South Frontenac COW - Feb 14/23

Wilma Kenny | Feb 22, 2023

Welcome to Inverary: Development Proposal Raises Concerns

A public meeting was called to receive questions and comments about a proposal to rezone a 2-acre vacant property in Inverary, to permit two dwelling units (1056 and 846 sq ft) in a single detached building, and a third dwelling unit (932 sq ft) in an accessory building. Both buildings would share well and septic.

Councillor Ruttan asked how a newly-constructed housing unit could be considered ‘affordable’: “Is this going to be the direction of our future?” Mayor Vandewal noted that Inverary already had eight rental units and a business on one well and septic field. Planner Christine Woods said that units of this size might be attractive to seniors looking to downsize but wanting to remain in the community. Neighbour Greg Snider said “this is just a concept some guy’s drawn; what if it can’t meet requirements?” Vandewal answered “If requirements can’t be met, the project won’t be approved.” Snider added that the development would diminish the value of his property and affect his privacy. “Your concerns are documented,” replied Vandewal.

Neighbour Greg Dicks expressed concern that the septic system might pollute a nearby creek “If each unit had six people, that could mean 18 people all using one septic system. Everybody moves here to have property to enjoy: I’m not opposed to development, but this isn’t the appropriate place for it. Is any 2-acre lot free to have 3 or 4 apartment units? Are these the new rules going forward?” Vandewal replied that intensification was definitely going to happen in South Frontenac. He added that he doubted that 18 people would fit into these three small units.

The neighbour from across the road, Roger Romero, who moved there in 2020, said that it was doubtful that people living in poverty could afford to rent brand-new homes, and South Frontenac did not have public transport. He was concerned about pollution from the new septic system and rainwater run-off. Also, he said more children would mean additional pressure on Perth Road Public School: “Schools have capacity issues: they’re already filled with unqualified people…more students will perpetuate the problems of poor education.” (The planner said the School Board had expressed no concern about a few more children coming to the school.)

Last to speak was the applicant, Paul Ireland, also an Inverary resident. He said he was disappointed in the assumption that the buildings would attract low rental applicants, “those type of people.” Noting that South Frontenac has a rental vacancy rate of 0.6%, he said he hoped to attract people who were looking for rental units with modest amenities, or perhaps were wanting to downsize. He said that the units would be wheelchair accessible. He is looking at a variety of sewage treatment options, and his intent is to have the building look like a single-family home. The garage is to have fewer vehicles parked outside. Counsellor Pegrum asked how many bedrooms there would be; Ireland replied that there would be five in total. He added that the well pump test showed 13 gallons per minute: 3.5 is the flow required for a family unit. In response to Morey’s query about accessibility, Ireland said the units would have level entry and wider doors, but that they would not be fully barrier free. He added that each unit would have one bathroom.

The public meeting was closed: a report with recommendations will come to Council at a later date.

South Frontenac Wayfinding

Adam Fine, consultant from Fathom Consulting, a company specializing in community signage, brought a preliminary report to Council. Their goals for South Frontenac are: to design consistent informational signage to: welcome visitors and newcomers, emphasize ‘the brand”, and unify municipal assets, while increasing friendliness and safety in a sustainable, affordable manner. He showed some preliminary sign designs, but emphasized that layout, fonts and colours would be refined at later stages of the process.

He did note that current signage in the Township reflects a wide history of shapes and styles: “In a few cases, you really have to know what you’re looking for, before you can find the directional sign…” His team is looking only at municipally owned and operated facilities, not private businesses.

One of Council’s concerns was related to the village signs that several communities have independently purchased and cared for: CAO Fragnito said the township would have to address this with the individual communities; perhaps they could work out some way to repurpose the current signs. Also several councillors, particularly Councillor Morey, weren’t sure about the idea of community festive banners that could be seasonally changed, saying that they would add to the Township Public Works Department’s workload, taking up time and resources for installation, removal and storage.

In summary, Mayor Vandewal said “This looks brilliant: in a general sense, is Council supportive?” Council agreed.

2022 Roads Need Study

Troy Dunlop, Manager of Technical Services and Infrastructure, presented a brief summary of WSP/Golder’s 162-page Road Needs Study, with the following recommendations:

1. That Council receive the 2022 Comprehensive Road Needs Study prepared by WSP/Golder and dated December 8th, 2022 for information;
2. That Council direct staff to develop a new 5-year capital plan for hard surface roads which will be informed by the findings of the WSP Golder Report;
3. That Council direct staff to develop a new capital plan for gravel roads assets which will be informed by the findings of the WSP Golder Report; and
4. That staff utilize the Gravel Roads Classification Matrix tool when considering upgrading gravel roads to a hard surface.

“We have tough decisions ahead, but they will be data-driven,” said Dunlop. Councillors Pegrum and Ruttan both expressed approval of a clear, long-range plan based on hard data, all of which is available to the public. Mayor Vandewal reminded them that “It’s always about money, but it’s important that we show we’re progressing in the right direction even though it’s by starting with ditching and culverts.”

Costly Sidewalks: Hartington and Harrowsmith

Dunlop’s second report provided more information about sidewalk projects under consideration for the Village of Hartington and Village of Harrowsmith and sought Council’s direction on the advancement of these projects in 2023. In opening, Dunlop reminded Council that a sidewalk in Battersea had been identified as first priority for construction in 2021, but did not get done for various reasons including pandemic impacts, insufficient staffing resources and lack of available funding.

During the summer of 2022, Public Services retained Jewell Engineering to complete the surveys for the Hartington and Harrowsmith corridors, in order to secure reliable grading and drainage information and provide the engineering control for future sidewalk layout and construction. These sidewalk projects together carry base costs in excess of $700,000, and once other work such as engineering and drainage is considered, it is estimated this cost may well reach $900,000.

Councillor Pegrum asked whether there were any opportunities to save money by combining these sidewalk constructions with roadwork, but Dunlop said that none of the roads in the three locations were slated for any upgrades. Councillor Leonard said that while he agreed with the urgency of safe sidewalk access to the community mailboxes in Harrowsmith, he did not want to see the Hartington sidewalk “postponed for 5-10 years”. Dunlop said he was not recommending that any of these projects be held up, but he wanted Council to be aware that “there’s a big price for these projects.”

“A big price tag today will be a bigger price tag tomorrow,” said Morey. Vandewal agreed: “Let’s plan for these.”

Bill 23 – Implications for Development Approval Process

Brad Wright, Director of Development Services, presented a 9-page informational report discussing recent changes to the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Development Charges Act, Ontario Land Tribunal Act, and Ontario Heritage Act with Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. The report summarized implications to the Township’s development approval process, and provided action items to mitigate the legislative impacts. There were few comments from Council: full report is available on the Township website, attached to this meeting’s agenda.

There was no discussion of the Building Services Report, which showed a definite increase in building permits issued in 2022, compared to the previous three years.