SF’s New Official (draft) Plan: Not Without Controversy

Wilma Kenny | Jul 06, 2022

South Frontenac Council held a special COW meeting on June 28 to review the draft of their new Official Plan, raise questions and plan the timelines for public consultation and final adoption.

The presentation was led by Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services and Rory Baksh, Consultant with Watson and Associates.

The most-discussed topics of public feedback were: Resident services (sewage, roads, internet, etc.); Environmental protection; Lot severances; Settlement areas; Waterfront development; Groundwater/ intake protection; Agricultural protection; Waterfront protection; Climate change, and Short-term rentals.

Outreach to Aboriginal communities identified a number of interests, including: Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering rights; Duty to consult and accommodate; Cultural Heritage and Archeology Notification; Environmental Protection and Conservation; Impacts on Water and Waterlife; Climate Change; Health and Safety of Aboriginal Peoples (MMIW and Child Welfare); Acknowledgement of Traditional Territories and Pre-Contact History; Commitments to a Continued Relationship.

Council concerns included: Lot severances and consent policies • Development servicing • Settlement areas • Agricultural area boundaries and policies • Waterfront protection and CPPS • Timing of moving ahead with public consultation and adoption of the Official Plan.

Baksh reported that Watson & Associates predicted that, due to proximity to Kingston and the 401, South Frontenac population is predicted to grow by 5,440 within the next 30 years. “It is important to plan for growth; to provide appropriate services for both rural and settlement areas.” It is expected that the population increase will be split nearly equally between both areas. He said it was important to have a plan which would help guide future growth.

Consent Policies: No ‘Resetting the Clock”

Since 2000, three rural residential consents, or lot severances, have been permitted from an existing rural lot. No additional allocation of consents are recommended, but policies are proposed to allow infill consents under limited circumstances, eg where there is servicing to support it. Rural property owners will also retain the right to sever any unclaimed consents remaining on their land. In settlement areas, it is expected that plan of subdivision or condominium will be the predominant form of development, though infilling will be encouraged where supported by servicing. (‘to enliven backlots”).

It is intended that these policies will direct growth to settlement areas, where there is easier access to goods, services and employment, and less need for cars. “If all anticipated growth were to be by rural consent severances with 70 meter frontages, then by 2040, the houses strung out along the rural roads would be the equivalent of Kingston to Perth and back.”

The proposed OP identifies 13 “settlement areas”: the major ones are Verona, Sydenham and Inverary; others are Battersea, Harrowsmith, Hartington, Sunbury, Bellrock, Perth Road, Wilmer, Spaffordton, Railton and Petworth. The proposed enlarged settlement boundaries include 1,850 hectares of land available for development.

Council members were not comfortable with this. Councillor Sleeth said he could not believe there was such a large amount of available land within settlements, and plans of subdivision take 5-10 years to develop. Ruttan said that the limit of three would be gone once the OP was accepted, and once the amount of proposed prime agricultural land is set aside, there will be less land for development. (Dodds replied that unutilized consents would remain, and there was an overall increase in the potential for rural development.) Revill said the numbers didn’t add up; Dodds replied that the population projection included both seasonal and permanent residents.

Sutherland asked why people would choose to move into settlement areas while cheaper rural land is available? He said servicing was essential to encourage development in settlement areas.”Developers go to where the land is, and often end up in places that should not be developed.”

Mayor Vandewal said that the only reason to go into hamlets would be because all rural development has been choked off; “Too many ‘city-style subdivisions and we’ll become a suburb of Kingston. No one in this room lives in a settlement area. We’re looking at choking off all rural development. Our current tax rates won’t be sustainable because we won’t have the growth.” He added that a plan of subdivision requires a huge investment. “That’s my opinion, and so far, nobody’s said anything to change my mind.”

Director Dodds said the Provincial planning framework is directing growth to settlement areas, and required “limited development’ in rural areas. When Hastings tried to ‘reset the clock’ on rural severances, the Province forbade it.

Sutherland said that the wording around parks and recreation sounded like they were mainly important for Tourism development: “That the real reason for recreation is to make money.” He asked if it could be reworded to indicate that the Township supports its parks because they are important for the residents. “We didn’t strike the right chord there,” said Baksh; “The new draft will be more in line with recreation for the citizens.”

By the time the meeting had gone on for three hours, final sections were covered very quickly. There was general agreement not to rush and try to pass the new OP before the fall elections: several Councillors said they wanted adequate public consultation, and summer was not the best time to accomplish that. Deputy Mayor Leonard summed it up: “This (process) should not be fast-tracked: we need to take the time to be sure things are done right before it’s put into stone.”

Dodds said she appreciated Council’s candour, and agreed that it was important to not rush the public timeline; “This is a solid first draft.”