Water Here and Gone

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

We live in an area with an abundance of wonderful lakes, yet we were reminded this summer of how precious water is.  Local farmers could not harvest sufficient hay, wells went dry and gardens failed. One of our priorities needs to be protecting our lakes and water.

Enforcement

A common, and often legitimate, concern is that laws are not, or only selectively, enforced, including laws to protect water.   Municipally, this usually refers to zoning bylaws and conditions that must be met before a subdivision-condominium can be finalized.

Three current enforcement actions involving lake protection bylaws are of interest.

1) In 2012 the front porch of a cottage on Dog Lake suffered damage from high winds. It is an older cottage within 5 meters of water’s edge on top of a cliff.  The owners replaced the porch with a two story addition without a permit or planning approval.  It is not clear whether the replacement is closer to the lake, but it is certainly bigger.  The owner started construction on other renovations and applied to Council for zoning relief to allow the two story addition. Their appeal was unanimously rejected and a stop work order is in place. The case has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

2) A 2007 Ontario Municipal Board decision allowed a Sydenham Lake landowner to create three lots but under strict conditions that the mature forest be left to protect the steep shoreline. After the site plan was registered on title, the owner clear-cut down to the lake and moved significant amounts of earth to create a landing. The Township prohibited any development on the lots until full remediation took place.  Satisfactory remediation was done and the development restrictions were lifted in 2016. While remediation cannot return the site to its original state, the delay and cost of remediation are significant penalties.

3) In 2013 a cottage was built within 3 meters of Buck Lake without a permit or zoning relief.  The owner says it was meant be a pump house, but it is clearly not.  The lot could easily accommodate a residential development 30 meters back from the Lake.  The Township ordered the building removed.  The order has been appealed and the case will be in court on September 15, 2016.

These incidents illustrate that enforcement can be done with good bylaws and Council support, but that it does take time and significant resources.

New Planning-Development Manager

One piece of the enforcement puzzle is proper staffing. At the August meeting Council agreed to hire a new Manager of Planning and Development, in part, to ensure that the conditions of approval for subdivisions and condominiums are fully implemented.  At the first September Council meeting I will be supporting a motion to contract consultants to monitor the conditions of approval currently in place until this person is hired.

Who can use the lakes?

As part of the ongoing discussion on lake protection a few people have suggested making it harder for non-lake property owners to access the lakes, possibly even charging a user’s fee.

This summer we went to Tadoussac, in the Saguenay, and had many lovely swims in a local lake.  Over the years I, and many others in the Township, have used lakes and rivers in every province and territory for swimming, boating and fishing.  Except for parks, I have used these lakes and rivers free as part of my rights as a Canadian citizen, and been able to share this resource with local residents.  I would hope that visitors and non-lake residents of South Frontenac would enjoy the same hospitality.

There is a profound obligation to protect these water resources. An obligation that is shared by property owners, visitors, and governments. Municipally we can do our part with good education programs, septic inspections, naturalizing shorelines, facilitating boat washing at ramps, having lake plans, passing and enforcing strong bylaws, respecting controls put in place by other levels of government and applying them to all lake users. This is only a partial list, but if we focus our efforts on making these a reality that would go a long way to protecting this valuable national resource.

Enjoy what remains of summer, go for a nice swim and let me know your opinion on any of the above issues as well as any other concerns you may have.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Resolutions Coming

Posted on July 7, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

The important debates of the last few months are working towards resolution.

A Planning-Development Coordinator

Council has been grappling with some big planning issues:

  • Should South Frontenac have final approval for subdivision and condominium development?
  • How do we enforce the conditions placed on developments like Johnson’s Point?
  • How do we make the development process as transparent and seamless as possible?
  • How do we ensure meaningful resident consultation in the planning and development process?

Most answers to these questions involve more staff time.  One solution, which Council is slowly working towards, is to hire a planning-development manager/coordinator.  The Corporate Services Committee had a good discussion on the issue last month and will be bringing forward a recommendation to the August council meeting.

Final Authority for Subdivision Approvals

Two benefits of the Township having final approval for subdivision and condominium developments are:

  • Unifying zoning changes and planning approvals should reduce cost and waste. The Township is responsible for subdivision zoning changes: the County is responsible for the planning approvals. We are currently paying both planning departments to review each proposal when ony one process is needed.
  • Recent changes to the provincial Planning Act will make South Frontenac residents appeal their concerns about developments to a small committee appointed by County Council. Most members of the County’s Planning Committee will be from the other Frontenac Townships. Leaving planning approvals with the County makes development a more technocratic process which strongly favours big developers. Unifying planning and zoning approvals in the Township will keep our public planning meetings in the Township. Residents will have increased access. It will increase democratic involvement.

The issue will likely be coming back to Council on August 2 for a review of the previous decision to take control of final planning approvals in 2019.

Lake Protection

On June 7, Council passed two amendments to zoning bylaws 5.10.2 and 5.11: two sections concerning development within 30 meters of water bodies.  Details can be found in my June 17 post. 

Section 5.10.2 has been one of the cornerstones of the Township’s lake protection policy since our first official plan was passed in 2003.   In essence, the 30 meter setback creates a zone of influence around lakes where sound environmental stewardship and community development goals can be enforced.

The 30 meters zone helps with two concerns for lake quality:

1) Controlling excess runoff from shorelines which is a significant source of nutrients in lakes; and,

2) Promoting healthy biodiversity in lakes, an important lake quality ingredient. 90% of the species in the lakes use the shoreline at some point in their life cycle.

Maintaining these protections is particularly important with the encroachment of invasive species and the presence of blue green algae blooms last year in the Rideau Lakes.

Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 have been in place for 13 years and worked fairly well. Without them there could be a general free-for-all in lake front development. Most residents don’t want this. It would be bad for the Township, property values and environmental health.

A new educational booklet has been produced by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority on blue green algae identification and prevention.  The booklet can be read on line or, if you wish a hard copy, please contact me.

Compulsory Septic inspection?

Another concern for lake protection is ensuring proper functioning septic tanks.  A report on options for compulsory septic inspection was presented to the Committee of the Whole on November 24, 2015, item b.  The alternatives presented were costly, over a million dollars, and would take many years to complete.  We are currently waiting to hire a Chief Building Official to hear from other Townships about the programs they run.  Septic inspection is still an active item on Council’s agenda.

Public Budget Input

Council has designated a special meeting, after the 2017 draft budget has been released, and before Council votes, for community input.  All community members are encouraged to come and say what they think the Township should be funding, what proposed expenses make no sense, or how the Township can to improve its money management.  The community input meeting is scheduled for November 8, at 7pm in the Council Chambers.

I would like to know your opinion on any of the above issues as well as any other concerns you may have.  Please give me a call, 613-532-7846, or send me an email.

Enjoy your summer, keep cool.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Summary of Changes to Waterfront Development Zoning

Posted on June 17, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

 

South Frontenac Council made two changes to the zoning bylaw sections 5.10 and 5.11 dealing with development within 30 meters of a water body. the changes are:

1)      The old section 5.10 said that a “building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition…”. It did not permit a building to be taken down and reconstructed.  When a building was said to be rebuilt rather renovated was left to the interpretation of the building inspector and the planner and has, at different times, been interpreted as one or two walls down. Rebuilds had to go through the planning process to obtain a building permit.

Under the amended section buildings may still “be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition…” with only a building permit.  A clear definition has been added that says a building is taken down if more than 50% of the walls come down.  At that point, as before, a permit to rebuild needs to go through the planning process. The amendment adds clarity for residents wanting to renovate.

2)      Under the old bylaw if a building was ordered demolished for safety reasons, it only required a building permit to be rebuilt.

The amended section 5.11 requires that if a building becomes unsafe through dereliction a permit must be obtained through the planning process to be rebuilt.

Both the old section 5.11 and the amended version require only a building permit for rebuilding after “… partial or complete destruction caused by fire, lightening, tempest, flood or act of God.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

May: A Hot Month

Posted on May 29, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

In a healthy democracy demonstration our community recently had some very spirited debates on important issues.

Subdivision Oversight

Earlier this year the Township’s senior administrative officer said there is not have enough staff to enforce the conditions on subdivision/condominium developments.  Also, a deputation from the Conservation Authority indicated that many agencies also have difficulty with oversight.

So when some Loughborough Lake residents observed work being done on Johnson’s Point they contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF) to see if a species at risk evaluation had been done. The requirement for this evaluation was one of the conditions approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for that development.

The MNRF still had not been to Johnson’s Point six weeks after work at started.  When the matter was brought to Council it was not clear if the Township or County staff should be monitoring compliance.  A motion to ask for a staff report on the implementation of the MNRF condition was defeated 5-2.

We all need to respect the rules and big developers should be held to a high standard.  Their developments have greater potential negative impact and they have professionals advising them.

The Township has a ways to go in overseeing reasonable development.

Township Control of Planning

The County currently has the final approval over subdivision and condominium developments. Yet the Township Council is closest to the community and we have always played a central role. This duplication is a waste of resources and it is confusing to both residents and developers.  To add insult to injury we are paying for both process, 100% of our planning costs and 60% of the County’s.

Township Council is seriously considering asking for final approval over our subdivision and condominium planning process.  We need to hire staff and establish processes to make this a reality.  It won’t happen this year, but if that is our goal, we need to start.

More Staff?

We are a growing township with many demands from our residents. High among the pressures are requests for better planning, more responsive processes and better communication.  A consultant recommended hiring seven new staff: that seems like over kill.

Council has narrowed the discussion to three possible new employees brought on staff over two and half years: 1) a planning development manager, 2) a separate clerk position to support Council, committees and communication with the public, and 3) a full time fire education and prevention officer.

The debate will continue at the June 7 meeting. I would love to know your thoughts on more staff?

Waterfront Development Within 30 Meters

First, thank you to everyone who has taken time to be involved in this debate. It will produce a better bylaw.

There were three fairly unanimous sentiments presented to Council: 1) that protecting the lakes is important; 2) that in the event of catastrophic damage there should be a right to rebuild on the same foot print to the same size; and, 3) that action is needed on derelict buildings. All of these are supported in the Mayor’s proposal coming to the June 7 Council meeting.

When the dust has settles I think that the result will essentially be a continuation of current practice. Since amalgamation if a building is within 30 meters of water and there is a desire to change the size or tear it down and start over then an application to the Committee of Adjustment is needed.  The Committee cannot refuse to allow a rebuild on the lot.  It can only set reasonable conditions in line with the goals in the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaws. The exception has been in cases of catastrophic damage when all you need is a building permit. I support keeping these sections of the original bylaw.

Point Park Opening

The Point Park will be re-opening on June 4 at 10am.  Come out, see what has been done and celebrate one of our great parks.

Cycle Fest and New Map

The second annual Cycle Fest will be held June 12, 11-3, at Prince Charles School in Verona.  A new and expanded cycling route map will be available, as well as a free BBQ and a cycle skills course. Everyone is welcome, come any time.

A second cycle skills training event will be held on June 19, 11am to noon at the Perth Road School.  Bring your bike and kids and test your skills. No charge.

I would like to know your opinion on any of the above issues as well as any other concerns you may have.  Please send me an email or leave a comment.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Players and Plans: Getting There From Here

Posted on April 28, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

Official Plan Rework

Councillors McDougall, Revill and I introduced a proposal for a forward-looking, community wide review of our Official Plan.

The Official Plan (OP) outlines what development can take place where. Of all the decisions that Council makes the OP probably has the most impact on how our community will look in 20 years.

Many residents have problems with our current OP.

Some issues that have been identified are:

  • The current OP allows residential development on most rural lands if two acer lots can be created and water found.
  • A wide range of industrial and commercial activities are allowed at most locations in both hamlets and rural areas.
  • Significant residential development, with some restrictions, is allowed as a matter of right close to many lakes and within 120 meters of provincially significant wetlands.
  • Currently, there is very little difference in the development allowed in hamlets and in rural areas. The boundaries and number of hamlets has also been questioned.

Council has asked staff to report by the end of June on how to implement our proposal. The process will be lengthy, but it is central to a well-functioning and livable Township. Our proposal can be found in the in the agenda for the April 19 Council .

The Organizational Review

A recent Township organizational review found that our senior staff spend almost all of their time on day to day problems and little on long range planning.  It recommended hiring seven new staff. The review can be found in the April 12 Committee of the Whole agenda.

The organizational review also agreed with a common complaint of residents that the Township does not have an effective communication policy.  People often do not know when Council is considering an issue until it is too late.

The job of communicating is especially important in our Township because many of our property owners are away for extended periods of time and we cover a large geographic area.

To increase our ability to communicate by email and other social media we will need some staff time dedicated to this job.

Similarly we have had many planning issues over the last year.  If the Township wants to play a more central role in controlling development, and rely less on the County, we will need more planning staff.

The review also identified that our fire services “need additional capacity to deliver on service level requirements” and recommended hiring a full-time fire prevention and education officer.

The Review recommended fewer Council meetings and the elimination of Committee of the Whole.  While there may be some merit in this approach frequent meetings provide good access for residents to the entire Council. Any changes should make Council more accessible, not less.

Council and senior staff are going to meet on May 4 to review the report’s recommendations.

Local Farming

Growing the local food industry has been a focus over the past six months and is one of the main pillars of the Frontenac County Economic Development plan.

Our most recent get-together included a tour of the Sun Harvest Green houses, Sonset Farm near Inverary, the Limestone Creamery and the 700 acer Samsung Unity Road solar farm.  Previous trips visited Patch Work Gardens near Battersea, and the Two Rivers Food Hub in Smiths Falls.

Lots is happening.  Agriculture is our fastest growing economic activity.  How can we help?

Using our Official Plan we can relieve some of the development pressure on rural lands.  We can recognize that class 4 and 5 lands also play an important role, especially to more organic farms, in grazing and hay production. And we need to celebrate that there are young, exciting and innovative farmers who want to farm. We should be encouraging their efforts in every way possible.

30 Meter Water Buffer

On May 10 Council will continue with public delegations on non-complying structures within 30 meters of the water.  See my March 29th post for introductory comments on the issue.

The Point Park

Sydenham’s revitalized Point Park is re-opening on the May long weekend. Come out and celebrate one of the Township’s jewels.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Water and Budget Setbacks

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

This past month has seen setbacks, in two different senses, coming before Council.

30 Metre Setback from Lakes

A core principle in the Township’s planning to protect lakes has been establishing a minimum 30 meter shoreline buffer.  The importance of this setback, where no building should take place and clearing should be minimized, was established in the 1992 Rideau Lakes Study, and recently updated in the Hutchinson Report.

While this principle is adhered to for new construction there are many older buildings closer to the lake, sometimes right on the shore line.  These structures are allowed to continue and be fixed up if they do not increase in size. But what to do if they are damaged or allowed to deteriorate?

The Township’s policy has been if they were damaged by unforeseen circumstances, for example by fire or a falling tree, then a similar sized building could be rebuilt. This has been a very rare occurrence and in the few times it has happened most owners have wanted to expand their building so a new site has been chosen.   When someone has wanted to rebuild their structure from the ground up, the practice has been to permit this only if it is setback 30 meters, or they can apply for a variance if for a closer site if there is no suitable building site 30 meters back from the lake.

This practice has been challenged recently and the planning department has recommended that the ambiguity in the zoning bylaw be changed to say that if the walls come down then the new structure has to be moved back. While that would be the overriding principle of the proposed changes, the property owner could apply to the Committee of Adjustment for a closer building site. These changes would encourage owners to keep their buildings in good repair as this is an uncontested way of maintaining a home close to the water.

The Committee of Adjustment is a committee of Councillors and Township residents with a long history of responding reasonably to the individual property owners circumstances within overall Township priorities.

Some residents have expressed concern about these changes. Council has deferred the issue for two months to obtain a more detailed legal opinion and gather more community input. Please send your comments to me and the Township.

Over Spending Sets Back Budget

The final reckoning on last year’s budget showed a deficit of 429 thousand dollars.  The main causes of the overage were $130,000 in unbudgeted expenditures on the 150th anniversary celebrations in Harrowsmith’s Centennial Park and a variety of road projects.

Overall I feel that the Public Works department should have latitude to, when they see something that needs doing, do it. These decisions usually benefit the Township but that latitude comes with limitations: two of the primary ones are that new projects should not lead to significant deficits nor should they set priorities that have not been passed by Council.

With Council’s full support the public works department has been preparing multiyear capital asset management plans, identifying needs and timelines.  A new capital purchase, like emergency road closure trailers that had not been previously identified to Council, should come before Council before acquisition.

Similarly, I support a program of centrelines on secondary roads, but that program should be implemented by prioritizing roads that need lines and budgeting for them over a series of years. And that priority should be passed by Council before being implemented.  The same logic goes for installing needed guard rails, road ditching or upgrading to more reflective signs.

We were trying to move away from ad hoc decision making.  This should result in better financial planning and asset management.

Last year’s deficit was covered through a mixture of reducing public works expenses in this year’s budget and withdrawal from reserves.  Council has asked the Chief Administrative Officer to implement policies that will keep the expenses within the approved budget and only run a deficit if it is approved by Council.

Upcoming Items

  • Council has asked staff to bring back a report on a new structure for recreational user fees to “address the challenges and meet the needs of the Community.”
  • A draft bylaw that will lengthen the notice provisions for subdivision planning meetings to six weeks and improve public signage will soon be coming to Council.
  • The consultant’s report the Township’s organization will be presented to Council on April 12.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

An Informed and Involved Township

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

Last week the Frontenac News ran an editorial arguing that South Frontenac Council is too involved in evaluating the subdivision proposals coming before Council. The following is the comment I have sent back to the paper:

Dear Frontenac News,

Your editorial view that South Frontenac’s Council is down among the weeds is surprisingly undemocratic.

The implication is that Council and residents should, when the experts and staff have spoken, agree and get on with it. If that were the case then there would be no need for a Council, values or debate.

And, it ignores the grain of truth in the old joke: put 5 lawyers in a room and you have 6 different opinions. This is not to dismiss the necessity of expert opinions or science, but to simply say they are not sufficient.

It is a core obligation of elected officials to ask for clear explanations of issues and to question expert reports. This is essential if we are to cast an informed vote. Another core responsibility is to be very respectful and thoughtful, and to pay close attention to the residents, which also have sound opinions, many years of experience and live in our community.

South Frontenac Council is working as well as it has in years. Two complex development projects are progressing. Johnson Point will be a better than what was originally proposed because of the questioning and the extra work. The development at Hartington, when it is finalized, will also be better than the initial proposed. To use another old saying, democracy is the worst form of government [it is messy] except for all the others.

It is important to note that there are literally hundreds of new subdivision units currently in process in South Frontenac. Our problem is not that we are scaring away development but making sure that development benefits the community.

The Councillors and residents of South Frontenac need to be complimented on raising the level of public involvement and discussion on important issues. It is this engagement and understanding that will make a better community.

You cannot have the kind of garden you want, even if you work with expert gardeners, unless you understand the nature of weeds and occasionally get your hands dirty.

Sincerely,

Ross Sutherland, Councillor, South Frontenac

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

How is the Township Working

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

In the midst of this wonky winter it is a good time to hunker down and do some indoor work. The Township seems to feel the same.

Township Organizational Review

Council agreed to review the Township’s organizational structure to see if it is adequate to meet our changing needs.

When I was canvassing there were numerous suggestions like: “the Township has too many people doing ‘this’ when they should be doing ‘that’” and “the Township needs to be more responsive and easier to work with”.

Some of the answers to these statements are changes in policy, others are organizational issues. How are staff are organized, how many staff do we need, what are they assigned to do, and how staff relate to Council and the public, will be addressed.

If you have any comments on how the Township organizes its staff and does its business please pass them along. I will pass them onto the review team.

Changes Needed to the Official Plan

What kind of a Township do we want in 20 years? Some of the debates in the last year indicate that what many Township residents want in 20 years is not what is currently permitted under the Official Plan.

Some specific concerns identified were:

• What should be the boundaries of the hamlets? Are there too many hamlets? And, what distinguishes development in our hamlets from development in surrounding rural areas.
• Increased protection for our lakes by better protecting our provincially significant wetlands (PSWs). Should we prohibit the creation of waterfront lots in the vicinity of PSWs and the placement of docks on waterfront properties that do not have navigable water?
• Better control of development in rural areas to enhance our agricultural activities, natural environments, long term ground water quality and quantity, and our rural/small urban lifestyle.
• Do we need different development guidelines in areas identified as having poor ground water quality and quantity?
• Identifying areas that are amenable to industrial and commercial development in our hamlets rather than permitting their development anywhere.

Reviewing these issues should be a priority for the Township, or we may know where we want to go but we won’t get there.

Sydenham Water

The annual report on the Sydenham water system, one of our largest pieces of municipal infrastructure, was both dissatisfying and helpful.

It was dissatisfying because we could not come to any agreement on what actually is happening with the water system.

It was helpful because we identified a core problem: there is a conflict between the abstract professional standards that the engineers rely on and what is actually happening on the ground. I have asked for some greater clarity on what measures we are legally required to use, as compared to what are professional standards or recommendations, as compared to the actual figures for water usage.

There is also a discrepancy between the actual number of metered hook-ups as compared to Designated Unit Equivalents. DUEs are figures assigned to each meter for purposes of billing. For instance the senior’s residences and commercial facilities have higher DUE’s than single family dwellings. I have asked for this point to be straightened out.

Nonetheless, a bottom line appears to be that the plant has at least 300 cubic meters of unused capacity even if all those who currently pay for the system but are not hooked-up started to use municipal water.

We have opportunities to increase use and income. That is the next step. I will keep you informed, please pass along any thoughts you have.

Cycling Friendly Infrastructure Proposal

A community discussion on proposals for safer cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in South Frontenac is being held in the Community Room of the Sydenham Library, Wednesday, March 30, 7-9. Your input will help shape a report from the Share the Road Cycling Coalition on cycling needs in South Frontenac. Everyone welcome.

Perth Road Winter Olympics

The Perth Road Winter Olympics, open to everyone in the community, is next Saturday, March 5, 12-5pm at the School. Let’s hope for snow, come along either way it is a fun afternoon.

Perth Road Constituency Drop-In.

will be at the Harris Hall in Perth Road Village on Saturday, April 2 from 1-3pm if you want to drop-in and talk about any local issue.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

February Updates

Posted on January 31, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

During this on-again-off-again winter numerous Township projects are moving towards conclusion.  Here are some updates on these and other issues people have been asking about.

Perth Road Fire Hall

A conditional offer from the Township to buy two acers of land for a new fire station in Perth Road Village has been accepted.  The site is on the west side of Perth Road in the village.  A good well has been found. The next step is rezoning and survey work.  The application for rezoning should be going to the Committee of Adjustment in February.  If all goes well, and I am cautiously optimistic, we should be able to finalize the land purchase in the next couple of months and start the hard work of designing the hall.  The goal is still to start building this year.

 Sydenham Football Field and the Point Park

Work on both the football field and the Point Park is going well and both are on schedule.  The football field will have the running track installed in the spring and it is anticipated that it will be ready for use by September.  There is an ongoing discussion on the type of fence that should be used to protect the field.  A chain link fence would be unsightly and consideration is being given to other options, including bollards.

Just a few final steps are needed to complete the Point Park and retaining wall. In the spring the path will be paved and the grass should seed in.  It is expected to be ready for use by June.

Municipal Grant Program

Council increased the amount in the Community Grant Program to $15,000 and the maximum amount that can be given to an organization for each grant to $2,000.  This is an excellent opportunity for your organization to get some help from the Township to fund a onetime project.

Applications for the community grants need to be submitted by March 31.  Detailed information and application forms can be found at:  http://www.southfrontenac.net/en/town-hall/community-project-grant.asp

 Sydenham Parking and One Way Streets

Last summer the Public Works Department prepared a parking and traffic flow plan for Sydenham.  After a public meeting and discussion at Council direction was given to increase parking control and turn Cross Street into a one way street. The final staff report and a draft by law are tentatively scheduled for the Committee of the Whole meeting on March 6.

Johnson Point

Frontenac County Council has asked their planning department to prepare a report on the Johnson Point development for consideration before February 17.  Depending on the report from planning and the will of County Council they could pass conditions for the Johnson Point development and present them as a possible settlement to the Ontario Municipal Board.

County Council is the final approval authority for subdivision and condominium developments and, though fairly unprecedented, they have the right to reach a settlement without the Township’s approval. The County’s letter to the Township can be read at: https://southfrontenac.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/20714?preview=21392

The letter implies that there are some reports or tentative agreements the Township Council reached “in camera” that have not been released.  I think this is a misunderstanding.  All reports and tentative agreements requested or negotiated by Council have been released and debated in open session.

Sydenham Water Plant Capacity

Last fall I submitted questions to the Public Works Department on Sydenham’s water usage, the water plant’s capacity and its impact on the village’s potential for growth.  These questions will be answered on February 9 when the plant operators, Utilities Kingston, present their annual report to the Committee of the Whole.

Frontenac County’s Official Plan

The province has approved Frontenac County’s Official plan.  This means that as of February 1 the County is the approval authority for our, South Frontenac’s Official Plan.  Some concerns from South Frontenac threatened to delay the County’s plan with an Ontario Municipal Board appeal.  A last minute letter from the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing provided the clarity needed to avoid an OMB appeal.

 Perth Road Winter Olympics

The second annual Perth Road Winter Olympics is being held March 5 starting at noon at the Perth Road School on Walsh Road.  Everyone is welcome to attend.  Come if you can it is a great afternoon of winter activities and food. For more information check out their face book page, https://www.facebook.com/events/126172937761651/

 

Posted in Perth Road fire hall, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Year Openness

Posted on January 2, 2016 by Ross Sutherland

Interestingly, after a year with very few split decisions, Council ended the year with one of its most acrimonious debates – maybe it was a sign that Council was maturing? After all, it would be unhealthy to have no significant disagreements.

The point of contention was the use of secret, or ”in camera,” meetings.

Municipal Law Encourages Open Debate

Provincial law requires Council to be as open as possible.  For a limited list of reasons, one of which is to receive legal advice, Council can keep its proceedings secret. Even under these circumstances, while it is possible to go “in camera”, it is not required and the law encourages open debate as the default position.  Our Council has also supported increasing public accountability and resident involvement in Township affairs.  It is difficult to have meaningful discussions without openness.

Johnson Point and Closed Sessions

Last February the Johnson Point developers asked the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to approve their proposal, effectively limiting the communities input. They argued that Council was taking too long to make a decision. We asked our lawyer for his advice which he gave to Council in closed session.

Then Council decided, also in closed session, to have an environmental evaluation of Long Bay next to Johnson Point. We keep this confidential despite the fact that the developers, who the Township was in legal proceeding with, knew about the initiative. The developers had to permit the onsite evaluation.  In hindsight we could have publicly presented, debated and voted on the Long Bay assessment since it was not hidden from the developer.

After the evaluation was done Council could have, in open session, integrated that report with some updated concerns from the Township planner and prepared a new set of draft conditions for the Point’s development. We could have presented these new conditions to the developers, either before the formal OMB process, or though their mediation procedure, to see if there were any changes the developer favoured that could be brought back for Council’s consideration.

Whether any changes were accepted or rejected, Council would have supported a viable set of conditions which could be accepted by the developers or, if they still wished to take their chances at the OMB, used as the basis for Council’s position at the OMB.

Instead, we asked our lawyer, once again through an “in camera” process, to negotiate a set of conditions with the developer. Once again the developer knew what was going on, but the public did not. Our lawyer reported the results of these negotiations in closed session.  Council discussed them “in camera” before they were brought to Council.  It is also worth noting that after we had agreed to release the new negotiated conditions they were withheld from the public for another 10 days.

At the regular open Council meeting, when the new draft conditions for development were considered, some Councillors, myself included, moved amendments. Other Councillors felt that these motions violated the “in camera” process – or, at least, deviated from how it has traditionally been used. I think is the main point of contention.

The Fine Line

There is an obvious fine line.  Just like you cannot write a good report by committee, it is very hard to negotiate in public.  It is not the face-to-face negotiations that need to be public.  Rather it is the intent of the negotiations and the consideration of the results that needs to be fully transparent. The community also needs an adequate opportunity to comment, especially when the developer has had good access to the negotiations.

Closed sessions should not be used as a way of removing hard discussions from public scrutiny, nor, should they become a method for developers to remove proposals from public discussion.  The approach we used around Johnson Point, might encourage developers to move more quickly to the OMB, if they feel that Council will take their proposals off the open agenda.

This is a complex discussion, but it goes to the heart of transparency and accountability in government and the ability of government to make effective decisions. Do you feel that we should keep our Council meetings as open as possible?  I would appreciate any comments you have.

New Year’s Issues

There are many issues that will be  coming up this year: the new fire station in Perth Road Village, recreational parks in Sydenham, infrastructure spending, the local impact of the climate change agreement, a new senior’s home, waterfront protection, Township reorganization and the Province’s response to the Official Plan: just to name a few. It promises to be another interesting and productive year.

Thank you for all your feedback last year. I look forward to more this year, both on these issues and on any other concerns you have.

 

Posted in Perth Road fire hall, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment