Last year at about this time, a very successful “Fire Extinguisher Day” was held at the Ompah Community Centre. Glenna Shanks from Perth Fire Extinguisher Service was there to inspect home and cottage owners’ fire extinguishers, and to service them if necessary. In addition, the North Frontenac Fire Department was present with fire prevention information. They also provided an opportunity for people to try out using fire extinguishers on a real fire. Lots of people took advantage of the day and came from far and wide to do so.

May 21 will see a similar event at the Ompah Community Centre this year. According to Rick and Debbie Morey, who organize the day, quite a number of people who attended last year were surprised to learn that their extinguishers were either completely non-functional, or needed recharging. Even if your extinguisher indicates that it is fully charged, this is not always the case. Lots of people also discovered that they didn’t really know how to use a fire extinguisher. Even if they could get it to discharge its foam, how to apply this foam to a real fire was not as straightforward as they had believed. Being able to try out an extinguisher on a real fire was an eye-opening experience that many appreciated.

So, come out on May 21, between 9 and 12, to take advantage of this chance to make your home or cottage much safer in the case of a fire. A small fee will be charged for the inspection. If you have any questions give Rick or Debbie a call at 613-701-3648.

More dust is raised by a little housekeeping

Once again Council chambers were crammed full of lakeshore residents responding to Planner Lindsay Mills’ proposal to make ‘housekeeping ‘ changes to the Official Plan. These changes: 1) would not permit buildings within the 30-metre setback to be taken down and reconstructed; 2) define a property as vacant once more than 50% of the load-bearing walls have been removed from a building within the setback (and therefore the structure would not be replaceable); and 3) remove section 5.11 which permits replacement of waterfront structures which have been destroyed by natural disasters. (Thus requiring a minor variance from the Committee of Adjustment, which has the power to deny applications.)

Thirteen delegates made spoken presentations and nineteen others filed letters, only one of which was in any way supportive of the proposed changes.

Mills’ presentation showed a picture of a seriously derelict building as an example of a structure the owner may have deliberately neglected in order to be able to rebuild, with the implication that this was a recurring problem. Jeff Canton noted that this situation was already addressed under the Township’s “safe properties’ bylaw (2007-13). “I find it curious that…(the planner) would use the Township’s inaction in the enforcement of a current bylaw to justify amending a different bylaw.”

Some were strongly critical of Council and its staff: “This is an abuse of power,” “The power of this Township is spiralling out of control,” were two such comments. Another speaker said someone had warned him “that the Township would make things difficult for me if I speak out tonight.” Another: “This is more about aesthetics than it is about lessening our impact on the lakes.” “Trying to correct history on the backs of present property owners is not reasonable.”

In reference to Mills’ interpretation of the intent of the Official Plan“…that someday all buildings will be well set back from waterbodies to ensure protection of our lakes…” many said these proposed changes would lower values of lakeshore properties with nonconforming structures, possibly even make them unsaleable. This in turn could result in less taxation income for the Township in the future. One said he would definitely not have bought his home two years ago, if these bylaw changes had been in place then.

Following the delegations, Mayor Vandewal brought a notice of motion that “If a property is destroyed by fire or other act of God the owner need only go to the building department and apply to rebuild on that footprint.”

Council’s decision on Mills’ proposed ‘housekeeping amendments’ has been postponed until the June 7 Council meeting at Councillor Roberts’ request: he will be away on vacation until then.

The Grass is greener for businesses

At Friday’s council meeting, David Bergstrome, from Rocky Shore Cannabis, presented his proposal for a 6,000 square foot marijuana growing facility he wants to build in North Frontenac. He was hoping to get support, in principle, for his idea.

Bergstrome, whose family has been cottaging on Kashawakamak Lake for over 50 years, explained there is a growing need for marijuana in Ontario because of its use medicinally, and because the general public, as well as the medical industry, are becoming more educated about the drug. He said that the proposed 2017 legalization of marijuana for recreational use would stress an already under-supplied market. With the demand continuing to increase, Bergstrome said that the gaps in supply would be “met by illicit producers.”

Bergstrome's proposal for Rocky Shores Cannabis included details regarding the regulations put in place by Health Canada. He explained that plants have to be tracked from the moment they are sown in the ground right up to the shipping process. He also went into detail regarding the security precautions that would need to be in place in order to pass certification. Bergstrome said that all the work would be done within the windowless facility and that the regulations call for perimeter fencing, 24-hour video monitoring, and a reinforced concrete vault in which to store the dried product.

He is currently looking at North Road as a proposed location for the project based on its accessibility and low traffic and, if the project gets the green light, he hopes to use local labour and materials when possible during the construction process. He also said that he would expect one Canada Post truck per day and that it wouldn't negatively impact the traffic in the area.

When asked about potential employment opportunities for locals, Bergstrome said that initially he thinks they would be hiring about three people to trim and tend to the plants, as well as for security.

Bergstrome's long-term vision includes plans to eventually expand to a 60,000 square foot building on the same property.

The power consumption on a growing operation like the one Bergstrome has proposed is big. He said that with a proposed layout of one 1000-watt lamp every six feet, and the current price of electricity, he has estimated his hydro bill at over $100,000 a year.

“Any business that can benefit the township is good for us,” Councilor Wayne Good said.

Council voted in favour of endorsing the proposal in principle.

Disaster Recovery
Petr Sizow, a representative from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), made a presentation to Council on Friday regarding two new programs they launched in March of this year.

The Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians (DRAO) and Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA) programs are in place to help municipalities and their residents deal with rebuilding and operations in the aftermath of a disaster. Under the MDRA program, the municipality can request funding from the province to cover incremental costs not originally budgeted for if the area is hit by a disaster. Eligible expenses, under the MDRA, can be: repairing essential infrastructure; engineering assessments; rental vehicles; safety equipment; and repairing supply roads to get goods into the area.

The program only kicks in when the costs incurred are equal to or more than 3% of the municipality's tax levy. Once the eligible expenses hit that 3% threshold then the province covers 95% of the costs related to the disaster.

Some councilors wondered if the program could potentially be helpful in the case of an ice storm, like the one in 1998, or wildfires in the area. Sizow agreed to report back to council with more details.

Potential tax increase for homeowners on dammed lakes

A portion of the costs of maintaining and repairing dams owned by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) could be put on ratepayers that have houses or cottages on the lakes.

The MVCA owns and maintains 11 dams as part of a control system for the Mississippi River water system. In a staff report, Paul Lehman, the general manager of the MVCA, explained that when the dams were constructed, or assumed, by the MVCA, there were provincial grants available to cover 50% of the costs, as well as an additional 35% as a supplemental grant to cover construction, operation, and maintenance costs. Now only the 50% grant is available for operation and construction. This leaves a question mark about who should cover the balance of the money.

“Ottawa is refusing to pay their share of maintaining these dams,” Councilor Gerry Martin said, “...which is flood control for the City of Ottawa. In the Conservation Act, there is a clause that says benefitting municipalities will pay a share of the rehab of the dam in their own municipality.”

One of the dams in need of attention, which was built in 1910, is on Kashawakmak Lake.

“Kashawakamak Lake is a large dam and it needs to be totally replaced,” Martin said, “It's one of the few structures in Ontario built with no steel. It's totally concrete....They're proposing to put a levy on our residents that live, for example, on Kashawakamak Lake, and expect us to cherry-pick all those properties and apply that tax to those properties on Kashawakamak. If this goes through for the Kashawakamak dam, the precedent will be set for other lakes”

“I think we'd better get mentally ready for that,” Councilor John Inglis said.

“I'm totally disgusted,” Mayor Ron Higgins said.

Councilor Martin speculated that the costs could be as high as a $1 million per dam. These costs, if put to North Frontenac ratepayers, would result in outrageous tax hikes. Martin points the finger towards Ottawa and their refusal to contribute to dam rehabilitation upstream but also at the MVCA for not having an asset management plan in place to properly budget for these large infrastructure renewal projects.

“This isn't over by a long shot,” Martin said.

Buckshot Creek culvert replacement on 509

In February of 2015, the township received a grant of up to $288,000 toward replacing the Buckshot Creek culvert on Road 509 through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund. The original estimated cost for the project, when they submitted their application, was $320,000, which included the project management costs, permits, and engineering design.

The township only received two bids on the project, although there was significant interest in the tender when it went out, and both bids were well over budget. The lowest bidder was Crains’ Construction Ltd., in the amount of $473,401.07 including HST. The second quote they received was over $1.6 million.

“A lot of that is our lack of services,” CAO Cheryl Robson said in explaining to Council why the quotes they received were so high. “We don't have accommodations for larger construction firms for their staff to stay here, or even to feed their staff. It makes it really hard. Their costs are going to go up because they have to pay their guys to drive to hotels.”

The replacement of the Buckshot Creek culvert was considered a high priority when a bridge study was done two years ago.

“I'm concerned if you don't move forward with it then the (grant) money might not be available to us,” Robson said.

Council voted in favour of giving the contract to Crains’ Construction.

Council votes in favour of new township building

Norh Frontenac Council chose to move forward with adding a 2265 square foot addition to the existing township building as well as renovating the existing structure in a three-phase construction project.

Jeremy Neven, the Chief Building Official, and Larry Gaines, the architect who designed the new building and addition, were at the meeting on Friday to discuss any questions and concerns that Council had about the designs.

Neven explained that the construction project would be rolled out in three phases. The first stage is building the new addition on the current township building. The second phase is renovating the exterior of the existing building including windows, doors, and insulation. The final phase is renovating the interior of the existing building, which includes mechanical upgrades, electrical work, and finishing.

Gaines spoke about how he attempted to incorporate some of North Frontenac's character into his design with a proposed timber frame structure over the entrance-way and stonework on the exterior.

“The project costs have certainly accelerated,” Councilor Dennis Bedard said.

One of the proposals that Bedard brought to Council back in August of last year was to add an additional 1,500 square feet to the existing building at a cost of $900,000.

“My gut feeling, in terms of doing renovations, is it's never under. It's always over,” said Bedard.

“You're absolutely right but I think we've accounted for that,” Gaines told Bedard.

“I want to know how we're going to pay for this,” Bedard said. “$1.3 million. I'm really uncomfortable with that dollar figure.”

“Reserves and loans,” Mayor Ron Higgins said.

North Frontenac Treasurer Kelly Watkins said that a loan would cost $59,000 a year for 25 years on a 3.24%, guaranteed, interest rate.

“If we don't do something this year then it gets more expensive next year,” Mayor Higgins said.

“Would it be worth waiting to see if we can lessen the burden on these taxpayers to see if we can get federal and provincial grants?” Councilor Bedard asked. “I don't know about you folks but constituent-wise I think a lot of people are not in favour of that kind of money being spent on a building.”

“I've had more positive comments on a new building than renovating this old building,” Councilor Gerry Martin said.

Currently there is no funding available to help subsidize the construction project.

“I don't think we're going to get a better deal than this and I'm going to support this,” Councilor John Inglis said.

“No decision like this is going to please everybody but we need to do something,” Mayor Higgins said.

Councilor Vernon Hermer expressed his worries about financing the project as well because of increased policing costs and because “the economic conditions in this municipality are bleak.”

“We still have to remember we're looking at the working conditions of the staff in this existing building,” Councilor Wayne Good said. “Going through another winter or two is unacceptable.”

“I think we all agreed that we had to do something when we started on this journey,” Mayor Higgins said.

“That 'something' has gotten very highly priced,” Bedard said.

In a recorded vote, requested by Bedard, the motion was carried 5-2, with councilors Bedard and Hermer voting against the proposal.

Mayor Higgins hopes that they will break ground on the project this year.

Fire department operational review gets heated

Eric Korhonen, North Frontenac's Fire Chief, presented his operational review of the fire department at Friday's meeting.

Terry Gervais, a former Napanee fire chief, who acted as a consultant on the report, and praised Korhonen's work on it, was in attendance as well to answer any questions that Council had. Gervais told Council that the report Korhonen prepared would have cost the township about $30,000 had they outsourced it.

Korhonen outlined in his review that a decline in the number of residents, and an aging population, as well as a diminishing number of recruits and increased training expectations have increased the stress on the department.

Korhonen made some suggestions aimed at improving the current operations of the department and these included being more flexible in hiring and possibly attracting seasonal residents during the department’s peak busy months. The area has an increase in 7000 people during the peak season, Korhonen said, between April and October, which also coincides with a decrease in volunteers.

Korhonen also proposed that the department switch from their current point system to paying volunteers an hourly rate, which would vary from $16/hour for a junior volunteer up to $22/hour for an officer.

The fire chief also recommended replacing three volunteer deputy chiefs with a paid, part-time assistant fire chief, which ruffled some feathers.

“Will that not have an effect on the morale of the fire department?” Councilor Hermer asked.

Councilor Bedard was quick to go on the attack about Korhonen's report, suggesting that the survey of other fire departments that was used as the basis for a lot of Korhonen's study was incomplete and should not have been used.

“A question that should have been asked [in the survey] is 'Do you have a full-time fire chief?',” Bedard said. “How many similar sized townships have a full-time chief, let alone a part-time chief? This report, has it been reviewed? Have you asked for input from the deputy fire chiefs? Did they provide input on this?”

“Yes,” Korhonen responded.

The report showed that the department, made up of 42 volunteer firefighters, is currently meeting emergency response standards. He said that the department is well-equipped and well-maintained.

Councilor Inglis made a motion to defer the decision until the next meeting.

“What is the big panic on this?” Bedard asked.

The motion to defer was carried.

Budget in, levy up – tax rate flat

After a 30-minute in camera session with two residents, Reeve Henry Hogg wasted no time going through the agenda at a meeting of Addington Highlands Council in Flinton on Monday, May 2, racing through in 15 minutes.

Among the items on the agenda was the 2016 budget, which had been the subject of a special meeting three days earlier. All that was left to do was pass the document, which will see the levy to Addington Highlands ratepayers go up $140,000, from $2.4 million in 2015 to $2.53 million in 2016, an increase of 5.58%. Overall spending by the township will top $5.4 million in 2016, with local taxes being topped up by $1.2 million that comes from “pre-levy revenues” such as transfers from L&A County for road maintenance, user fees, etc. and a $1.65 million subsidy from the Province of Ontario.

Among the issues that were noted as contributing to this year's increase is a $108,000 (17%) increase in OPP costs. There were also increases to the fire budget and to the environmental services budget.

Reeve Hogg pointed out that although the levy is up by over 5%, that increase will not be reflected in the tax rate, which is flat. Individual ratepayers will see an increase based entirely on the amount of assessment increase that is applied to their property this year by the Ontario Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Joint Council meeting over fire services

A meeting was held last month between Addington Highlands and North Frontenac Council to discuss issues that have arisen in the funding of the Kaladar-Barrie Fire Department, which serves residents in both townships. Four motions came out of that meeting for consideration by each township. One dealt with a review of core services delivered by the department and two dealt with fees charged for service by the department. A fourth resolution was not related to the fire service, but had to do with medical services that both townships have an interest in. All four resolutions were passed without comment.

Waste site closure pending

At the Denbigh meeting in April, the township's waste site consultants reported that the Kaladar site is reaching the end of its usable life. At the current rate of use, it could be full within five years, but if dumping at the site is restricted to household waste only, eliminating construction and other waste, it may last up to 10 years or more.

Royce Rosenblath said that in light of that report, the township needs to assign staff to deal with all the details of diversion, closure, transfers and necessary changes to the waste site’s Certificate of Approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

“We could use our own staff or consultants to do this, but we need to get on it pretty soon,” he said.

The township office is short-staffed at the moment, but that will change in early June.

Councilor Bill Cox put forward a motion to defer the matter of changes to the Kaladar waste site so that it will come back to the table in early June.

by Wilma Kenny

Request for Road Closure, Storrington

Planner Mills called a public meeting to consider a request by Mr Ulrich of Opinicon Road, who has asked to buy a portion of public road allowance that runs through his property to the shore of Upper Rock Lake, in Storrington. This proposal came before Council March 2015, at which time Council seemed favourable to the closure, because the road allowance falls over a steep cliff at the shoreline. Ulrich was asked to have the property surveyed, which he did (date of survey not stated.)

The survey showed a portion of the road allowance extended further along the shoreline onto the neighbouring lot to the south. The neighbouring owner has expressed interest in purchasing this remnant.

Planner Mills in his report to Council, recommends no decision be made until the survey is revised so the whole road allowance can be shown. The two property owners would need to come to an agreement and submit a new plan, before a road-closing by-law could be considered.

Mr Ulrick’s lawyer Peter Radley spoke, saying it was unfair to drag the decision out any longer: he had spoken to the other property owner’s lawyer more than a year ago, and had asked if they could work together, but nothing further had happened. “Surely you don’t want to see an 80-year old man cry?” he asked. “I can’t think we’ll push you that far,” responded Mayor Vandewal.

Councillor Sleeth said, “It behooves us to move forward.” The matter is to come before Council May 17.

Supporting Local Businesses

In response to a recent situation where a local supplier lost a contract with the Township due to a miscommunication, Councillor Schjerning had proposed a motion which would give preference to bids and tenders submitted by local businesses. The Township solicitor was quick to say that this would be a bad idea, not in keeping with best practice. However, the Corporate Services Committee made two recommendations: that the staff hold an annual education session for local businesses on the Township’s procurement process, and that the Township website develop a procurement newsfeed where vendors could subscribe for notices of upcoming opportunities. Council adopted the recommendations.

Conduct of Public Meetings

Council agreed with CAO Orr’s report on appropriate procedure at public meetings, which in summary, states: “The intent of the public meeting is to gather comment, not resolve the issues, nor to have a debate. The debate comes later, when Council is asked to recommend draft plan conditions.”

Spring Roads

Public Works Manager Segsworth requested and got approval for an additional amount up to $25,000 from the working fund reserve for pulverizing various sections of Township roads that cannot be effectively patched any longer. Three sections considered to be beyond repair are: Randy Clark Road west from Battersea for 1.5 km, York Road, and Buck Bay Road 300 m north of Westport Road to White Lake Road. These will be maintained a loose top roads until they are reconstructed.

NF Resolution Not Endorsed

Council chose not to support North Frontenac’s resolution re the review of the RFP process for the award of renewable energy contracts.

Central Frontenac approves 2016 budget

Central Frontenac will spend over $7.1 million in ratepayers' money in 2016, up from $6.5 million in 2015, a levy increase of 9.3%, according to figures provided by township treasurer, Michael McGovern.

The impact of that increase on ratepayers will be mitigated by smaller increases in Frontenac County and Ministry of Education levies, however. The net impact on the average household, again according to township figures, will be an increase of about $83 in their overall tax bill.

Among the major factors that account for the increase in taxation by the township are increases in OPP costs, which will place upward pressure on the township's budget for the next three years as a new OPP funding model is phased in.

Mayor Frances Smith said that the Rural Mayors' Forum of Eastern Ontario has been working on the OPP funding formula issue in the hopes of making a case for some relief for smaller municipalities going forward.

Mountain Grove Library project moving forward

Thanks in part to a $110,000 grant from the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, Central Frontenac is moving forward with plans to build a new library that will be attached to the Mountain Grove fire hall. The township is matching the federal grant, and at their meeting this week they approved a $32,682 contract with Roney Engineering to design the new addition to the fire hall and provide project management for the build.

In recommending that the sole source contract be awarded to Roney, Fire Chief Bill Young said that the company oversaw the construction of the Mountain Grove fire hall in the first place and did the same job last year for the Parham fire hall, which also includes a library space.

Treasurer Michael McGovern said that given the expertise required for the particular job, sole sourcing the contract to Roney falls within the township's procurement bylaw.

The library expansion to the fire hall was foreseen when the fire hall was originally built.

Mayor Smith said that the Kingston Frontenac Public Library (KFPL) Board should be contacted before the design is finalized and construction begins, as they may have something to say about the space that is being created for their use.

“We didn't do that before building the library in Parham, and that led to some issues along the way, so we should make sure not to do it that way again,” she said.

Parham library soft opening on May 12

Mayor Smith told Council that the KFPL is planning to open the new branch that is co-located with the newly completed Parham fire hall on May 12, and to hold a ceremonial grand opening on May 27.

Later in the meeting, Fire Chief Young said that library crews haven't arrived yet to start putting the new branch in place. “They haven't shown up yet; no shelving has arrived; the space is empty,” he said.

“I'd better give my contact there a call,” said Smith.

Approval in Principle for Sharbot Lake outdoor rink

In line with a request from the Oso (District 3) Recreation Committee, Director of Planning Services/Chief Building Official Jeremy Neven recommended that Council approve the demolition of the privies at the site, as well as the small canteen, which has not operated for several years. He recommended contracting with Perth Septic for portable bathrooms for this summer's ball season, and permitting a donated temporary storage shed to be built.

All of these proposals raised no questions among Council, but a final provision did. That proposal was to approve, in principle, the construction of an outdoor rink and a change room/washroom at the site.

“The committee has raised $10,000 for the project thus far, and they don't want to do any more work on the site until Council approves their main project in Principle,” Neven said.

Chief Administrative Officer Cathy MacMunn said that a number of larger donors are waiting to hear that the project is a go before making commitments.

“The Rec Committee is committed to funding this project entirely through donations,” said Neven.

Councilor Jamie Riddell said, “I am uncomfortable approving this, since it is in effect an approval for the new rink, when we haven't seen any engineering plans, any construction plans or any costing. Don't get me wrong; I support the rink, but I'd like to see something I can work with.”

Neven, and other members of Council, said that Council will ultimately see the final plans and will have another opportunity to look at the project, which will require council's approval to move forward.

The motion was approved, with Riddell voting in favor with the rest of Council.

Parham fairgrounds pavilion approved

The Hinchinbrooke (District 4) Recreation Committee is planning to install a 16' x 30' pavilion to be located behind the existing playground equipment at the fairgrounds near Parham. The committee has raised the money and the building plans were presented with the request for approval. Council approved the request.

“I should point out how much of a pleasure it is to work with both recreation committees [Oso and Hinchinbrooke] on these projects. Not only are they raising all the funds themselves, they are putting in tons of volunteer work making sure everything fits township policies. This kind of commitment from volunteers is a great asset to the township,” Neven said.

EOTA to manage K&P trail from Sharbot Lake to the North Frontenac border

Council approved a proposal from the Eastern Ontario Traills Alliance (EOTA) to assume management of the township trail on the former K&P rail line, from the trail head in Sharbot Lake all the way to the border with North Frontenac, just south of Robertsville. EOTA manages a network of multi-use trails in the region from their base in Tweed and does extensive marketing.

Noise, Refuse, and Safe Properties bylaws

Ken Gilpin, from Frontenac Municipal Bylaw Enforcement appeared before Council to discuss proposed updates to the Refuse and Safe Properties bylaws and the adoption of a new Noise bylaw. In addition, Council members talked about a new Sign bylaw. The matters were all deferred to a future meeting.

30 metres of controversy

Vigorous debate over changes to rules for existing buildings located close to water bodies in South Frontenac

When South Frontenac Planner Lindsay Mills brought forward a package of so-called 'housekeeping' amendments to the township's zoning bylaw in early February, he expected that as much public interest would be generated as was the case in the past when these kinds of amendments have come forward. That is, none at all.

That is what happened for 10 of the 12 amendments in the package that he submitted, but for two of them there have been strong, negative responses.

These responses, totaling over 30 written submissions and 12 or so oral submissions to a meeting of the South Frontenac Committee of the Whole this week, concern changes to the way the township will deal with buildings that are located less than 30 metres away from a body of water.

Since the township adopted its ground-breaking Official Plan in 2005, no construction has been permitted within 30 metres of water bodies, which is something that lake associations encouraged at the time, and still do.

However, those houses and cottages that were already built before 2005, many of which were located within the 30 metre setback, were and still are legal, captured under the term “legal non-conforming”.

The bylaw that has been in place since 2005 says that while these properties are legal, and can be repaired and improved, those improvements cannot include anything that expands their size in any direction.

The change that is being proposed by the township planning department is the addition of a sentence to the existing bylaw, which says “reconstruction of the building is prohibited”. Planner Mills says this was already implied in the existing wording but that it should be made more explicit.

The other change he is proposing is the addition of a definition of when a building ceases to exist, which will be as follows: “Once the walls of an existing structure within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed, the land is considered vacant and the structure cannot be rebuilt within the 30 metre setback.”

In addition, Mills proposes to eliminate a clause in the bylaw that permits the replacement of a building if it were destroyed by “fire, lightning, explosion, tempest, flood or act of God, or a demolition permit” from the township.

Noting that a property owner could leave their property to deteriorate in order to claim it is no longer suitable to live in, and then “argue they should be allowed to reconstruct”, Mills said it would be better to let the township's committee of adjustment deal with this kind of circumstance instead of including it in the zoning bylaw.

“There should be no issue at the committee after any kind of catastrophic event, and the township can minimize the fees we charge in those cases,” he said in a telephone interview this week. “In my experience the committee has only once refused to allow someone to build, and that was a case where there was virtually no dry land to build on.”

The first concerns about the proposed changes came in January from Chief Building Official, Brian Gass.

Gass, who has since left to take a job near Ottawa, said that if residents feel that a bylaw is “unfair or not reasonable” it might lead them to bypass the permit process and build illegally.

“It is proven that illegal construction is one of the most common causes of unsafe construction practices” he wrote.

Over the past few weeks, the Sydenham Lake Association has taken up the issue, recommending that the passage of the bylaw be deferred to make time for a full public airing of opinions. The Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday night was the first of two opportunities for public discussion.

After Lindsay Mills presented his perspective on the proposed changes, Councilor Ron Sleeth spoke in favor of keeping the clause that permits rebuilding properties destroyed or damaged by an 'Act of God’.

Councilor Alan Revill agreed, saying that based upon his building official experience, having a provision for replacement on the same footprint if there had been damage beyond the owners’ control should remain in the bylaw. “There’s increasing chance of this possibility, with climate change,” he said.

He added that in the event of total loss, insurance might not grant full relief if the building were required to move to another site. “Every situation is different; perhaps we can’t legislate for all.”

“Let's not add more layers of bureaucracy.” said Councilor Mark Schjerning.

Sydenham Lake Association member, Jeff Peck, spoke next, setting the tone for the presentations that followed by calling for thoughtful dialogue even if, like himself, the speakers did not agree with Mills’ proposals. Speaking on behalf of the association he said that it was important that this issue receive a full public airing, and that although the township had posted information on its website and in local papers, it was unlikely to reach seasonal residents.

Speaking for himself and not the association, Peck emphasized that owners should have the right to use and maintain their non-compliant properties instead of having to rely on the discretion of a committee of adjustment, should their structure be damaged by an ‘Act of God’.

Earlier, in an interview with the News, he talked about experiences he has had dealing with the existing bylaw on behalf of himself, and relatives and neighbours, where the interpretation of the bylaw by staff made it difficult to properly maintain legal non-conforming properties within the 30 metre setback.

Larry Arpaio of the Bobs and Crow Lake Association congratulated the township on having an Official Plan that is beginning to address the environment and lake quality, but asked whether there was a danger of creating a 2-tier real estate scenario, in which those structures within the 30-metre setback would be of less value than those further from the shore.

Other speakers were concerned about the township’s goal, as stated by Mills, of eventually having all structures located behind the 30-metre setback. Several are using family homes and cottages that are over 100 years old, but have been maintained as viable structures.

Council will hear further delegations at the May 10 COW meeting, and will make their decision at the May 17 Council meeting.

Waste Disposal Site Update

David Bucholtz, of Cambium, Inc. presented the annual update of the township’s waste disposal sites. All of the five active sites: Portland, Loughborough, Bradshaw, Salem and Green Bay are functioning well. Some of the environmental issues at Portland have been addressed by partially capping the site and addressing the challenge of surface water run-off. Its remaining life at the current rate of fill is about 28 years. Loughborough, once it gains compliance for groundwater, has a life of five years left, with the potential of another nine years once if the remaining capacity of phase 2 is realized. Bradshaw has about 11 years' capacity; Salem, 13 years; and Green Bay 18 years. All sites have an attendant’s shelter and a varying range of facilities for recycling materials.

Mayor Vandewal asked whether it would be of any financial gain to fill and close the smaller sites first before continuing with Portland and Loughborough.

Councilor Ron Sleeth asked whether there would be any gain in bringing Storrington’s waste into the township sites, rather than continuing to pay to truck it away.

Bucholz said that neither question can be answered without further research.

Road Allowance Closure Request

Boy Scouts of Canada have asked the township to consider closing and selling to them a fragment of road allowance that runs across the Otter Lake Scout Camp property from their boundary with Frontenac Park to a cliff overlooking the lake. It was discovered when they sought a building permit for a new four-season facility. Council has no objection to closing the road allowance, as it is of no foreseeable use to the township. However, there was no agreement re the price to be charged. Unopened road allowances have a range of four possible rates per square foot, depending on the property’s location in relation to water. Planner Mills was asked to bring a recommendation to the next meeting.

2015 audit results

Howard Allan, from Allan Chartered Accountant, made a presentation to Council on April 20 to discuss his firm's audit of the County for 2015.

“I think we can say that the 2015 audit went well for the County of Frontenac,” Allan told Council. “The management team of the County was very co-operative and I think the County is well served by their staff... Our firm looks after Leeds-Grenville and the County of Lanark, which are both in Eastern Ontario and kind of similar. I would say that the financial position of this County is as strong, or stronger, than those two counties.”

Allen spoke out in favor of the county's long-term financial plan and its reserves policy. “Reviewing your reserves is a very positive step,” he said.

The audit report shows the County sitting with just under $5 million in net financial assets at the end of 2015.

“Our rates of taxation are continuing to fall as assessment increases and re-assessments happen every four years. Even in dollar amounts, the overall (tax) increases have been fairly modest, particularly when you consider our growth,” he said.

He added that the rates of taxation in Frontenac County are much lower than in other counties because of the fact that the lower-tier municipalities look after the road works in Frontenac.

“Often, in other places, there's a big county road system that is looked after by the upper-tier and that has budgetary implications,” he said.

“We had some extra revenue from the OPP that we hadn't planned for,” Councilor Dennis Doyle said. “What happens with that money now that the townships incur the costs for policing? Does that eventually find its way down to the townships?”

“Any amounts that are surplus at the end of the year follow our reserve fund policy,” County Treasurer Marian VanBruinessen said. “Council can consider where those surplus funds go. The reserve fund policy suggests the first order of business is to get the stabilization reserve up to where it should be. The next one is the capital asset plan.”

Allan's report also recommended that the County review its processes regarding the security of electronic records.

County approves new stretchers

Council approved the purchase of new stretchers for their ambulances. After testing out two different brands they chose the Stryker Power Pro XT. The net cost of the stretchers is $735,000, after the County transfers $62,441 out of their equipment reserve. The balance of this is split with the City of Kingston, which will end up paying just over 78% of the cost, or $578,592, leaving $156,408 for the County to cover. The city portion will come to the County over the next eight years, as the County will be paying for the stretchers up front from their reserves.

Planning advisory committee to be formed

Council discussed new changes made to the Planning Act and how best to form a planning advisory committee. In a report prepared by Joe Gallivan, the Director of Planning and Economic Development, it says the intention of the amendments made to the Planning Act is to “improve community consultation” and to promote more “meaningful involvement for the public in the developmental approval process.”

This committee would act as a “connection between the operations of the Planning & Economic Development Department and the strategic direction of Council.”

One suggestion from staff is that the committee be formed by the four mayors as well as three citizens, with one citizen acting as the chair of the committee.

“The composition of such a committee should include some influential members of the community, such as someone from the Frontenac Stewardship Foundation,” North Frontenac Councillor John Inglis said. “I'm generally concerned that we're missing out on larger scale environmental issues in big planning ideas. We all want economic development ... but I think there has to be influential input on planning issues on the environmental side.”

“I want to discuss all proposals on this,” North Frontenac Mayor Ron Higgins said. “I'm not in favour of all four mayors (automatically) being part of it. We need people with expertise in planning.”

“I believe the four mayors are the ones that need to be on this committee,” Warden Frances Smith said. “The sooner we get this in place the better, as there's already stuff coming to us that we don't have a lot of detail about.”

“You really have to be cautious of the makeup of committees because it can really skew what happens in a township if they're going to make the recommendations for planning,” Deputy Warden Ron Vandewal said.

I own 85 acres of land with 1300’ of frontage overlooking Mazinaw Lake, which was purchased by my grandfather in 1933 prior to Hwy #41 being constructed. Towards the top of the escarpment separating the Quinte and Mississippi watersheds, there is a large pond often infested by beavers.

Many years ago, the beavers, (and I have nothing against one of Canada’s national symbols - they were here before we were), built a large dam, which gave way and took out part of Hwy #41, closing it for several days - a hole 25’ wide and 15’ deep. North/south traffic was re-routed via Bancroft, necessitating a five-hour round trip from Denbigh to school in Cloyne. While this was exciting for the children I have talked to since, it could have resulted in a tragedy had a vehicle been passing at the time.

I alerted the clerk and council of Addington Highlands a few years ago that under case law and Ontario Provincial expression on the topic, property owners are not responsible for downstream damage caused by beavers, if such owner did not construct something to cause same.

Recently, it was raised by Council that another property along #41 had a beaver dam that was endangering downstream properties. I quickly sent an e-mail to Clerk and Council, reminding them that to be a good citizen, I had hired a trapper last November to monitor the pond level and to sustainably trap any beaver found. Good thing, as he found the pond at a dangerously high level. After eight trips, he had trapped some of the beaver and lowered the dam by over 2 feet - a huge volume of water. As beaver pelts are virtually worthless, we agreed that I should pay $300 for this work, and I did so happily.

I have not had a response to any of my communications to council. However:

Why has there been no mention at Council about the one beaver dam that caused considerable damage and was a huge risk to travelers - mine?

Where was the Township in monitoring this pond and culling beavers as appropriate?

What if I hadn’t hired the trapper and the dam washed away, damaged the Mazinaw Resort or other property - or worse, killed someone?

Despite being convinced that I do not have a liability, I could go bankrupt trying to defend myself from one or more levels of government suing me with other people's money (taxpayers) for property damage or loss of life.

Why has the Township not acknowledged my communications and its responsibility and liability related to any beaver damage from my pond?