability of the City and the proposed development. It must take into account the public interest, as defined by the policies of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Official Plan. The Provincial Policy Statement is a document that provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development which are complimented by local policies addressing local interests. The Provincial Policy Statement states that, This provincial policy statement shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied 162

5 - Page 5 - to each situation. (Section 4.3, Provincial Policy Statement, 2005) This policy provides clear direction regarding the application of provincial policy in matters affecting land use planning. The technical analysis provided in the body of this report lists the applicable policies that establish how the proposed estate residential subdivisions are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or the City of Kingston Official Plan and do not constitute good land use planning or responsible sustainable development. The proposed estate residential subdivisions have been analyzed against the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan and the studies identified as required to be completed during the pre-consultation process. It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that the proposed estate residential subdivisions are not consistent with the land use policy direction of the PPS and do not conform to the policies of the Official Plan. Principle of Growth The Official Plan implements the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement which supports residential intensification, redevelopment, and an appropriate range of housing types and densities needed to meet projected requirements of current and future residents. It is the goal of the City of Kingston to focus the City s growth within the Urban Boundary, where adequate urban services exist, or can be more efficiently extended in an orderly and phased manner (Section 2.3, Official Plan). It is the intent of the City to maintain, at all times, the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years with lands that are designated and available for residential development. It is also the intent of the Official Plan to maintain lands with servicing capacity to provide at least a three year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned and lands that are draft-approved or registered subdivisions (Section 2.4.2, Official Plan). Sufficient available land to meet these policies and to accommodate residential growth is provided within the urban boundary. This is monitored through the Planning and Development Department s pending and committed development review on a continuous basis. The Official Plan directs that most of the City s growth will occur within the Urban Boundary (see Exhibit E Urban Boundary) where development will be directed to achieve greater sustainability (Sections and 2.3.1, Official Plan). Within the Country Area, Section of the Official Plan states that growth will be limited and the natural assets, functions, and occupations that contribute to the general sustainability of the City as a whole will be supported through various factors including, an ecosystem approach to protecting the natural heritage system; the protection of surface water features, including inland lakes and rivers and limiting the types of permitted development to those that support a resource based local economy and sustainable practices. The subject properties are located within the area identified as Country Area on Schedule 2, City Structure of the Official Plan. The Country Area encompasses a number of land use designations including rural areas, agricultural areas, natural heritage systems (Environmental Protection Area) and historic settlement areas (Hamlets). All of these features contribute to the 163

6 - Page 6 - economic and intrinsic value of the Country Area. These lands play a critical role in protecting the rural values and rural community of the City. These areas sustain natural heritage features and areas that are important to the ecosystem of the entire City and provide for the integration of limited new development on lands deemed appropriate due to lower soil capability for agriculture and limited impact on adjacent agricultural operations. The Official Plan directs that the planning for the lands in the Country Area must balance the resource protection objectives for agriculture, aggregates and minerals with the environmental objectives of the natural heritage features and areas and watershed management and the social objectives of protecting rural communities and the rural way of life [2.3.10]. The Country Area may accommodate land uses that require extensive land areas such as water management structures, solid waste disposal sites, recreational areas and industrial uses not suited to compact industrial parks. Planning for these types of uses requires the identification of the natural, agricultural and mineral resources that may be present in the area, the existing residential areas and hamlets, and the policies of this Plan regarding land use change and the limits on creating lots in the Country Area. (Section , Official Plan) Section of the Official Plan recognizes that there will be conflicts between land uses in the Country Area and provides clear policy direction on the method for resolving these competing interests. There are sites that have significance to more than one function or provide protection to more than one resource. Where there is a conflict, the City will be strongly guided by: a. the priorities expressed in the Provincial Policy Statement and other legislation or policy of the Province; b. the strategic and fundamental planning principles expressed in Section 2 of this Plan; and, c. the particular circumstances of the site in the context of existing development and the overall policies of this Plan. The PPS provides clear policy direction with respect to the preferred form and densities of development within a municipality. Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. (Section , PPS) The City of Kingston has adopted an Urban Growth Boundary in its Official Plan. The purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary is to delineate the focus of the City s growth in an area with adequate services and where growth can occur in an orderly and phased manner. The concept of orderly and phased growth is an important theme in both the PPS and the City s Official Plan and constitutes an important aspect of the development review process. The PPS states, New development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built-up area and shall have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities.(section , PPS) 164

7 - Page 7 - Additional PPS policies include, Planning authorities shall establish and implement phasing to ensure the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and projected needs. (Section , PPS) The policy is written as a must do as opposed to a should do policy within the context of the PPS. This directive has been accomplished through the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary and the supporting policies in Section 2 of the Official Plan. The Official Plan does identify some areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary as Future Development Areas however neither of these sites fall within these areas or are in proximity to these future development areas. These are subject to criteria and studies prior to development. The subdivisions subject to this review are situated between 6 and 7 kilometres from the present Urban Growth Boundary and are not adjacent to an existing built up area. The site area of the 2130 Isle of Man Lane subdivision is approximately hectares. The site area of 2611 Isle of Man Road subdivision is approximately 41 hectares. The cumulative area of the two developments is hectares. The size of these developments individually and combined cannot be considered small scale infill as envisioned in the Existing Cluster policy of the Official Plan. (Section , Official Plan) Principle of Sustainable Development: The PPS begins by providing a list of criteria for the establishment of healthy, livable and safe communities. Developments should be measured against the following criteria (Section 1.1.1, PPS): a. promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial wellbeing of the Province and municipalities over the long term; The proposed estate residential developments are located between 6 and 7 kilometres from the City s Urban Growth Boundary. The purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary is to direct development to serviced areas of the City and close to existing development to promote a more compact urban form, limit sprawl and maximize the efficiency for the delivery of public services. The proposed estate residential subdivisions do not satisfy this goal and contribute to sprawl, inefficient land use, and increased costs for the delivery of soft services such as fire, snow plowing, garbage and recycling pick-up and police. Other public services such as recreational facilities and libraries are not provided within close proximity to the proposed development. c. avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; At the time of the drafting of this report 3 species at risk were identified as being present on the property municipally known as 2611 Isle of Man Road. These species are the bobolink, the eastern meadowlark and the barn swallow. 165

8 - Page 8 - There are four threatened species that have been identified on the property municipally known as 2130 Isle of Man Lane. They are the bobolink, the eastern meadowlark, the barn swallow and the eastern musk turtle. A map turtle identified as a species at risk was spotted and noted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The EIS included recommendations for mitigating potential impacts on the nesting areas of the turtle with setbacks and not cutting vegetation in areas abutting the waterfront. These species and their habitat are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Comments received from the Rideau Waterway Development Review Team acknowledge that the proposed estate residential subdivision will eliminate the habitat of the threatened species. Consequently, the developers will require authorization from the Ministry of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 2007, prior to commencing any development on the subject properties. To date, it has not been demonstrated that the concerns regarding these threatened species and their habitat have been satisfactorily addressed nor has authorization been granted from the Ministry of Natural Resources to either development proposal. In regards to public health and safety concerns, the City s Fire & Rescue Department has identified concerns with the proposed development at 2130 Isle of Man Lane as it creates greater than three dwelling units on a dead-end cul-de-sac greater than 150 meters in length and is not permitted under the City s Council approved Subdivision Development Guidelines & Technical Standards. d. avoiding development and land use patterns that would prevent the efficient expansion of settlement areas in those areas which are adjacent or close to settlement areas; The purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary is to foster a more compact development in order to efficiently use infrastructure, minimize land consumption, support the use of public transit, reduce air and other forms of pollution, and thus foster sustainable growth in the City. (Section 2.3, Principles of Growth) e. promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; Although it specifically references urban residential density for comparison purposes the City of Kingston s Official Plan states that, for large-scale developments and greenfield areas, a minimum of 37.5 residential units per net hectare is established as the target for new residential development in order to be transit supportive. (Section (b), Official Plan) The proposed net residential density for the estate residential development at 2130 Isle of Man Lane is 0.78 dwelling units per net hectare and the density for the proposed development at 2611 Isle of Man Road is 0.85 dwelling units per net hectare. These densities are far below the 166

9 - Page units per net hectare target and will subtract from the City s overall minimum density target of 22 units per net hectare. (Section (a), Official Plan) The proposed estate residential developments are also inconsistent with Section of the PPS which directs development to occur within settlement areas and ensure appropriate densities and a mix of uses based upon the following: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion g. ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs. The Provincial Policy Statement defines a public service facility as, land, buildings and structures for the provision of programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and education programs and cultural services. (Section 6.0, Definitions, PPS) Recreation, education and cultural services are amenities that contribute to the health and safety (livability) of a community. Public service facilities contribute to the amenities available to serve residents of a municipality and make infill and compact urban form viable, appropriate and good land use planning. The principle of compact urban form, infill and intensification are integrated into the Official Plan and further expanded upon in more detail. The policies of the Official Plan are adopted by Council and Approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. These policies are an integral part of policies and principles guiding the provision of phased and orderly development in the province of Ontario and the City of Kingston. The proposed developments do not facilitate the efficient use and provision of public services in the City of Kingston. The proposed estate residential developments are not consistent with the PPS policies for the delivery of public services within a municipality (Sections 1.5.1, 1.6.1, and 1.6.3, PPS). Sufficient infrastructure and public service facilities are available within the Urban Boundary to meet current and projected needs. The estate residential developments proposed do not satisfy the PPS criteria for establishing sustained healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS further states that, The Official Plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement. (Section 4.5, Provincial Policy Statement) The PPS is identified as a policy document establishing minimum standards for land use planning in the province. Planning authorities can expand on the minimum provincial standards and provide more specific and detailed policies provided they do not conflict with the policies of the PPS.(Section 4.6, Provincial Policy Statement) The policies contained within the PPS are expanded upon in the City s Official Plan. 167

10 - Page 10 - The Official Plan directs the majority of growth to occur within the city s Urban Growth Boundary in order to achieve is goals for sustainability. The Official Plan in Section expands on the criteria for sustained development in the PPS to include the following: a. appropriate densities; As stated previously in this report, the City s Official Plan includes residential density targets for new large scale green field construction to be 37.5 dwelling units per net hectare. It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that both estate residential subdivisions constitute large scale development within the context of greenfield development in the City of Kingston. In addition, the Official Plan includes a city wide residential density target of 22 dwelling units per net hectare. The proposed estate residential subdivisions are well below the targeted density and would subtract from the overall net density and inhibit the municipality from attaining its long range residential density objective. b. land use patterns that foster transit and pedestrian activity; Kingston Transit does not provide transit service north of the St. Lawrence Business Park in the east end of the City. The designs of the estate residential subdivisions are not conducive to pedestrian activity for the following reasons: waterfront access is limited to a primarily low lying wet area proposed to be a park block in the subdivision proposal for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The back lot style development onto Gibraltar Bay does not include a pathway system along the waterfront. The Official Plan includes policy promoting maintaining public access to waterfront in the City. Similarly, the estate residential subdivision proposed for 2130 Isle of Man Lane does not include any public waterfront access and does not propose a park block as required by the City in fulfillment of the required 5% parkland conveyance. enhancing boating and water-related facilities, continued acquisition and development of waterfront pathways and regional trail linkages, recreation and hospitality opportunities related to the lakefront, the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site, and other waterfront areas (Section 2.9.3, Official Plan) pedestrian and cycling pathways are to be broadly designed around the routes identified in Schedule 5 of the Official Plan and a list of planning principles to be applied. The developments are isolated and cannot be linked to any of the City s trail systems, including the Rideau and K&P Trails. There are no sidewalks or bike lanes along Hwy #15, Isle of Man Road or the two proposed local roads within the proposed estate residential subdivision for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The design of the subdivisions does not minimize the potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation. 168

11 - Page 11 - Consequently, the proposed subdivisions do not conform to Section of the Official Plan. d. opportunities for sharing resources such as parking, utilities, and the land base for locally grown produce, in the form of community gardens, as well as educational, recreational or cultural assets; The subdivision designs for 2130 Isle of Man Lane and 2611 Isle of Man Road effectively reduce the opportunity to access to the culturally significant Rideau Canal (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and contributing waterway system. e. direction of new development and key land uses to areas where they can best result in sustainable practices; The proposed estate residential subdivisions do not provide any meaningful opportunity to implement sustainable practices. Both subdivisions are automobile dependent due to the lack of public transit, employment opportunities, commercial services and other public services within close proximity to the development. The delivery of utilities, such as heating oil and propane, by truck as opposed to piped gas services provided in the Urban Growth Boundary also contribute to an increased carbon footprint and decreased efficiency compared to the delivery of the same utility within the urban area. f. promotion of employment opportunities and alliances that enhance local skills, educational resources and the use of local products, including food; The subject property municipally known as 2611 Isle of Man Road had been primarily fields that had been left fallow for many years and were used only to take off hay or straw. After the applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications and supporting studies were submitted for processing the fields were cut and soya bean was planted. The use of the land to grow a cash crop, such as soya bean, is evidence that the soil can sustain agricultural production. There is evidence that the land at 2130 Isle of Man Lane was also farmed in the past. There are also other farming activities in the vicinity of these properties. The Rural land use designation applied to the majority of these subject properties states that the intent of the Rural designation is to, maintain a permanent and viable agricultural industry as a component of the economic base of the City. (Section 3.13, Official Plan) The Official Plan discourages the introduction of non-farm uses that threaten to undermine the viability of the agricultural industry in that area. (Section 3.13, Official Plan) The proposed estate residential subdivisions would contribute to the fragmentation of viable farmland. g. maximized use of investments in infrastructure and public amenities; 169

12 - Page 12 - There are minimal investments in infrastructure and public amenities proposed. Isle of Man Road has a restrictive right-of-way that is not consistent with the present standards for a public road. The area residents have a concern that the present road condition will be further undermined by the proposed developments and is unsafe for the existing and proposed developments. i. parks that are planned to be accessible by urban residents within a ten minute walk; and, The 2130 Isle of Man Lane Draft Plan of Subdivision does not include a park block. The 2.05 hectares park block on the proposed estate residential subdivision for 2611 Isle of Man Road is occupied by an intermittent creek that drains the subject lands into Gibraltar Bay. There is no active recreational parkland proposed in either subdivision. The proposed park block in the 2611 Isle of Man Road subdivision is located in an Environmental Protection Area designation. Official Plan policy does not accept the dedication of hazard lands or EPA lands as parkland dedication. Lands within an Environmental Protection Area are not accepted in fulfillment of the parkland dedication requirements, except as provided for in Section 3.10.A.8 of this Plan and are subject to the foregoing policies of Section 3.9 and 3.9.A. (Section , Official Plan) j. an ecosystem approach to protecting the natural heritage system. (Section 2.1.2, Official Plan) The proposed estate residential subdivisions propose to eliminate existing habitat for a number of threatened species (as defined in the Endangered Species Act). The residential lots are proposed to include frontage on the Rideau Canal and Gibraltar Bay which will undermine the intent of the Official Plan to maintain a 30 metre ribbon of life along the waterfront resulting in further degradation of the existing natural heritage system (Sections and 3.9.2, Official Plan). The difficulty in enforcement of a no-cut management regime is recognized on page 8 of the Bobolink Survey prepared by Ecological Services and dated July 12, Both subdivisions are proposing fragmentation of the natural heritage system. In summary, the Official Plan defines the City s vision and direction to achieve sustainable development through its policies as development that is compact, efficient, located in an urban area (Urban Growth Boundary or Hamlet) and consists of a mix of uses and residential densities in order to achieve the following: a. reduce infrastructure and public facility costs; b. reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions; c. support pedestrian movement, cycling and viable public transit; and, d. conserve agriculture and natural resources within the City.(Section 2.4.1, Official Plan) The proposed estate residential subdivisions are not consistent with and do not conform to the policies of the PPS and Official Plan promoting sustainable development. 170

13 - Page 13 - Stable Areas One of the goals of the Official Plan is to maintain or improve the City s quality of life by having a pattern of cohesive neighbourhoods and districts, and fostering economic growth by directing investment and managing the degree of change that is warranted in different locations (Section 2.6, Official Plan). The City Structure includes areas where change and intensification are intended, as well as areas where little change is warranted or desired. The two rural estate residential subdivisions have the potential of destabilizing the function and characteristics of the rural area. The Official Plan intents to promote development and adaptive re-use opportunities in areas where change is desired while protecting stable areas from incompatible development or types of development and rates of change that may be destabilizing (Section 2.6.1, Official Plan). Stable areas are to be protected from development that is not intended by the Official Plan and is not compatible with built heritage resources or with the prevailing pattern of development in terms of density, activity level, or type of use (Section 2.6.3, Official Plan). Issues of compatibility are critical in the Country Area, as the long term protection of normal farm practices is a priority. This is reflected in the mutual separation of livestock operations and sensitive uses but also in addressing unique rural issues such as allowing the transport of farm machinery, tillage of land, and regular livestock husbandry techniques (Section 2.7.9, Official Plan). It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that the subdivision of approximately hectares and approximately 41 hectares (approximate total area of hectares) of land in this location will result in the removal of viable farmland and establish a use that will not be compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses. There are already existing farm, vacant land condominiums and non-farm residential uses in the surrounding area (approximate total of 196 residential units within 1.5 km of the subject properties). The proposed subdivisions would increase the number of non-farm residential uses in the immediate area (from approximately 168 dwelling units to a total of 211 year round nonfarm dwellings) to a number greater than what is appropriate in the Rural land use designation (see Exhibit I). There is a risk of increased demand for public services and infrastructure (i.e. road improvement and maintenance) that cannot be administered in an efficient and cost effective manner due to the isolated nature of the development. There are 15 farm residents (as defined by available MPAC data) in the surrounding area. The operation of the farms could be adversely effected when implementing normal farm practices, such as manure spreading, through increased complaints and demands for such uses to cease. Official Plan Land Use Designations Both properties are designated Rural and Environmental Protection Area in the City of Kingston Official Plan (see Exhibit D - Existing Official Plan designation). The intent of the Rural designation is to maintain a permanent and viable agricultural industry by contributing to agricultural production, forestry and mineral resources, natural areas and wildlife habitats and 171

14 - Page 14 - providing opportunities for rural economic development, outdoor recreation, and the appreciation of natural areas. The permitted uses in the Rural designation include: agricultural uses and agriculture-related uses; sports and outdoor recreation activities; and, detached dwellings in accordance with specific policies. The Environmental Protection Areas designation is intended primarily for the preservation and conservation of land and the natural environment. Uses within the Environmental Protection Area are limited to those related to open space, conservation or flood protection. Overall, the applications do not meet the intent of the Official Plan which intends for the protection of land suitable for agricultural production from scattered development, for growth to occur within the Urban Boundary and which strongly discourages new areas of estate residential development. Areas of greatest natural significance are not intended for development or site alteration. The proposed developments will permanently remove habitats of threatened species on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list. The Official Plan prohibits the creation of a new lot where a site is within a Natural Heritage A feature or within a Natural Heritage B feature if it results in negative impacts on the feature or function. The applicants have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City, the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority or the Ministry of Natural Resources that there will be no negative impact on the natural heritage features and areas, or on their ecological functions. Section 5.3 of the Official Plan states that development proposals whose functional characteristics and environmental impacts are not consistent with environmental standards or objectives of the City, senior levels of government or the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, and which cannot be made to conform with generally accepted engineering or design standards or practices, will be refused. Development in the Rural and Estate Residential Land Use Designations It is the intent of the Official Plan to maintain a permanent and viable agricultural industry as a component of the economic base of the City, to provide employment and a sustainable source of local food in the Rural land use designation. Limited non-farm growth is permitted in the Rural Area if it does not limit or interfere with agricultural use, agriculture-related uses or a broader range of rural uses, and if it meets the environmental objectives of the Official Plan (Section 3.13, Official Plan). A goal of the Official Plan is to protect land suitable for agricultural production from scattered development and land uses which are unrelated to agriculture. The estate residential subdivision policies are incorporated into the body of the Rural land use designation policies. These policies are not stand alone area policies such as you would find in a secondary plan (Section 10, Official Plan) and must be reviewed in the context of the entire Official Plan. 172

15 - Page 15 - As outlined in Section of the Official Plan, new residential development in the Rural land use designation is generally discouraged and single detached dwellings are only permitted in accordance with the following criteria: a. on existing lots of record; Neither application proposes development on existing lots of record. The development at 2130 Isle of Man Lane proposes to create 12 new lots and the development at 2611 Isle of Man Road proposes to create 31 new lots. The Planning and Development Department reviewed the City s inventory of vacant rural lots. There are a total of approximately 933 vacant lots outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. At the time of the writing of this report there are 306 vacant rural lots that are 4 hectares and less in area. Of these lots, 266 are 2 hectares and less in area and 49 of the 266 vacant lots are located in existing estate residential subdivision developments. In addition, there are 17 vacant residential parcels within a Hamlet designated areas. In 2012, the City of Kingston issued 550 building permits for the construction of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwelling, row house dwellings and residential apartment buildings. Of these 550 Building Permits 449 of them were issued for single detached residential buildings and 21 of these permits were issued for properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. The 12 year average for single detached building permits outside of the Urban Growth Boundary is 28 dwellings per annum. The permits issued in the rural area included construction on lots greater than 4 hectares. Only 2.2% of the existing vacant parcels in the rural area obtained building permits for single detached dwellings (0% of all other residential type dwellings). There is currently a supply of vacant rural lots to satisfy existing demand in excess of 25 years. The stock of non-farm residential lots is increased annually through a handful of Consent applications that can conform to the Rural land use designation policies (Section 3.13, Official Plan) and the Subdivision of Land policies (Section 9.6, Official Plan) of the Official Plan. In 2012 there were 7 non-farm residential Consents approved by the Committee of Adjustment. It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that there is sufficient vacant land within and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary to satisfy all land use patterns and housing types, including upscale market demand identified on page 18 of the Planning Rationale completed by IBI Group for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The proposed estate residential subdivisions are not necessary to address land supply requirements and do not comply with the relevant policies of the PPS and Official Plan. b. as minor infilling of development, subject to the policies of Section 9.6 of this Plan; The Planning and Development Department sampled 9 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision applications processed by the City of Kingston since The smallest area subdivision was 1.16 hectares in area and consisted of 20 dwelling units and 1 commercial block (3480 Princess Street). The subdivision with the greatest area was 47.7 hectares and consisted of 570 dwelling 173

16 - Page 16 - units (1135 Maria Avenue). The Draft Plan of Subdivision approved for the property municipally known as 1135 Maria Avenue is the largest approved Draft Plan of Subdivision in the last decade and is situated in the Cataraqui West Secondary Plan Area. The average area of the application sampled is hectares. It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that the proposed subdivisions are not minor infill but constitute significant large scale development when examined in the context of residential development within the City of Kingston. In addition, these sites are not adjacent to any other established estate residential subdivision. c. on a lot with a minimum lot area of at least 1 hectare; The proposed lot sizes in the estate residential subdivision for 2611 Isle of Man Road conforms to this criteria, however there are proposed lots within the subdivision plan for 2130 Isle of Man Lane that do not meet the minimum lot area of 1 hectare. d. on a lot that is in compliance with all of the policies governing area of influence as set out in Section 9.6 of this Plan; The Official Plan policies for subdivision of land include a list of criteria (Section 9.6.4, Official Plan) that must be satisfied for Council to make a decision. These criteria have been identified as being applicable to new residential development in the Rural area and must be applied to estate residential subdivisions. They are: a. the proposed subdivision can be adequately supplied with municipal infrastructure and services in an economic manner if located within the Urban Boundary, or if located outside any settlement areas, the proposal is adequately supplied with individual on-site water and sewage services; Hydrogeologic Studies were completed for both subdivisions. It is standard practice of the City to have these studies peer reviewed to ensure a sound methodology and thorough research has been applied. A peer review has been completed for the Hydrogeologic Study completed for 2130 Isle of Man Lane. The review has determined that there is adequate quantity and quality of water to sustain the development. Presently, a peer review is being conducted for the Hydrogeologic Study submitted in support of 2611 Isle of Man Road and no information has been received at this time. b. the proposed subdivision has been designed to integrate compatibly with transit and the broader transportation system, adjacent existing and planned land uses, and both the natural heritage system, and cultural heritage resources; The provision of municipal infrastructure and services include more than sewer and water. Infrastructure also includes transit and transportation corridors, electric power generation and transmission, communications/telecommunications, oil and gas pipelines and other associated 174

17 - Page 17 - facilities. The proposed subdivisions will require upgrades to existing roads and the development of new roads to facilitate the development. There are additional costs associated with the creation of new infrastructure beyond the cost of construction. These new public roads will require continued maintenance such as snow clearing and resurfacing on a regular basis. There are no transit services provided north of the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway (Hwy #401). The proposed estate residential subdivisions include recommended setbacks from fish habitat and the Rideau Canal but still compromise the habitat of existing threatened species on the subject properties. c. the plan of subdivision has been designed so there are no negative impacts on the natural heritage features or areas or hazard land areas; As stated throughout the body of this report, the subject properties have existing habitat for a number of threatened wildlife species and a species of special concern as per the Ontario Species at Risk list. There is a species of special concern, the map turtle, identified in the EIS completed for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The development of these lands will remove the habitat of some or all of the identified threatened species. d. the proposed development addresses issues of energy conservation and sustainability; Both the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan include policies and criteria for establishing sustainable residential development. The body of this report includes detailed review and analysis of these policies and identifies how the subdivisions do not meet the criteria for sustainable development. e. the proposed subdivision is necessary, timely and in the public interest; The City of Kingston has approximately 266 existing estate residential type lots (lots 2 hectares and less) outside the urban area and enough developable land within the urban area to meet the demands for all housing needs. A review of the building permits issued for 2012 (21 permits for single detached dwellings outside the Urban Growth Boundary) and the recent average obtained from permits issued for the last 12 years (average 28 permits per year for all lot sizes outside the urban area) suggests that there is no evidence supporting the proposed estate residential subdivisions as being necessary, timely or in the public interest. f. the design of the proposed plan of subdivision meets accepted design principles and standards of the City, and has had adequate regard for any urban design guidelines, land acquisition programs, or other policy initiatives that are relevant to the area. The proposed developments do not satisfy the accepted design principles of compact urban form, efficient use of land, efficient use of existing infrastructure and public services. The Official Plan states, The City recognizes its waterfront areas along Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, the Great Cataraqui River and the Rideau Canal as important public 175

18 - Page 18 - resources and will acquire waterfront lands wherever and whenever it is feasible. The City seeks to protect the shoreline ecology by way of a natural area setback of 30 metres or a ribbon of life adjacent to the water. (Section 2.8.3, Official Plan) The Environmental Impact Statement submitted in support of the estate residential subdivision at 2611 Isle of Man Road recognized Gibraltar Bay as important fish habitat and provided a recommendation that the lots backing onto this water body (lots 10 to 22, inclusive) be retailed as water view lots, even though the lots will extend to the water, and include a 40 metre setback consisting of a 30 setback no cut buffer and a 10 metre rear yard development buffer. The concern with the recommendation is that it is impossible to enforce once the lots are developed and occupied. The difficulty in enforcement of a no-cut management regime is recognized on page 8 of the Bobolink Survey prepared by Ecological Services and dated July 12, Pursuant to the policies in Section 6 of the Official Plan and Section 2 of the PPS the 30 metre buffer should be considered part of the natural heritage system of Gibraltar Bay and the Rideau Canal and include a more rigorous protection plan. g. on a lot that will be buffered along the boundary where the Rural designation abuts the Prime Agricultural Area designation; The subject properties do not abut Prime Agricultural designated land. h. on a lot that meets the private individual on-site well and sewage services policies of Section 4.4 of this Plan; The submissions for the proposed developments conform to the policies in Section 4.4 of the Official Plan. i. subject to the appropriate conditions of approval as set out in Section of this Plan; This policy criterion does not apply. j. for existing lots on private roads, development must meet the policies of Section of this Plan. This policy criterion does not apply. Overall, the proposed estate residential subdivisions do not conform to the spirit and intent of the policy criteria for the subdivision of land in Section 9.6 of the Official Plan. Section of the Official Plan states that approval of new areas of estate residential development is strongly discouraged and, upon review of the following criteria, may be prohibited. Any proposal to expand or designate new estate residential areas requires an amendment to this Plan, rezoning, and a plan of subdivision. All applications are required to demonstrate conformity to the following principles: 176

19 - Page 19 - a. estate residential development must be limited in scale, both in the context of the amount of development in the municipality as a whole and in the context of specific proposals for individual sites; Individually and collectively the proposed residential estate subdivisions do not represent limited scale development in the context of residential development in the City of Kingston. The areas of the proposed developments are approximately hectares and approximately 41 hectares respectively. The largest greenfield residential Draft Plan of Subdivision to be approved in the urban serviced area within the last ten years is the Woodhaven (Tamarack) Subdivision which was 47.7 hectares in area. The proposed estate residential developments are comparable in scale. b. the site has tree cover, varied topography or other interesting landscape characteristics suitable for residential development and these qualities are preserved in the proposed development; It is difficult to determine at the Draft Plan of Subdivision stage of development what grade changes will be necessary to facilitate development. Existing wet areas and agricultural drains on the properties may have to be filled to accommodate development. Areas designated Environmental Protection which run through the site are proposed to be redesignated and developed for Estate Residential use. c. the open space amenity is preserved by clustering residential lots and protecting the natural heritage system from development; The proposed subdivisions do not conform to or comply with this subdivision design criterion. d. the distance from the urban area is sufficient to ensure that there are no future demands for extension of municipal water or sewer services and the City is satisfied that there will be no other undue financial demands on the municipality; The subject properties are greater than 6 kilometres for the Urban Growth Boundary. e. the soil and groundwater conditions are capable of supporting necessary individual onsite water and sewage services with no adverse effects on the proposed development lands, adjacent lands or on the surface water system as demonstrated by an engineering and hydrogeological report to the satisfaction of the City, Health Unit and Ministry of Environment, as appropriate; The applicants have submitted Hydrogeological Studies in support of the proposed developments. The study for 2130 Isle of Man Lane has been peer reviewed and deemed satisfactory. The study for 2611 Isle of Man Road is presently undergoing a peer review. f. access is from a public road that has been assumed by the City; 177

20 - Page 20 - Access to both subdivisions will be from Isle of Man Road, an assumed public road. The proposed subdivision at 2130 Isle of Man Lane proposes to extend Isle of Man Road and deed the new road to the City for future responsibility. Several of the lots within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for 2130 Isle of Man Lane would not have direct access onto a public road and thereby would not comply with this policy. g. in areas that abut a watercourse or water body, all setbacks are those set out in the Official Plan or such additional setback as may be determined through consultation with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, or as established in the implementing zoning by-law; The EIS completed for 2130 Isle of Man Lane included a recommendation that development be setback a minimum of 40 metres from the high water level of the Cataraqui River and 30 metres from the floodplain. Lot 6 does not provide the required 40 metre setback. The EIS completed for 2611 Isle of Man Road included a recommendation for a minimum 40 metre setback from the high water level of the Cataraqui River. Within the 40 metre setback, it is recommended that the 30 m adjacent to the water be maintained as a no cut buffer, within which no disturbance of the soil mantle or vegetation cover be permitted. The 10 m between development and the buffer can be maintained as a lawn, if desired, or support other uses associated with residential development. (Environmental Impact Statement: Gibraltar Bay Estates, Ecological Services, January 05, 2012) There are other watercourses that traverse the properties. The response from the Rideau Waterway Development Review Team for both 2130 Isle of Man Lane and 2611 Isle of Man Road requested that a hydrologic/hydraulic study of the watercourses on the subject property be undertaken to determine the 1:100 year flood line. To date, the Planning and Development Department has not received this study for circulation and review. h. where estate residential development is proposed on adjacent lands to the Rideau Canal, it does not impact upon the natural heritage system or cultural heritage resources of that setting; To facilitate the construction of the proposed subdivisions threatened species habitat will be permanently removed. Parks Canada, in response to the technical circulation for 2611 Isle of Man Road, requested that the applications be deferred until a landscape plan has been developed to ensure the development is unobtrusive, visually screened and integrated within the existing vegetation and topography. This plan is requested in order to satisfy concerns of Parks Canada staff and to provide conditions of draft plan approval. To date, this plan has not been submitted for review and circulation. 178

21 - Page 21 - For 2130 Isle of Man Lane, the Rideau Waterway Development Review Team also requested deferral of the applications until similar concerns were addressed. In addition, the City s Heritage group requested further analysis of the proposal within the context of relevant Official Plan policies. In order to maintain the heritage attributes of the existing farmhouse, a conservation plan is required to ensure the adaptive reuse and conservation of the farmhouse. Clearance of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is required from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. These concerns remain outstanding. i. the minimum lot area is 1.0 hectare, or as may be determined by the above criteria, as applied to the site, and established in the implementing zoning by-law; and, The proposed lot sizes in the estate residential subdivision for 2611 Isle of Man Road conform to this criteria, however there are proposed lots within the subdivision plan for 2130 Isle of Man Lane that do not meet the minimum lot area of 1 hectare. j. the area of influence in proximity to any Mineral Resource designation and the minimum distance separation formulae in proximity to livestock operations must be met. Minimum Distance Separation calculations were not provided with the submission of the applications. Allowing residential development in the vicinity of existing farms, could negatively impact current and future farm operations. In accordance with Section of the Official Plan, all proposed plans of subdivision accompanying an application to amend the Official Plan to permit an estate residential development must indicate: a. detailed topographic information; b. the location of all proposed buildings (or building envelopes) and all proposed individual on-site water and sewage services; c. the location of all existing and all retained landscape features within the site as well as beyond the site, adjacent to its perimeter; and, the location of all proposed roads and utilities. Topographic information was provided on the draft plans submitted. Outstanding issues relating to building envelopes, services and landscape features are currently subject to technical review. Natural Heritage The applicants have not justified the removal of the habitat for the threatened species identified on the subject properties. There remains the need to demonstrate how the subdivision of land and removal of habitat for threatened species conforms to the natural heritage policies of the PPS which states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing significant habitat of endangered and threatened species (Section 2.1.3, PPS). The Official Plan expands on the natural heritage policies of the PPS in Section 6, The Environment and Energy. 179

22 - Page 22 - The Official Plan, in Section 6.1.1, states that the City must protect and encourage the stewardship and restoration of the natural heritage system by directing new settlement areas or major development away from the natural heritage system in order to ensure that there are no negative impacts. Furthermore the Official Plan specifically states that development and site alteration will not be permitted on significant habitat of endangered and threatened species and that significant habitat of endangered or threatened species are generally required to be retained in a natural state (Section , Official Plan). The two subject properties are not currently identified on Schedule 7, Natural Heritage A however the Environmental Impact Statement and the Ministry of Natural Resources identify up to four threatened species on the property at 2130 Isle of Man Lane and three threatened species on the property at 2611 Isle of Man Road. It is the intent of Schedule 7, Natural Heritage A to show the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species and to prohibit development or site alteration in these areas. Although the threatened species were not identified at the time of the drafting of the Natural Heritage Area schedules or were not classified at the time of the drafting of the schedules for the Official Plan, the policies for protecting threatened and endangered species still apply. As indicated in Section of the Official Plan, the boundaries of the natural heritage system features are approximate and more specific delineation of the boundaries and the significance of the area must be determined through an environmental impact assessment, in consultation with the City, the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, or the Ministry of Natural Resources, as appropriate, prior to the consideration of any development application. Minor refinements to boundaries in accordance with an approved environmental impact assessment will not require an amendment to this Plan. These sites are shown on Schedule 8, Natural Heritage B (see Exhibit F Schedule 8, Natural Heritage B ). In areas identified as Natural Heritage B on Schedule 8, development and site alteration will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage features or areas or ecological functions. Natural Heritage B features include: significant woodlands; significant valleylands; significant wildlife habitat; unevaluated wetlands; environmentally significant areas as historically mapped in the former Township of Pittsburgh and not considered significant under the current Provincial Policy definition of natural heritage system; and, linkages and corridors (Section 6.1.4, Official Plan). Section of the Official Plan directs that any decision considered by the City for any development application with respect to land within, or immediately adjacent to, the natural heritage system will be made in consultation with the appropriate authorities, in accordance with the policies of this Plan, using the best available information at that time. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act the applicants are required to obtain consent from the Ministry of Natural Resources prior to the removal of the habitat of a species identified on the Species at 180

23 - Page 23 - Risk in Ontario list. At the time of the drafting of this report the applicants had not obtained the consent of the MNR to remove the threatened species habitat. Section of the Official Plan specifically states that development and site alteration will not be permitted on significant habitat of endangered and threatened species and that significant habitat of endangered or threatened species are generally required to be retained in a natural state. Any development or site alteration seeking approval on adjacent lands to a Natural Heritage A area should demonstrate through the environmental impact assessment that there are no negative impacts on the natural heritage features and areas or ecological functions of the natural heritage system [6.1.15]. In addition, Section states that, generally, development and site alteration will not be permitted in areas identified as Natural Heritage B. Any proposed development and site alteration will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage features and areas, or their ecological functions. In considering any development within the Natural Heritage B area, an approved environmental impact assessment and an amendment to the zoning by-law will be required to establish appropriate setbacks or other conditions. Section discourages land division through severance or plan of subdivision (or condominium) that has the effect of fragmenting lands within the natural heritage system. Where a site is within a Natural Heritage A feature, no new land division that results in the creation of a new lot will be granted except for lands that are to be held by land trusts, public agencies, or for conservation purposes [6.1.25]. Where a site is within a Natural Heritage B feature, no land division that results in the creation of a new lot will be granted if it results in negative impacts on the feature or function, except for lands that are to be held by land trusts, public agencies, or for conservation purposes [6.1.26]. Where a site is on adjacent lands to either a Natural Heritage A feature or a Natural Heritage B feature, no land division that results in the creation of a new lot will be approved unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage features and areas, or on their ecological functions [6.1.27]. Both subdivisions are proposing fragmentation of land within the natural heritage system which is contrary to these policies. The proposed subdivisions will potentially damage and destroy the habitat of threatened species. Concerns of the City, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources have not been satisfactorily addressed. A peer review of the Environmental Impact Statement and Bobolink Survey is required. Only the applicant for 2611 Isle of Man Road has initiated the peer review process which is currently underway. Cultural Heritage The Official Plan states that cultural heritage resources will continue to be valued and conserved as part of the City s defining character, quality of life, and as an economic resource that contributes to tourism in both the urban and rural portions of the City. (Section 2.3.7, Official 181

24 - Page 24 - Plan) The Rideau Canal system and the associated fortifications are designated as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It is the intent of the Official Plan to protect and enhance this natural and cultural heritage asset and develop, in a sustainable way, the tourism potential which may arise from this inscription. (Section 2.3.8, Official Plan) Cultural heritage resources, which include protected heritage buildings, built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources will be conserved, managed and marketed for their contribution to the City s unique identity, history and sense of place in such a way as to balance heritage with environmental and accessibility concerns. Care will be taken not to put the UNESCO World Heritage Designation at risk. (2.8.9, Official Plan) All development individually or collectively overlooking the Rideau waterway must have regard for their visual impact on the UNESCO World Heritage Designation. (Section , Official Plan) One of the goals of the Official Plan is to recognize and protect the cultural heritage significance of the Rideau Canal and to support the significant role of the UNESCO World Heritage Designation as a scenic, cultural, natural and tourism resource. (Section, 3.10.A, Official Plan) The City will recognize and conserve its cultural heritage resources and will promote the maintenance and development of an appropriate setting within and around all such sites. (Section 7.1.2, Official Plan) As previously stated in this report and detailed in the Technical Review Section, both the City and Parks Canada have identified some outstanding cultural heritage concerns. All required clearances of the Archaeological Assessment have not been received from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. Zoning By-Law The lands at 2130 Isle of Man Lane are zoned Restricted Rural (A1) in the Township of Pittsburgh Zoning By-Law No (see Exhibit E - Existing Zoning). The uses permitted in the Restricted Rural (A1) zone include a cemetery, farm, farm produce outlet, home occupation and public use. A detached single family dwelling is permitted on a lot having a minimum area of 1 hectare. The applicant requested the property to be zoned a site specific Estate Residential zone with amendments to reduce the lot area, reduce the lot frontage, and, to allow a second dwelling unit on Lot 8. The lands at 2611 Isle of Man Road are zoned Holding Special Restricted Rural (A1-60-H), Holding Special Highway Commercial (CH-12-H) and Environmental Protection Area (EPA) in Zoning By-Law No (see Exhibit E - Existing Zoning). The A1-60-H zone permits an accessory dwelling house; a detached single family dwelling house, a cemetery; a farm, but not including a specialized farm; a farm produce outlet; a home occupation; and a public use. The site specific zone was applied to the subject property to identify additional H symbol conditions not identified in Section 5(24) of Zoning By-Law No The CH-12-H zone permits a retail nursery, accessory retail uses associated with a retail nursery use, accessory 182

25 - Page 25 - outdoor and open storage use associated with a retail nursery use, an accessory dwelling unit and small scale retail uses not exceeding 100 square metres. The Highway Commercial zone is also subject to holding provisions. The applicant requests the zone be amended by changing the existing Holding Special Restricted Rural (A1-60-H), Holding Special Highway Commercial (CH-12-H) and Environmental Protection Area (EPA) Zones to a Special Estate Residential Zone which would include the following provisions: Permitted uses: as per section 7(1) Prohibited Uses: boathouses and docks Zone Provisions: a. Lot Area (minimum) 1.0 ha b. Lot Frontage (minimum) 50 metres c. Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 metres d. Minimum Exterior Side yard Setback 15 metres e. Minimum Interior Side yard Setback 6 metres f. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 metres g. Shoreline Setback (minimum) 40 metres (this provision is not consistent with the recommendation in the EIS for a 40 metre setback from the high water mark i.e. 100 flood line) h. Internal Drainage Swales (minimum) 15 metres i. Building Height (maximum) 10.5 metres Technical Review The Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications were circulated to external agencies and internal departments for review and comment. The following comments and concerns were raised: 2130 Isle of Man Lane Engineering: The easement must be a minimum of 10 metres to accommodate a 6 metre driving platform and ditching; Clearly state the maximum side slopes expected for the ditch and include text to state this in the report and typical cross section; Rock check dams should have a detailed drawing which illustrates spacing between the check dames and expected construction; and The report must also satisfy CRCA requirements. 183

26 - Page 26 - Environment: The proponent must either abandon test well TW1 or reconstruct by grouting the bottom of the well back to a maximum depth of 24.4 metres and re-tested for quantity and quality if it is intended to be used in the future. The proponent shall supply documentation to the City in either case that has been completed by a well driller or professional engineer/geoscientist licensed to practice in Ontario; The proponent must submit copies of the plugging and sealing records for any decommissioning of test wells, including TW1. The plugging and sealing records must be submitted by a licensed well driller, well technician or professional engineer/geoscientist licensed to practice in Ontario; The proponent must submit a copy of the notification letter sent to the local Medical Officer of Health regarding sodium concentrations in groundwater and a warning statement indicating elevated levels of sodium must be included in future agreements of purchase and sale for the newly created lots; and, A clause is required in the Subdivision Agreement indicating that the Owner shall provide a well record for each lot detailing proper well construction to a maximum of 24.4 metres and requiring that the records be completed by a well driller or professional engineer/geoscientist licensed to practice in Ontario be submitted to the City prior to issuance of occupancy. Fire & Rescue: The proposed rural residential street / development proposal creating greater than three dwelling units appears to be a dead-end cul-de-sac greater than 150 meters in length and is not permitted under the Subdivision Development Guidelines & Technical Standards Dated October 5, 2011 as amended; and, Kingston Fire & Rescue would suggest that the applicant resubmit their proposal with some type of other measure to elevate the dead-end portion of the road allowance or submit an alternative design for considerations that addresses some of the comprises to the emergency response from a single access point. Possible solutions could include increased road widths, restrictive covenants requiring all dwellings to be provided with automatic fire sprinklers or a combination for consideration. Parks Development: The proposed plan does not provide a park block. Parkland conveyance is required at 5%, as per the requirements of the Planning Act. Planning & Development: Lots 4, 5 and 6 have no lot frontage which is contrary to the Official Plan; Lot 6 does not meet the minimum lot area of 1 hectare as required by the Official Plan. Need clarification of the purpose of the easement for new right of way as labeled on Lot 7 of the Draft Plan; 184

27 - Page 27 - It was indicated that the easement access to the properties north of Lot 6 will be dispensed, need clarification of how access will be provided to Lot 6 and the properties north of Lot 6 which rely on the access; Residential lots should be referred to as Lots not Blocks on the Draft Plan; Two dwelling units would not be permitted on Lot 8. If the existing structure is to remain it would need to be considered an accessory building. The Zoning By-Law does not permit habitable space in an accessory building and we are not in support of amending the provision to allow a sleeping cabin in an accessory building; The proposed amending Zoning By-Law requires the inclusion of a schedule to the By- Law to identify the building envelope of Lots 2 and 3 however this is not the practice of the City to include site specific schedules to the Zoning By-Law; The amending Zoning By-Law cannot reference lot numbers within a plan that has not been registered and is subject to change. Separate site specific zones will need to be created for each lot with a different zone requirement; The area to be protected for the Bobolink habitat, as identified on the Bobolink Habitat Plan, appears to overlap in part with the building envelope; The prohibition of docks, as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement and by the CRCA and Parks Canada must be included in the proposed zone amendment; The Environmental Impact Study must be updated to address the Ministry of Natural Resources new Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list. The Environmental Impact Study must assess the threatened species identified by CRCA and MNR that were not addressed in the original report, specifically the Eastern Musk Turtle, Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow; A peer review of the Environmental Impact Statement and Bobolink Survey is required, all cost associated with the peer review will be at the applicant s expense; It has not been demonstrated that that the concerns of the Ministry of Natural Resources and authorization under the Endangered Species Act has been satisfactorily addressed. We require approval and conditions of draft plan approval from the Ministry of Natural Resources prior to proceeding with the applications; The required setback from the unnamed watercourse must be included in the proposed zone amendment; and, We require that, for all submitted reports, the author of all reports must be clearly identified in the report and the report must be signed by the author and, where applicable, professionally stamped. Where this information was not previously provided, revised reports are required. Planning & Development - Heritage: The Heritage Impact Statement should provide analysis of the proposal within the context of relevant Official Plan policies (i.e. Section 7 and policies regarding the Rideau Canal found in various sections of the Official Plan) and provide comment on the proposed development s conformity to those policies; Heritage planning staff has an interest in reviewing the following studies/details as part of our review of the process: Landscape Plan, Tree Preservation Plan and House design 185

28 - Page 28 - concepts. Heritage Planning staff concur with the recommendation that once such detailed studies/plans/drawings are in place, that they be accompanied by additional heritage impact analysis. Layout elevations have been received and accepted; Please confirm if any boathouses/in-water works are being proposed as part of the development and if so please provide an examination of this aspect of the development from a heritage impact perspective. The analysis should provide some general mitigation strategies for boathouses/in-water works that may subsequently be proposed in the future; Following from the City s requirements for a Heritage Impact Statement, any measures that need to be incorporated to ensure the protection of the farmhouse and surrounding lands during construction/development activities must be identified; Given the revised condition report, prepared by Mr. Scheinman, dated April 17, 2012, staff have reconsidered their position with respect to additional development on Lot 8 of the current Draft Plan of Subdivision and support the use of this Lot as a building lot, subject to zoning conformity and provided that the tail and heritage attributes of the farmhouse are maintained as an accessory building (or portion thereof) on the lot; As recommended by the Heritage Impact Statement, a conservation plan of the farmhouse, including an implementation strategy, should be submitted. Staff recommend the conservation plan be submitted at the Draft Plan stage, in order to ensure the adaptive reuse and conservation of the farmhouse is included as part of the draft plan of subdivision approval. It is staff s intention to further review the cultural heritage value of the farmhouse for its possible inclusion on the City of Kingston Heritage Properties Register; Heritage & Urban Design staff continues to concur with the recommendations contained on page 14 of the Heritage Impact Statement; and, A copy of correspondence from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport summarizing their review and acceptance of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is required. Rideau Waterway Development Review Team (CRCA & Parks Canada): The re-aligned channel of the unnamed watercourse should be designed so as to retain as much natural form and character as possible. Currently the re-alignment would result in two areas where the watercourse must flow through a 90 o angle, north of the road between Lots 1 & 2 and between Lots 5 & 7. This flow path could result in increased erosion and slope stability hazards over time; The watercourse should be designed so that it is the same approximate length as the original channel. It appears that the proposed re-alignment would result in a shorter length; Both the existing watercourse and proposed re-alignment should be delineated on the revised Draft Plan; Section 5(22) of the Zoning By-Law requires a setback of 15 metres from the flood plain (defined as the high water mark of a waterbody). Currently, there is no setback shown from the unnamed watercourse. Consistent with the CRCA s Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06, a minimum setback of 5 metres from the extent 186

29 - Page 29 - of the regulatory flood plain is required. Since the re-aligned watercourse will be designed so that the flood plain will be contained within the channel, a 5 metre setback would apply from either side of the top of bank of the watercourse. The watercourse setback should be shown on the revised Draft Plan; The Draft Plan identifies the floodline as metres GSC. This line is in fact the maximum recorded water level for the Rideau Canal at this location. The Draft Plan should be revised to reflect this; A 30 metre setback from the maximum recorded water level of the Rideau Canal is shown on the Lot 6 instead of the 40 metre setback from the high water mark as recommended by the Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft Plan should be revised to include the 40 metre setback on Lot 6; It is our understanding that the dwelling on Lot 6 will be retained as a non-complying structure. Staff notes that there does not appear to be suitable building envelope for the construction of a new dwelling and septic on the lot should either of the two need replacement in the future, taking into account the 40 metre setback from the high water mark of the Rideau Canal; The Environmental Impact Statement does not identify the Eastern Musk Turtle, which is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We recommend the consultant address this information and identify any additional mitigation or setback recommendations that may be applicable; As with other species on the subject property, Ministry of Natural Resources requirements under the Endangered Species Act will apply; Based on site observations and aerial imagery, the wetland appears to be hydrologically connected to Colonel By Lake. Please show this connection on the revised Draft Plan; The applicant must demonstrate, either through an authorization from the Ministry of Natural Resources or obtain written confirmation from Ministry of Natural Resources, that the Endangered Species Act issues have been addressed with respect to the Bobolink and its significant wildlife habitat; Drainage for off-site lands flowing through the property has been addressed but may not be sufficient to meet CRCA policy. CRCA policy recommends a minimum 0.3 metre freeboard between the top of bank and the regulatory water level for swales and larger conveyances; Channel re-alignment is proposed but does not specifically describe how drainage will be maintained through the property during the removal of the gravel road. The Stormwater Management Report must demonstrate how this will occur; CRCA recommends a 0% increase in post development peak flows over predevelopment flow opposed to the proposed 2% increase; The treatment train approach described in the Stormwater Management Report should be able to achieve the required enhanced level of protection. Although it is understood that roadside ditches with check dams will not be required to provide quality control for the entire site, calculations for suspended solids removal need to be included in these conveyances; 187

30 - Page 30 - There is a discrepancy between the Stormwater Management Report and the Draft Plan relating to the realignment of the existing ditch; All components of the Stormwater Management system must be shown and described in detailed Stormwater Management drawings to the satisfaction of the CRCA prior to final plan approval; Erosion and sediment control drawings will need to be submitted prior to final plan approval; The consultant states that they do not support the required prohibition of the building of docks along the Rideau Canal as previously noted by Rideau Waterway Development Review Team. The Rideau Waterway Development Review Team will not support future applications for shoreline modification or docks along the Rideau Canal. We will recommend that a condition of draft plan approval be that the subdivision agreement incorporates text indicating that permits for shoreline modifications, docks, boat ramps or boathouses will not be issued for lots along the Rideau Canal; and, The Rideau Waterway Development Review Team recommends deferral of these applications until these concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc. Examining the Draft Plan it is noted that the existing lane/right-of-way used by Trans- Northern for access to its block valve is destined "to be dispersed". Please explain. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: The Bobolink was listed as Threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as of October 2011 and the Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow were both listed as Threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario list in January These species and their habitat are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Upon reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement, it has shown that all three species (Bobolink, Barn Swallow and Eastern Meadowlark) and their habitat are found within the project area. The proposed subdivisions could potentially damage and destroy habitat for all three species; The Environmental Impact Statement includes the Bobolink survey points and where the Bobolink were heard calling; however, for Ministry of Natural Resources to assess impact to the species and/or their habitat, we request that the habitat be delineated; The mapping should be amended to include the delineated Bobolink habitat, with the subdivision layout overlaid so Ministry of Natural Resources can assess the amount of disturbance to Bobolink habitat. The mapping should clearly identify the exact footprint of the subdivisions, including roads, setbacks etc.; and There is a small pond/wetland in the southern corner of the property which has documented occurrences of Eastern Musk Turtle (a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act). Please identify mitigation measures for this species, or if the wetland will be impacted. 188

31 - Page Isle of Man Road Planning and Development: It is the concern of the Planning and Development Department that the proposed Development will be contributing to over intensification of land use in the rural area, contrary to the direction of the PPS. As stated in the Planning Rationale, there is already considerable shoreline residential development in the surrounding area. The argument that because the use is existing it should therefore be expanded is not consistent with the direction of the new official plan with respect to limiting new development in the country (S & S.2.4.1(d)), sustainable development (S & S ) and order of development and intensification(s.2.3.1, S.2.3.4, S & S.2.4.6(c)); The Definition of Public Service Facilities in the PPS includes: social assistance, recreation, police, fire protection, health and education programs. The planning rationale does not address the potential impact of this development on soft services such as police, ambulance and fire; Notwithstanding the proposal is for 31 residential lots the impacted area is approximately 40 hectares. This does not appear to be limited scale development in the context of the potential impact on the existing development in the surrounding area. The Planning and Development Department is concerned that amount of development will exceed what can be considered rural; and, EPA is not accepted as parkland (S ) Given the comments from the MNR, we will require that their concerns and authorization under the Endangered Species Act are satisfactorily addressed prior to proceeding with the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications. We will not require at this time that you proceed with the peer review of the Environmental Impact Statement and Bobolink Survey but may still require a peer review of these and/or subsequent reports in the future. Heritage: The HIS should reference the applicable cultural heritage policies within the Official Plan and assess the proposed development within the existing municipal cultural heritage framework and City requirements for Heritage Impact Statement; In accordance with the City s HIS requirements, the HIS should provide the qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Statement; Is it the intent of the proposed 40 metre non-development setback to preclude boathouses and/or in water works? The photo provided on page 12 of the HIS is not identified; Heritage Planning Staff concur with the following recommendations (mitigation measures) provided in the HIS: Documentation of the existing cottage and farm buildings (this documentation should be submitted to Heritage Planning Staff); Stockpiling field stone foundation units for re-use (please indicate how the units are proposed to be re-used); 189

32 - Page 32 - Maintaining a minimum 40 metre, non-development setback from the high water mark of Gibraltar Bay; Maintaining (where practical) a 15 metre non-development buffer protect natural drainage features (specific information is required as to which areas/lots are thought to be impractical for this mitigation measure and why); Develop a tree planting program to augment and infill the proposed 40 metre nondevelopment setback area with the same and compatible native plant material especially along the western portion of the site; Establishing a maximum building ridge height of 12 metres (the sketch on page 13 appears to indicate metres, please clarify); Review and receipt of correspondence from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport regarding the above referenced Stage 4 mitigation report is required); and, Heritage Planning Staff have an interest in receiving a response to the questions and concerns raised on this memo through future circulations, as well as any drawings and/or studies related to vegetation (tree protection strategy/plan, landscape plan, tree inventory). Given the size of the land parcel, length of shoreline and number of lots being proposed, it is recommended that additional sections and elevations be provided as part of an overall view-plane analysis for the proposed development. This analysis can be incorporated into the HIS and should include views from the water. Upon completion of detailed drawings, including those indicating building placement/orientation and suites/plans noted above, additional heritage impact analysis will be required. Building and Licensing: Well water test occupancy inspect for potable water; Septic fields to be approved prior to building permit issuance; Noise Study not provided with this report, but if noise is an issue, then methods of construction will be required to reduce noise. Public Works Forestry: A written Tree Inventory report has been submitted, but no Tree Inventory Plan showing the infield locations of the trees in relation to the proposed development. Please include a Tree Inventory Plan with the next submission. Please include the proposed lot layout on the plan to show the trees in relation to the development; All of the trees inventoried have been identified as being retained trees with the exception of 4 trees (#267, 268, 269, and 270), which require removal due to the proposed reconstruction/widening of Isle of Man Road. These 3 of the 4 trees are in moderate condition. Only 1 of the 4 trees is in good condition. The minimum number of replacement trees for these removals is 7; Trees identified to be in poor condition should not be candidates for retention to avoid potential risk in the future; 190

33 - Page 33 - As a condition in the Subdivision Agreement, please include a Street Tree Planting plan as per the Rural Cross-section detail found within the Subdivision Development Guidelines; and, As a condition in the Subdivision Agreement, please include a Tree Preservation Plan for those trees to be retained. The plan should include a Tree Protection Fencing detail as per the Guidelines for Tree Preservation. Hydro One: No concerns; Proposals affecting low voltage distribution facilities the Owner/Applicant should consult their local area distribution supplier. Health Unit: No concerns with OPA and ZBA, but will be conducting a site visit in spring to determine site suitability for onsite sewage disposal systems. Trans-Northern Pipeline: Any proposed improvement of Isle of Man Road at the pipeline crossing would have to meet technical requirements and be realized in accordance with the NEB Act & Pipeline Crossing Regulations. Environment Department: in addition to the comment regarding a peer review of the hydrogeological assessment, the Environment Department would also comment that we agree with the findings of the Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) report that a Phase 2 ESA is appropriate for certain portions of the subject property; and, The Department is requiring a peer review of Hydro-geological Study. Recreation and Leisure Department: Parkland Conveyance is required for this development at 5% of the land; and, The configuration and location of the proposed park block may change as a result of conservation setbacks and location and extent of EPA designation. Engineering Department: Survey As per table 1 in Section 4 of the Official Plan, the Municipality will require a widening for Dane Road; (the road allowance to the south of the proposed subdivision). The Official Plan requires a right of way width of 20 meters, in order to provide for this, the developer will be required to provide half of the required widening. Please include a Block along the entire south limit of the proposed subdivision for this widening; There is no indication of what the blue lines on the survey represent; and 191

34 - Page 34 - A minimum 9 meter by 9 meter triangle should be removed from the corner lots at the intersections in order to ensure that the roads can be designed properly with sufficient space for all infrastructure required within the right of way. Acoustical Study The study has not been stamped by a Professional Engineer; and, All mitigation measures are to be designed and implemented by the developer, the report is indicating that possible noise mitigation measures for lots 1 to 3 inclusive will be determined at a future date. The study should address worst case scenarios and design appropriate mitigation measures to be constructed as part of the subdivision works. Stormwater Management Plan All standard draft plan conditions related to stormwater management will apply; All stormwater management works/facilities shall be located within the road allowance, ie, the flat bottom swales; Please include the proposed details to be included in the treatment train approach mentioned on Page 2 with the next stage of review. Please include the source controls being proposed; Looking forward to receiving the detail design at the next stage of review; Please include a in the section on maintenance a comparison of costs associated with the proposed stormwater management system versus a typical stormwater management pond sized to service a like sized development; Please provide a typical road cross section so that it can be confirmed that a wider right of way will not be required, the applicant is reminded that the ditch system will also have to ensure that the ditches are designed to ensure drainage of the road subgrade; and, The pamphlet included in Appendix E indicates that the enhanced grass swale is to be separated from seasonally high water table or top of bedrock elevation by at least 1 meter, the design will have to ensure that this criteria is met. Parks Canada: Parks Canada support the recommendations of the HIS; Minimize the imp[act on the visual setting by maintaining a minimum 40 metre, nondevelopment setback from the upper controlled water elevation (high water mark) of Gibraltar Bay; Maintain the naturalized, vegetated landscape within the 30 metres setback from the shoreline; Protect trees identified as retained in the tree report, via a tree preservation plan; Maximum building height of 12 meters to minimize the visibility of new development from the water; Landscaping and architectural design of the dwellings (scale, form, materials, colour) should complement and be integrated into the rural landscape; and, Parks Canada recommends deferral of the applications until the landscape plan can be reviewed to ensure development is unobtrusive, visually screened and integrated within the vegetation and topography. Once staff is satisfied that our comments are appropriately addressed, we will provide conditions for draft plan approval. 192

35 - Page 35 - Enbridge: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. is regulated by the National Energy Board and any excavation within 30 metres of the Enbridge pipeline right-of-way requires a field locate from an Enbridge Field Representative. Rideau Waterway Development Review Team: Recommend that a hydrogeologic/hydraulic analysis of the watercourses be prepared by a qualified professional in order to determine the extent of the 1:100 year floodplain of the watercourse. The CRCA Planning Policy requires that any future development must be setback at least 5 metres from the 1:100 year floodplain; A building adjacent to a floodplain be located a minimum of 0.3 metres above the floodplain elevation; Any future watercourse crossings will require a permit under Ontario Regulation 148/06 and the crossings/culverts must be sized appropriately to pass the 100 year storm event without increasing the flood hazard to external properties; An unevaluated wetland is located on proposed Lots 7, 8 and 9. The wetland is designated as an Environmental Protection Area in the City s Official Plan. The EIS indicates that the wetland does not appear to be fish habitat. The wetland is a regulated feature under Ontario Regulation 148/06. The CRCA s policies require a 30 metre setback from this wetland boundary for any future development or site alteration. It appears that a 30 metres setback may result in a constrained building envelope on proposed Lot 8; The detail provided in quantifying pre-development flows is greatly appreciated. It is recommended that for post-development peak flow calculations, pre-development runoff coefficients associated each individual catchment area are weighted with 0.9 runoff coefficients for the expected impervious surfaces (roads, driveways, houses) within the catchment areas. Engineered peak flow controls may then need to be assessed potentially within the roadside ditches; It is CRCA policy that stormwater control (both quality and quantity) not be provided with natural watercourses. This policy is in place largely to prevent ongoing maintenance such as sediment removal and outlet clearing from occurring within natural drainage corridors. For this development two watercourses have been identified as requiring preservation; Looking at Appendix A3 in the submitted SWM report, the first watercourse enters the subdivision at concentration point 15, flows through a wetland before being conveyed through proposed Lot 10 and along the rear boundary of Lot 11. Again looking at Appendix A3, the second watercourse appears to convey drainage from the concentration points 50 and 55 as well as internal drainage along the proposed rear of a number of lots before flowing between Lots 26 and 27, through a proposed culvert, across Lots 15 and 16, then through the Open Space block to the lake. Swale enhancements and peak flow controls should be located outside of these watercourses; Pre-development 1:100 year inundation boundaries should be assessed for the two watercourses discussed in comment 2 so development boundaries can be established; 193

36 - Page 36 - It should be demonstrated that proposed crossings and other hydraulic modifications to the watercourses and small drainage features that convey external flows through the property will not aggravate flooding during the 1:100 year regulatory event on external properties; Parks Canada has indicated the Colonel By Lake is already subject to hazardous blue green algae and further nutrient loading including that associated with storm water runoff could augment the problem, leading to human health risks. Due to ongoing water quality issues identified on colonel By Lake by Parks Canada, staff recommend a multi-barrier (lot-level, conveyance level, and end-of pipe) treatment train approach providing an equivalent to enhanced level quality control; CRCA staff acknowledges that enhanced roadside ditches combined with lot level controls may provide sufficient quality control for low density, rural estate residential development. Should end of pipe quality structures not be proposed at the ditch outlets, it is recommended that it be demonstrated that flow velocities during a 4 hour 25mm Chicago storm event not exceed a velocity of 0.5m/s. Rock check dams and settling pools are encouraged within the enhanced roadside ditches; That any new development proposed in this Plan of Subdivision be unobtrusive, visually screened and integrated within the vegetation and topography. The objective is to minimize impact on the scenic views from the water and on the heritage values of the waterway at this highly visible location on the Canal; Parks Canada staff will not support future applications for shoreline modification or docks along the Rideau Canal in Gibraltar Bay; That an active restoration of native buffer vegetation adjacent to the Canal must be incorporated into the development; Encourages the use of native plant species for all non-ornamental plantings (e.g. peripheral trees). The use of native species helps maintain genetic diversity within the native plant community and contributes to the integrity of the local natural environment. The use of non-native plants and cultivars can contribute to the propagation of non-native invasive species can introduce disease into an otherwise healthy native plant community. A list of native plant species can be obtained from the CRCA; Building envelopes (including septic) located outside of the 30 metre setback from the unevaluated wetland on proposed Lots 7 to 9, inclusive; Make the necessary revisions to the SWM Report addressing the issues raised above; Provide a proposed zoning schedule; Provide an Official Plan Schedule; and, Based on the information received from the MNR Species at Risk Biologist, bobolink, eastern meadowlark and barn swallow are listed as threatened on the SARO list. As such the three species and their habitat are protected under the ESA. The bobolink survey indicates that all three species are found within the subject property. Prior to the applicant undertaking revisions and/or additional studies as requested in our previous comments, staff request that the applicant demonstrate that the ESA is met either through an authorization from the MNR or obtain written confirmation from the MNR that ESA issues have been resolved. 194

37 - Page 37 - Ministry of Natural Resources: As you know, species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA, 2007). Section 9(1) of the ESA, 2007 prohibits a person from killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA, 2007 prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list. Bobolink is listed as Threatened on the SARO list as of October In addition, Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow were both listed as Threatened on the SARO list in January 2012, so both the species and their habitat are protected under the ESA. Upon reviewing the EIS for both the Towerstone and Cadieux proposed subdivisions, it has shown that all three species (Bobolink, Barn Swallow and Eastern Meadowlark) and their habitat are found within the project area. The proposed subdivisions could potentially damage and destroy habitat for all three species. As a follow up to the EIS s, I would like to offer the following information: Bobolink: Bobolink breeds in non-forested, open, grassland habitats where there is a mixture of relatively tall grasses, some broad-leaved plants and a moderate amount of plant litter. The species breeds in both natural grasslands (e.g., tallgrass prairies, meadows) and human-made grasslands (e.g., hayfields, lightly grazed pastures, some abandoned fields), in shallow grassy marshes, beaver meadows, and in peatlands. Most commonly, Bobolink is found in hayfields, pastures, abandoned or old fields, and less commonly it is found in grass or sedge dominated peatlands, marshes and tallgrass prairie remnants Nests are small and are built on the ground at the bottom of dense grasses It is known that many males and females are loyal to locations where they have nested successfully in the past and therefore return to the same hayfields and grasslands year after year If their habitat is found on site, and destroyed for the proposed subdivision, the proponent would likely require an authorization under the ESA before an activity can commence. Eastern Meadowlark: The species prefers older and larger continuous grassland patches/tracts (e.g., estimated minimum area of 5 ha) containing patchy stands of grass-dominated vegetation High-quality habitat is composed of medium-tall grass (10 50cm), a moderate-high density of forbs, low percent cover of shrub and woody vegetation (<5%, >35% is too dense), abundant litter cover and a low percentage of bare ground Eastern Meadowlark forages for its food both on the surface of the ground and by probing the soil with its bill Nests are built to be well-concealed on the ground, often in a shallow depression. Females gather the materials to build the nest. Materials may include grasses, stems 195

38 - Page 38 - and fine bark, which are woven into a cup (approximately 14-21cm by 5-8cm), covered by grass and attached to the dense surrounding vegetation If their habitat is found on site, and destroyed for the proposed subdivision, the proponent would likely require an authorization under the ESA before an activity can commence. Barn Swallow: Can build their nests in bridges, culverts, houses, barns, man made structures, cliffs, rock faces etc. Barn Swallows frequently reuse their old nests either within a year or between years. About half of all nests in a year are in nests from a previous year Barn Swallow forage widely for flying insects and will travel over open areas such as fields, pastures, agricultural crops, rights-of-way, shorelines, wetlands and subarctic tundra. On farms, they will follow mowers and farm animals. The majority of foraging is within 500 m of their nest If their nesting structure will be permanently removed, this could be classified as a destruction of habitat, and would likely require an authorization under the ESA before an activity can commence. Public Comments As a result of the Public Meeting held on March 1, 2012 for 2130 Isle of Man Lane, two members of the public submitted written correspondence (see Exhibit H Public Comment). There were three oral submissions made at the Public Meeting. The following concerns were expressed: Intensity of the development on this small and narrow strip of land would be devastating in its lasting effects on the world heritage site. Only one single access road. Existing road is narrow and very low-lying isthmus that spans the wetland across to the peninsula. The elevation of the roadbed lies just above the waterline and has been known to have been compromised during the early spring season. The road has a very tight turn and steeply graded hill which suffers from severe water erosion and has been the site of numerous accidents and driver mishaps. Road is difficult for school buses. The necessary infrastructure does not exist to support any proposed subdivision development Impact on turtle crossing. Prime area for farm land now planned for intensive residential development. Risk to the current aquifer that supplies existing wells. Considerable development already within water source area which adds huge increase in demands. One of the oral submissions spoke in favour of the development at 2130 Isle of Man Lane. 196

39 - Page 39 - As a result of the Public Meeting held on April 19, 2012 for 2611 Isle of Man Road, 4 members of the public submitted written correspondence (see Exhibit H Public Comment). There were 3 oral submissions made at the Public Meeting. The following concerns were expressed: Protection of marsh, fish, bird and turtle habitats; Concern that over development of rural area will adversely effect the health of the waterway; Increased algae blooms result from septic seepage and water pollution; Concern with impact on water table (aquifer) well water quantity and quality; Protection of existing EPA designated lands; Condition of Isle of Man Road and the impacts of development on narrow right-of-way; Potential damage of road by construction vehicles; Concern that schools buses may be impacted by poor road conditions and construction traffic; Concern about effect on property value; Concern that potential blasting will adversely effect the water table and consequently water quality and quantity; The effects of noise and dust during construction; Questions if this development would be better suited in the Hamlet designation; Questions whether or not by permitting the development the city would be creating another Hamlet in the Rural Area; Questions whether or not the proposal may not be consistent with the Official Plan; That the proposed estate residential development does not comply with the policies of the Official Plan; Will the development result in increased property taxes?; 30 metre vegetated buffer strip would be unenforceable; It does not fit with provincial and municipal planning; Concern about flooding; Concern about interrupted electrical service; and Unwanted change to rural setting to a more suburban style. Conclusion In conclusion, the Planning and Development Department is not in support of the applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the properties located at 2130 Isle of Man Lane and 2611 Isle of Man Road. The Official Plan strongly discourages approval of new areas of estate residential development and the Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement clearly set out policies limiting growth to within the urban boundary or an established settlement area. The intent of limiting areas of growth helps to curb sprawl and protect farmland and green spaces. Without properly managing growth, communities will continue to experience the negative aspects associated with rapid growth, such as: increased numbers of automobiles travelling over longer distances resulting in traffic congestion; difficult to maintain an efficient public transit system; new municipal infrastructure is required to service lower density areas, 197

40 - Page 40 - while existing infrastructure within the urban boundary remains underutilized; degradation of our natural environment, air quality and water resources; and, the disappearance of agricultural lands and natural resources. Four threatened species have been identified on these sites, including the Bobolink, Meadowlark, Barn Swallow and Eastern Musk Turtle. In addition, one species designated as special concern was also identified, the map turtle. The Environmental Impact Studies did not identify all of these threatened species or their habitats. The proposed subdivisions will potentially damage and destroy the habitat of these threatened species. There are additional outstanding concerns with respect to emergency access, parkland dedication, cultural heritage impact, stormwater control, high water mark and flood line location. Outstanding concerns also remain with respect to the Environmental Impact Assessment reports for both subdivisions and Hydrogeological report for 2611 Isle of Man Road. A Peer Review of the Hydrogeological report for 2130 Isle of Man Lane has already been conducted. Peer reviews are currently underway for the Environmental Impact Assessment reports and Hydrogeological report for 2611 Isle of Man Road. The applicant has not initiated a Peer Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment reports (at the time of writing this report) for 2130 Isle of Man Lane. The applications do not conform with and are not consistent with the applicable policies in the Provincial Policy Statement. The applications do not comply with the general intent of the City of Kingston Official Plan. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: The proposed amendment was reviewed against the policies of the Province of Ontario and policies, By-Law and studies of the City of Kingston to ensure that the changes would be consistent with the Province s and City s vision of urban development. The following documents were assessed: Provincial Planning Act Endangered Species Act Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 Municipal City of Kingston Official Plan Township of Pittsburgh Zoning By-Law No NOTICE PROVISIONS: Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the statutory Public Meeting was provided by advertisement in the form of a sign posted on the subject property 20 days in 198

41 - Page 41 - advance of the Public Meeting. In addition, prepaid first class mail was sent to all property owners (according to the latest Assessment Rolls) within 120 metres (400 ft.) of the subject property. In addition, a courtesy notice regarding the statutory Public Meeting was published in The Kingston Whig-Standard. ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: No accessibility concerns regarding the proposed amendments were identified through the circulation of the applications. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: No financial implications are considered in this report. CONTACTS: Karen Fraser, Senior Planner, Development Approvals, , ext Jason Budd, Senior Planner, Development Approvals, , ext Marnie Venditti, Manager, Development Approvals, , ext Grant C. Bain, Director, Planning & Development Department, (613) , ext OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: The following external and internal agencies were circulated the Official Plan Amendment application and Zoning By-Law Amendment application for review and comment: Del Stowe, Building & Licensing Kim Brown, Engineering Services Chantal Chiddle, Utilities Kingston - Technical Services Paul Patry, Fire & Rescue Kris Hebert, Recreation & Leisure -Parks Development Julie Salter-Keane, Sustainability & Growth - Accessibility Cherie Mills, Planning & Development - Policy Shirley Bailey, Planning & Development Heritage Brodie Richmond, Environment Ian Semple, Transit John Giles, Public Works - Solid Waste Darrin Richmond, Public Works - Forestry Damon Wells, Public Works - Operations Maureen Petersen, Financial Services - Taxation and Revenue Doug Campbell, Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board Wayne Toms, Limestone District School Board Colette Potvin, Conseil des Ecoles Publiques de l Est de l Ontario Ronald Nault, Conseil des Ecoles Catholiques de Langue Française du Centre Est 199

42 - Page 42 - Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Ministry of Natural Resources Parks Canada Hydro One Networks Inc. Kingston Electricity Distribution Ltd. Union Gas Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Enbridge Pipeline Inc. TransCanada Pipelines Limited InterProvincial Pipelines Inc. Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A Key Map; Exhibit B Draft Plan of Subdivision Isle of Man Lane; Exhibit C Draft Plan of Subdivision Isle of Man Road; Exhibit D Existing Official Plan designation; Exhibit E Urban Boundary; Exhibit F Schedule 8, Natural Heritage B ; Exhibit G Existing Zoning; Exhibit H Public Comments; and Exhibit I Vacant Residential Properties in Rural Subdivisions. 200

43 NINA'S LANE DETAIL RIVER STYX LANE KEY MAP LITTLE LANE Subject Lands BATTERSEA RD DUFFE LANE HWY 401 HWY HWY 15 MIDDLE RD HARRISON LANE KINGSTON MILLS RD ISLE OF MAN RD HWY DANE RD Planning & Development a department of Sustainability & Growth PREPARED BY: A. Adams DATE: February 3, 2012 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KEY MAP Applicant: B.C. Ltd. File Number: D / D / D Address: 2611 Isle of Man Road Legal Description: CON 4 PT LOTS 2 TO 4; RP 13R19682 PART 1 ARN: Meters Legend Subject Lands Disclaimer: This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for your personal, non -commercial use provided you keep intact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any damages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this document. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, likely results or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document. C 2012 The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

44 ~------~--~~------~\,------l I CD I I 10,'27.38 aq.m. I I I I I L -.l '-- ( I : G) '\ \ 13.02S.88 aq.m. \ 1.3 hector.. FLOOOUNE:- - -l l (~. -""/ I / I / CD.( 10, aq.m hectares / r-...,..., /...0. /, ' 'J, \ 'j I I 10, aq.m. / L hector ,, \J / I f1.ocdune... -\ ( " CD' I \. -- );---./ / \, ~550.7e eq.~ / /,... V hectaree OOOUNE J \, 29, eq.m. \ \ 2.93 hectorea, I \ I " < I /1 / I // I ( I \ I / \ \ I " K;""~ \ \ I / " ~""'~ \ \ I /... -,0, \ I ~O.';I. I 'f'~ I R WS[O I V I "'---_/ FLOOOUNE 'I \J \ \ ', I 'I \ \1, I 1\ \ I I ' i '\ :" I \ 1''',,~ 202, I jj

45 DRAFT PLAN of SUBDIVISION PART OF LOTS 2, 3 & 4, CONCESSION 4 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PITISBURGH NOW THE CITY OF KINGSTON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQU IRED UNDER SECTION 51.17(A-L) OF THE PLANNING ACT 0: Shown on Draft Pion b: Shown on Draft Pion c: All lands owned, or in which the applicants hove an interest, ore shown on the KEY PLAN. d: Residential: Single Detached Units e: Shown on Draft Pion and Application f: Shown on Draft Pion g: Shown on Draft Pion h: Wells and Septic! i: Sandy loam and clay loam with limestone close to surface j: Shown on Draft Plan k: Open Ditch. Rood Maintenance. Garbage Collection. Phone, Hydro I: Shown on Draft Plan LEGEND: ~ OPEN SPACE BUILDING ENVELOPE SITE DATA (Preliminary) DeveloQment Singles N/A Ha.± % (Lots 1-31) 1,208 m± 2.50 Ha.± 6.12 % KEY PLAN N.T.S. Open Space N/A 2.05 Ha.± 5.01 % (BlOCk 33) Road Widening N/A 0.01 Ha.± 0.02 % I Denotes area subject to Plan of Subdivision 1:2000 METRIC Di.sta:nc:es Shown em. Thilr PLa.n are in Metres WIDENING BLOCK ha L S WIDENING BLOCK ha a:nd ca.n /.I. Cant/m.et to F t by Dividing by SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I CERTIFY THAT: 1. This Survey and Plan are correct and in accordance with the SURVEYS ACT, the SURVEYORS ACT and the LAND TITLES ACT and the REGULA TIONS made under the= 2. The SURVEY was completed on the 6TH day of October, HOPKINS, CORMIER ci: CHITTY SURVEYING DATE::.J F>-.J 9,'2ol 'Z. ~~ DAN J. CORMIER - O.L.S. / / 9 r I - "'»--1 I I I WIDENING BLOCK ha SSIB'S PLANTED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OVERBURDEN o denotes Planted Survey Monument " Found Survey Monument SIB.. Standard Iron Bar SSIB" Short Standard Iron Bar IB " Iron Bar IB_ " Iron Bar (round) RB.. Rock Bar RP " Rock Post (WIT)" (M) " Witness Measured (R.P.) (HP) " " Registered Plan Hydro Pole (1120)" James A. Minnes-O.L.S. (1296)" Ronald H. Smith-O.L.S. (798)" Ray Hunter-O.L.S. (MTO) Ministry of Transportation Ontario (H&:B) Humphries &: Burgham-OL.S. (P1) " Plan of Survey by James A. Minnes-O.L.. S. dated June 21, 1967 (P2) " Frontenac Vacant Lands Condominium No. 63 (1801) " Hopkins, Cormier &- Chitty-O.L.S. VACiNT LANDS FRONTENAC CONDOMINIUM PLAN No. 63 PART 1 PLAN 13R-8326 LOT 2, I, I, "i" '-l 1 '-l t\oi'", I, I, I, I CONCESSION Road Allowance 3 RURAL DENTIAL LOT 3 AGRICULTURAL " '-l ~,.!,v:.. ~&t',1jli 1 - CONCESSION PART 1 PLAN 18R-9747 LO 3 NOTES: HOPKINS, CORMIER & CHITTY SURVEYING CONSULTANTS INC. Ontario & Canada Land Surveyors mi GROUP Norris Court Kingston, Ontario K7P 2R9 Fax (613) Tel. (613) Dalton Avenue Kingston, Ontario Canada K7M 8N7 Tel (613) FAX(613) FILE: BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC, DERIVED FROM THE NORTHERLY LIMIT OF PART 1, IT BEING NBZ'1 B' ZO" E AS SHOWN ON DEPOSITED REFERENCE PLAN 13R-9747 IL_P_ro.:..je_c_t_N_o_. ----;::-:-_26:-7_2_3-:-...L_c_ad--:-:F-;cile:-::cc:-: 26_7_2_3_-D_P -l AND DESIGNATED HEREON AS "REFERENCE LINE". Ir Date Issued: 14/11/11 J:\26723.TQWERSTONEDEVELOPMENT\5.9 DRAWINGS\59URBAN\CURRENT\C3D2009\OWG\26723-DP,DWG 203

46 SUBJECT LANDS: 2130 Isle of Man Lane Current Designation: Rural/EPA SUBJECT LANDS: 2611 Isle of Man Lane Current Designation: Rural/EPA 15 HWY 401 HWY 401 HWY LEGEND RESIDENTIAL MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DEFERRED AREA TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE MAJOR HYDRO CORRIDOR BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA MAJOR ROAD GENERAL INDUSTRIAL RURAL HAMLET LOCAL ROAD OR PRIVATE LANE WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND; AGRICULTURAL RESERVE HARBOUR AREA; WATER AREA PLANNING_OP.Railway AIRPORT RURAL COMMERCIAL MINERAL RESOURCE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT RURAL INDUSTRIAL SECONDARY PLAN AREA REGIONAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL Planning & Development a department of Sustainability & Growth PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: July 5, 2013 THE CORPORAT ION OF T HE CIT Y OF KINGSTON Official Plan for the City of Kingston Schedule 3-B & C, Existing Land Use File Number: D & D & D D & D & D Address: 2130 Isle of Man Lane & 2611 Isle of Man Road ARN: & SCALE Meters 1:20,000 Disclaimer: This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for your personal, non -commercial use provided you keep intact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any damages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this document. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, likely results or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document. C 2012 The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

47 CON 6 LOT 39 CON 6 LOT 32 CON 5 LOT 33 CON 6 LOT 33 UNITY RD CON 5 LOT 34 CON 6 LOT 34 CON 5 LOT 35 CON 6 LOT 35 CON 5 LOT 36 CON 4 LOT 36 CON 6 LOT 36 CON 5 LOT 37 CON 6 LOT 37 SUBJECT LANDS 2130 Isle of Man Lane CON 5 LOT 38 CON 5 LOT 38 CON 6 LOT 38 CON 5 LOT 39 CON 5 LOT 39 CON 6 LOT 40 CON 5 LOT 40 CON 5 LOT 40 CON 6 LOT 41 CON 5 LOT 41 CON 5 LOT 41 CON 5 LOT 40 KINGSTON MILLS CON 4 LOT 1 CON 3 LOT 1 CON 3 LOT 1 CON 3 LOT 1 CON 3 LOT 1 CON 4 LOT 2 CON 3 LOT 2 CON 4 LOT 3 15 HWY CON 3 LOT 3 CON 4 LOT 4 CON 3 LOT 4 CON 4 LOT 5 CON 3 LOT 5 CON 4 LOT 6 CON 3 LOT 6 CON 4 LOT 7 CON 3 LOT 7 CON 4 LOT 8 CON 3 LOT 8 CON 4 LOT 9 CON 3 LOT 9 CON 4 LOT 10 CON 4 LOT 11 SUBJECT LANDS 2611 Isle of Man Road 401 HWY CON 3 LOT 10 CON 3 LOT 11 CON 4 LOT 12 CON 3 LOT 12 CON 4 CON 4 LOT 13 LOT 14 CON 3 LOT 13 CON 3 LOT 14 CON 4 LOT 15 CON 3 LOT 15 BATTERSEA RD CON 4 LOT 39 CON 4 LOT 40 CON 4 LOT 41 CON 4 LOT 34 CON 4 LOT 35 CON 4 LOT 36 CON 4 LOT 37 CON 4 LOT 38 CON 2 LOT 1 CON 2 LOT 2 CON 2 LOT 3 CON 2 LOT 4 CON 2 LOT 5 CON 2 LOT 6 CON 2 LOT 7 CON 2 LOT 8 CON 2 LOT 9 CON 2 LOT 10 CON 2 LOT 11 CON 2 LOT 12 CON 2 LOT 13 CON 2 LOT 14 CON 2 LOT 15 CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT D CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT C Great Cataraqui River LEGEND CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT 6 CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT 8 CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT 10 COUNTRY AREA BUSINESS DISTICT CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT 4 HOUSING DISTRICT MAJOR INSTITUTION CON EAST OF CATARAQUI RIVER LOT 2 GORE LOT 4 GORE LOT 3 GORE LOT 2 CENTRE GORE LOT 6 GORE LOT 5 CORRIDOR GORE LOT 7 GORE LOT 8 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT E FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA MAJOR OPEN SPACE FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 2 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 4 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 6 DEVELOPMENT PHASING URBAN BOUNDARY SPECIAL PLANNING AREA AREA SPECIFIC PHASING FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 9 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 8 2 HWY FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 8 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 9 FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 11 OTHER FEATURES HAMLET MAJOR ROAD FIRST AND BROKEN FRONT LOT 13 FUTURE MAJOR ROAD RAILWAY AIRPORT MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY WATERBODY THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON Legend: Planning & Development a department of Sustainability & Growth City Structure File Number: D & D & D D & D & D Address: 2130 Isle of Man Lane & 2611 Isle of Man Road ARN: & Subject Lands PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: July 5, Metres ,470 1,960

48 SUBJECT LANDS 2130 Isle of Man Lane SUBJECT LANDS 2611 Isle of Man Road 15 HWY LEGEND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA CONTRIBUTORY WOODLAND SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND LINKAGES & CORRIDORS UNEVALUATED WETLAND VALLEYLAND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY URBAN BOUNDARY MAJOR ROAD LOCAL ROAD OR PRIVATE LANE WATERBODY Planning & Development a department of Sustainability & Growth PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: July 6, 2013 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON Official Plan for the City of Kingston Schedule 8-B & C, Existing Natural Heritage Area "B" File Number: D & D & D D & D & D Address: 2130 Isle of Man Lane & 2611 Isle of Man Road ARN: & Meters Disclaimer: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, non -com m ercial use provided you keep intact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assum es no resp o n sib ility fo r an y erro rs, a n d is n o t lia b le fo r an y d am a ge s o f a ny kin d re su ltin g fr om th e u s e of, or reliance on, the information contained in this document. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, likely results or reliability of the use of the inform ation contained in this docum ent. C 2010 The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

49 NINA'S LANE DUFFE LANE RR-11-H Hwy 401 HUGHES RD A2 OS LSR-5 LSR-H A1 LSR-H LSR A1 LSR A1 A1-57-H A1 LSR-H A1 A1 A1 RR A1 A1 A1-53 R1 FP A1 A1-11 OS EPA A1-60-H ISLE OF MAN RD RR RR A1-14 A1-27 RR-1 A1-38 A1-60-H CH-12-H RR-3 A1-49 A1-48 A1-37 A1 OS RR-10 STEPHENTOWN LANE A1 HWY 15 SUBJECT LANDS 2611 Isle of Man Road Zoning By-Law: Current Zone: A1-60-H, CH-12-H & EPA A2 CT-6-H A1 OS OS R1 A1 A1-24 A1-25 OS A1 HWY 401 A2 Planning & Development a department of Sustainability & Growth PREPARED BY: A. Adams DATE: Feb 3, 2012 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXISTING ZONING Zoning By-Law: Applicant: B.C. Ltd. File Number: D / D / D Address: 2611 Isle of Man Road Legal Description: CON 4 PT LOTS 2 TO 4; RP 13R19682 PART 1 ARN: Legend: Subject Lands Current Zone: A1-60-H, CH-12-H & EPA Meters FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY THIS IS AN OFFICE CONSOLIDATION. FOR ACCURATE REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL ZONING BY-LAW AND AMENDMENTS THERETO SHOULD BE CONSULTED AT 1211 JOHN COUNTER BLVD

50 Friday, AprilB, 2012 David Payne and Gait Gibson 2738 Isle of Man rd, Kingston ant. K7l 4V3 RECEIVED APR \ J 1,;1 PLANNIN ~ & DEVELOPMENT Ot:PAR fment c ln 0F KINGSTON att:, Jason Budd - Planning Department, City of Kingston In reference to Notice of a Public Meeting, Purpose and effect of the application; To develop a 31 estate residential lot subdivision. The site is located on the west side of hwy #15, bounded by Gibralter Bay, Dane Rd., and Isle of Man rd. Hi Jason, We have had several conversations by phone but haven't yet had a chance to discllss the issues i have concerning the proposed subdivision in person due to scheduling conflicts. I have arranged to deliver my letter to the planning offices n 1 - The Environmental Protection Area, just where are these areas located on this parcel of land? J have inquired twice now, but am still trying to get information that shows the actual EPA on this site.( I know it was a concern a few years ago, when the "large venue Garden Centre was proposed for this same parcel of land) Also, handling this project, is the same group of consultants that was involved in the garden centre, the IBI group. " 2 - If, the EPA is a concern in approving the subdivision, How is this corrected? I don't imagine it just goes away? What happens to it? "3 - Has there been a review ora study about the wildlife in this area? Is the City (or the Applicant) obligated to provide this? Does this impact, at all on the plans for a subdivision? # 4 - If the proposed subdivision goes ahead, what, if anything will happen to the animals who are presently living there? There are deer, coyotes, many species of birds, geese, ducks, red winged blackbirds etc. have nested there year after year. There is a large population of turtles on this land. A number of them cross Isle of Man rd. every year, to lay their eggs, i imagine, (It takes them a whole day to cross and go all the way to the back of our property, then the next day we see them coming back down the hill to cross over again). The 2 geese that always separate from the rest to mate and show off their young ones by walking right up the middle of Isle of Man proud as can be. What will happen to them? Is this a concern at all? 1 208

51 Does the developer plan on rebuilding Isle of Man rd? It is barely wide enough to accomadate cars coming and going at the same time.? There is a load restriction of 5 tons on Isle of Man rd. how much does a dump truck full of gravel weigh, how may trips will they take before the development is completed.? Besides local traffic, there are 4 school buses currently picking up and dropping off students on school days, that's 4 trips each bus each week day. A safety issue? I am concerned about the huge increase in traffic this project will bring. The plan shows the main road into the subdivision is almost exactly opposite our driveway, on isle of man rd. I am concerned about the blasting which I fear will be necessary to develop the land because the whole area is limestone. How will this impact on the water table and the wells of residences already living here? Will the proposed subdivision make a difference in the value of property owners nearby? Last, I am concerned how much the noise and dust from construction vehicles and overall noise of constructing 31 houses will impact on my own lifestyle. There are health issues to consider also. Thank You Gail Gibson/David Payne 2 209

52 Suite 107, 223 Queen Mary Rd., Kingston, On K7M 2Bl, May 20, Planning & Development Dept., 216 Ontario St., Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 RECEIVFD MAY 2 4 i PLANNING & DEVE:.,JPMENT DEPARTMf CITY OF KING ')N RE: File No. D , Dl & Dl Isle of Man Road I was unable to attend the Public Meeting but have reviewed the files. This process has led to several questions. 1. The impact on school busing and schools has not been addressed, especially if one views this application in tandem with the 12 lot application for 2130 Isle of Man Lane (File No. D , DI & DI The bus commute for existing students would be appreciably extended if the route has to accommodate these new subdivisions. 2. The impact of 31 new wells on the existing water table has not been been adequately established. When the tests were taken only one external well was monitored on the excuse that other neighbourhood wells could not be accessed. My own well and those of2639 & 2649 Highway #15 all could have been included. I was not approached for permission. My notes do not include WHEN the test was done as timing could lead to faulty conclusions. By late summer, especially with draught conditions, my well shows stress even though it is a deep drilled well. 3. The plan calls for a 30 metre deeded natural vegetation corridor for waterfront lots. This will be virtually unenforceable as owners will inevitably encroach so as to enhance their enjoyment of their lots. I notice that houses on the other side of Gibraltar Bay have their lawns right down to the water and that the trees are gone. As long as there are deeded waterfront lots this will happen. The 30 metre corridor should be added to the proposed parkland and the lots sold as waterview. Gibraltar Bay is an aqualung for the Rideau and needs to be protected from human encroachment. 4. There are major wetlands on the property. The proposal to contain and channel these will in fact wipe them and the species dependent on these out. It does not fit with provincial and municipal planning. Does the City really wish to encourage this type ofharnlet creation? Margueritta Kluensch. 210

53 Budd,Jason From: Sent: To: Subject: Sylvia Healey~ Wednesday.~ $cott,jeffj Budd,Jason Planned zoning by-law amendment and plan for subd ivision on Isle of Mann Road RE: Zoning By-Law Amendment D , D I , Dl Hello Jeffand Jason, I'm sorry I will not be able to make it to the meeting about this by-law amendment and would appreciate if you would bring up these concerns on my behalf: I'd like to express my concerns about the rezoning of2611 [sle of Mann Road to create a subdivision. I have written previously about my concerns for the "Environmental Protection Area" that is part afthat site, but I would like to have on record my concerns about the risk to OUT drinking water wells, created by the additional demands of multiple more units on the single aquifer. In addition, even if the volume of water was sufficient, the area under consideration appears to be a limestone shelf and major construction ( as 31 units would entail) could in itself cause cracking and affect the water flow in the aqui fer. Can we request that an engineering assessment be done, to ensure that our water supply will not be endangered. before any consideration is given to this application? Could this report also be available to local residents? I hope there a specific department in the municipal offices that is responsible for the prevention of adverse risks to residents involved with zoning amendments? In my opinion, this particular amendment is of high ri sk in tenns of potential liability to the city as well as endangering an environmentally protected area. Thanks you for the opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, Sylvia Healey 211

54 Budd,Jason From: Sent: To: Subject: Vicki Schmolka Thursday, Budd,Jason PC..()12 27 With respect to the application to allow 31 residential lots off Isle of Man Road, I would like to ask how this development Is consistent with Kingston's Official Plan? The Plan identifies the hamlets within Kingston and this area is not one of them. Given other approvals in this area, would this development in effect be creating a new hamlet? Is that a good idea? Is that consistent with the Official Plan and, if not, what specific Official Plan amendment would be required? Is this type of estate residential development that the Official Plan specifically sets out to avoid? Vicki Schmolka 625 Fernmoor Drive ~ K7M8K5 212

55 Budd,Jason From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sylvia Healey~ Frjday.March~ Budd,Jason Scolt,Jeff Zoning By-Law ammendment 2611 Isle of Mann Road RE: Zoning By-Law Amendment D , DI , DI Dear Mr. Judd, 1 am writing to express my concerns about rezoning of26l1 Isle of Mann Road, the majority of which fronts onto Gibraltar Bay. These are protected waters that fonn part of the Cataraqui/Rideau System, but most importantly are part of a marsh that is critical to pollution treatment and nutrient cycling of Colonel By lake. It is also a vital Fish and Bird habitat. You may already be aware that wetlands cleanse water by filtering out natural and many manmade pollutants, which are then broken down or immobilized. In wetlands, organic materials are also broken down and recycled back into the environment, where tbey support the food chain. Wetlands are also one of the most productive habitats for feeding, nesting, spawning, resting and cover for fish and wildlife, including many rare and endangered species.. This particular wetland is home to a healthy diversity offish, birds and amphibians and I have documented the presence of Wood Ducks, Bald Eagles, Red-tailed hawk, and ospreys (with an osprey nest right on the property). Birds that stop to feed for about a month on their way north or south are Mergansers, Swans, Rails and Comorants, among others. Many duck species use the quiet shelter of Gibraltar Point as a summer nursery. The marsh is also home to snapping turtles and painted turtles as well as a variety of frogs and fish. These are just a sprinkling of the incredible habitat whose balance is already incredibly challenged with the intensity of residential development at Rideau Acres Trailer Park. To create another high-intensity residential area could tip the balance of the health of the waterway. Two years ago at the "Source Water Protection" meetings held for the public, residents on Colonel By lake expressed concerns about the impact of sewage output into the lake (Colonel By) from hundreds of trailers at Rideau Acres. Their concerns seemed justified since over the last couple years we've seen the blue-green algal bloom start offshore from the trailer park and spread across the lake. I think the marsh is critical to counteracting the pollution and cleaning up the water but it seems to have reached it's tolerance level and we have already seen a couple species of frogs disappear. (They are like the canary in the coal mine). Protecting this marsh provides cleaner water and benefits all residents including those who live further downstream all the way to the St. Lawrence River. This zone is already marked as "Environmentally Protected" so 11m surprised that the city even entertains applications for development in this area, ] have copied the conservation authority in the hopes that they will support the continued protection of this area for the benefit of all Kingstonians. 213