Central Frontenac Council - May 11/10

Jeff Green | May 13, 2010

Central Frontenac to continue to go slow on septic re-inspections

“I believe that summer 2010 should be devoted to the collection of information,” Chief Building Official Ian Trickett said in a report to Central Frontenac Council on the subject of setting up a mandatory septic re-inspection program in the township.

While neighbouring townships have opted for programs wherein inspectors offered residents the opportunity to have their older septic systems inspected, members of Central Frontenac Council have pointed out for years that voluntary programs miss all the systems that really cause the problems.

Last fall Central Frontenac Township gave approval in principle for a mandatory inspection program. The plan was submitted to the township’s solicitor and the local conservation authorities for comment.

At the council meeting on Tuesday May 11, Trickett reported that “no adverse comments” have been received but that “some issues regarding enforcement and penalties for non-compliance require further input.”

He also said there might be conflicts arising from using KFL&A Public Health to administer new septic installations, and the Rideau Valley conservation Authority for re-inspections.

Trickett then proposed that during the upcoming summer two students could be hired and trained to use the township’s existing GPS (Global Positioning System) equipment with which they could position existing tanks, tile beds, well heads and other information for inclusion in the township’s electronic mapping system.

“Participation in the data collection program would be entirely voluntary; refusal would not be contested, but would be recorded,” Trickett said.

The program will focus solely on waterfront areas.

Trickett also proposed that an ad hoc committee be formed over the summer to work on developing a full-fledged inspection program. The committee will include a council member, interested residents, and representatives from lake associations, and will be chaired by Trickett.

In response to Ian Trickett’s report, Councilor Gary Smith said he is concerned that the township is “starting to shunt this onto a siding. We’ve had input and now we are going to seek more input. By putting in two students out there to do some mapping, I’m afraid the substantive matters will not be addressed until perhaps we are beyond the mandate of this council.”

Smith also said he was concerned about a committee of Council being chaired by a member of staff, and pointed out that the property owners associations had already been consulted and would see further consultation as a delaying tactic.

Mayor Gutowski said she supported the report. “I do think we need to conduct discussions with the Public Health Unit about this before we jump in. I also think it would be too late for us to engage a contractor, such as the conservation authority, to do the inspections this summer.”

Township Chief Administrative Officer John Duchene said that instead of a committee, staff might make efforts to contact the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and the KFL&A Public Health to iron out the system.

With this change, Council approved Trickett’s report.

Province will not tolerate development on new private roads, planner says.

Central Frontenac Township’s planning consultant Glenn Tunnock made a presentation to Council concerning the creation of new building lots on private roads.

He said that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would not accept the township’s updated Official Plan as long as the plan does not prohibit the construction of new private roads, and it is also not particularly keen on the addition of new building lots on existing private roads.

“The ministry is adamant that new private roads should not be permitted, but they are a bit more open on the development of new lots on existing private lanes,” Glenn Tunnock said.

There are 158 private lanes in Central Frontenac and they present a series of legal, financial and safety concerns for the township, Tunnock said.

The legal problems come from the question of who owns these roads, which often traverse several pieces of private property, and the financial concerns come from the question of who pays to maintain them. The safety concern comes from the fact that many private roads are too narrow for fire or emergency equipment to get through to the houses that are located on them.

Tunnock recommended that the township prohibit development on new private roads, except where a condominium agreement could be reached that would commit all the landowners involved to a specific maintenance regime. He also recommended that lot creation on existing private roads be permitted only under certain conditions and only where it serves to “round out existing development”.

Deputy Mayor John Purdon was not comfortable with these proposals.

“Most of the development we have had in recent years has been on private roads,” he said, “ and we do not know how many properties we have left on the existing private roads. I’m concerned that we would put a lid on development in our township if we did this, and we need more development,” Purdon said.

“I would like to see more information about our stock of building lots before agreeing to this. I also think we need a public meeting where we make our citizens aware that something as dramatic as this, something that could limit their ability to develop on some of their properties, is coming forward,” said Councilor Gary Smith.

“I think we have to face the reality of how we are going to have to get on with our lives,” said Mayor Janet Gutowski. “The province is insisting on this, and they call the shots. We will still have tools for development, such as ‘plans of subdivision’ wherein the road is built by the developer to the township standard and the township takes ownership of it, as well as the condominium agreements that we have already talked about.”

Council accepted Tunnock’s report and will be inviting a representative from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to a future meeting, which will be advertised widely so the public can be made aware of the new rules.

Clarification re Oso dump life

At a previous meeting a report from the engineering company Golder and Associates estimated the life of the Oso dump on Crow Lake Road at between 8 and 24 years and councilors were concerned about the large discrepancy in potential lifetimes for the site.

A response from Golder explained the discrepancy. The 8-year figure comes from a car count at the dump that was supplied to Golder by the township. The 24-year figure came from “topographical survey methods” which are more accurate, but a detailed survey was done in 2009, before the closure of the Elbow Lake waste site, which increased the amount of waste coming to the Oso site.

The response said that a detailed topographical study is scheduled for 2011, and at that time a more definitive estimate about the dumping life of the site will be prepared.

Arden improvements – Councilor Gary Smith asked Public Works Manager Mike Richardson if his department could develop a plan for comprehensive improvements to the sidewalks, streets and other municipal infrastructure in the Village of Arden beyond the limited repairs on two streets that are planned for this year and next.

“Do we have a commitment from Public Works for Arden?” Smith asked

“The quick answer is yes,” said Richardson. “For the benefit of this and the future council we can look at a number of scenarios that demonstrate the work that needs to be done. But it will then be up to Council.”

Mayor Gutowski moved that the public works manager develop a plan and that Council adopt it.

Councilor Philip Smith wondered why only Arden would be considered for improvements. “Why not Parham and Tichborne?” he asked.

“Parham and Tichborne are hamlets with less infrastructure than Arden,” said Gutowski. “You can’t really compare them with Arden.”

The motion was approved.