South Frontenac Council - Feb 06/24

Wilma Kenny | Feb 14, 2024

New Bedford Councillor

Councillor Adam Turcotte of Bedford was sworn in, replacing Councillor Godfrey, who had resigned.

Two Long Public Meetings

Two proposed developments raised a great deal of public concern, expressed by people both attending in person, and online via Zoom.

In Sydenham:

The proposal is for rezoning to permit a six-unit, 3-storey apartment building on a 3600 square metre lot with 34m. frontage on Rutledge Road, across from the schools, south from Wheatley Street. Access would be via an adjoining shared driveway running along the western side of the property, and it would be serviced by municipal water. 

Speaking for developer Harmsen Construction, planner Jason Sands said the project was aligned with the Provincial encouragement of development of affordable housing, and described the property as under-utilized and a ‘perfect location’ close to schools and with access to municipal water. He described the septic system as a “state of the art tertiary system’, designed to produce ‘drinkable effluent”.

Public Services have noted that stormwater management would need to be addressed, but had no concerns from a traffic and serviceability perspective. 

The Limestone District School Board has asked for assurance that the school parking lot would not be used for overflow parking for the building residents, and has “concerns about existing traffic issues.”

Mayor Vandewal said he was in full support of the proposal: “This is exactly what we’re doing (in terms of development)- the village already has one fully-rented six-plex, and as a school-bus driver, I blame parental traffic for the school-related traffic problems in the area. Ten more cars isn’t going to change this.”

Neighbouring landowner Darcey Snider made a strong point that the access lane along the western side of the property should be 64 feet wide, because it has the potential to become an extension of Wheatley Street, and offers the only access from Rutledge Road to his property of 80 acres directly south of the village, much of which falls within the village’s designated development area.

T. Cowan, a nearby neighbour had concerns about noise, light pollution and the possibility of a dumpster which could attract rodents and coyotes. “The main thing is that there is no housing crisis in Sydenham: the housing crisis is in Ontario, in Kingston, Toronto etc, not Sydenham. This won’t encourage walkability, but it will lower our property values.”

( At one point Mayor Vandewal interjected “Housing crisis? There are no places available for rent in Sydenham: that indicates a need.”)

The neighbour to the immediate south of the property, owner of the access right-of-way, said that although she was not opposing the development, she was concerned about trespassers coming into her yard, as well as the dangers of adding more users to what is an already hazardous traffic entry point onto Rutledge Road. She sought assurance that all driveway upgrades would be made at the cost of the applicant.

Neighbours Stevens and Patterson, who live immediately to the east of the site expressed very strong opposition. Describing themselves as “caretakers of the Hicks/Leonard house”, they argued that the proposed apartment complex was not in keeping with the heritage elements of the Township. “There are no other buildings in Sydenham this tall. It would seriously impact the privacy of our ‘country forever’ home; it doesn’t fit with the village.” They said that some of their neighbours refused to comment on the proposal because they feared reprisal from the Township, and they agreed that this sort of infill lowered existing housing values.

Mayor Vandewal said, “The township is planning to build 100 housing units right in the village of Verona, and these won’t even be on Municipal water.”

On Campground Lane, Bob’s Lake

This is a request from Caivan Properties Holding for a zoning amendment to permit the development of tourist and event facilities including a 4-room hotel, a lodge with a restaurant and conference centre (later referred to by the presenter, as having the capacity for up to 700), seven cabins, a new septic system and ‘associated parking and amenity areas,’ on Long Bay, a narrow shallow stretch of water adjoining Bob’s Lake. 

The Township’s background information notes some changes already made to the property without township approval: the access crosses an unopened road allowance with no license agreement and a new entrance has been constructed without Township approval. A number of natural heritage and possible archeological sites need further assessment.

Mayor Vandewal commented that a conference centre to accommodate up to 700 participants would amount to “an enormous amount of traffic and people.” 

Presenter Lalonde quickly deleted a marina from the proposal.

There were numerous responses from Bob’s Lake residents and cottagers: in person, on Zoom, and in writing: none were in favour of the proposal. Lynn Watson, representing the more than 250 members of the Greater Bob’’s and Crow Lake Association, suggested that any further development should occur exclusively in already-disturbed areas, and asked to be kept current on this proposal. Others spoke of shoreline erosion, light and noise pollution, environmental damage, septic pollution and dangers of increased watercraft use by people unaware of local lake hazards. One noted that although the speed limit on Burridge Road was 80 km/hr, in reality the road is a narrow, unpaved lane with no shoulders. When one person questioned plans for the neighbouring lot owned by the same developer, Mayor Vandewal reminded him that this meeting is dealing only with this current proposal.

Staff will bring a more detailed report considering applicable policy and public comments, and will provide a recommendation to Council about this application at a future meeting. 

Zoning Bylaw Amendment: Doris Smith Lane, Loughborough Lake

This 3.9 hectare property currently has two cottages, two sewage systems, four sheds and a garage. All but the garage are set back less than 15 metres from the high-water mark.The proposal is to permit redevelopment of the property by removing the cottages, septic systems and three of the sheds, and constructing a house (2650 square feet)and a new sewage system, both located well back from the high-water mark. The garage, although built without Township permission, is well set back.

The Cataraqui Conservation Authority  requested a detailed site plan to assure that the development will be well distanced from a wetland on the property, and will require a permit for any changes to the existing driveway.  

The one comment, from a neighbour, was fully positive.

Meeting Time Extended

The public meeting portion of the agenda ended at 9:50 pm: a motion was approved to extend the meeting time past 10:00.

Council agreed to postpone the “Rise and Report” portion of the agenda, and moved to go into closed session. 

Your reporter and the attending staff members were happy.