Innisfil agenda sept 27 2014 pt1 by DEAN

September 15, 2014

TOWN OF INNISFIL COUNCIL AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 7:15 P.M. PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN OFF CELL PHONES 1.

OPENING OF MEETING BY MAYOR BAGULEY

OPEN FORUM

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (3.1)

Agenda for September 17, 2014. Recommendation (Councillor R. Simpson) That the contents of the agenda for September 17, 2014 be approved as amended with the addition of items 5.1, 7.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

PRESENTATIONS & PETITIONS (5.1)

Brandon Kelley, Team Ontario, 2014 Special Olympic Canada Summer Games. Recommendation (Councillor B. Loughead) That Council congratulates Brandon Kelley on his achievement on being a member of the bronze medal winning Team Ontario Soccer team at the 2014 Special Olympic Canada Summer Games held in Vancouver, British Columbia; and That Council thanks Brandon for being a wonderful ambassador for the Town of Innisfil at this national event.

DEPUTATIONS (6.1)

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee, re: 2013-2014 Successes and Annual Plan. Recommendation (Councillor R. Boynton) That the deputation by the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee regarding the 2013-2014 Annual Accessibility Plan, be received with thanks; and

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

That Council approves the 2013-2014 Annual Accessibility Plan and directs the Clerk to forward it to the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade & Employment.

(6.2)

Innisfil Community Health Committee, re: Committee Update. Recommendation (Councillor M. Baier) That the deputation from the Innisfil Community Health Committee regarding an update on Committee initiatives be received as information.

DELEGATIONS (7.1)

Mr. Franco Zamero, re: Request for Speed Calming Measures on Westmount Avenue. Recommendation (Councillor K. Simpson) That the delegation from Mr. Zamero regarding a request for speed calming measures on Westmount Avenue be received as information.

(7.2)

Mr. Gregory Cox, re: Proposed Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facility. Recommendation (Councillor L. Dollin) That the delegation from Mr. Gregory Cox regarding proposed provisions for a Medical Marihuana Facility be received as information.

CONSENT LIST A.

Adoption of Minutes

(A.1)

Minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Town Wide Provisions for Marihuana Facilities dated September 3, 2014. Recommendation That the minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Town Wide Provisions for Marihuana Facilities, dated September 3, 2014, be approved as printed.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(A.2)

Minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Amendment to Zoning By-Law No. 080-13, as Amended and Draft Plan of Subdivision â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Alcona Capital Properties Inc. dated September 3, 2014. Recommendation That the minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Amendment to Zoning By-Law No. 080-13, as Amended and Draft Plan of Subdivision â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Alcona Capital Properties Inc., dated September 3, 2014, be approved as printed and Council requests the Director of Development to consider the input provided at the Public Meeting and report back in due course.

(A.3)

Regular Council Meeting Minutes dated September 3, 2014. Recommendation That the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting dated September 3, 2014 be adopted as printed.

(A.4)

Closed Session Report 15-14 dated September 3, 2014. Recommendation That the minutes of the Closed Session Report 15-14 dated September 3, 2014 be adopted as printed.

(A.5)

Animal Control Hearing Meeting Minutes dated August 20, 2014. Recommendation That the minutes of the Animal Control Hearing Meeting dated August 20, 2014 be adopted.

Reports of Various Committee, Boards & Commissions

(B.1)

Innisfil Municipal Heritage Committee Report 07-14 dated August 7, 2014. Recommendation That That the Innisfil Municipal Heritage Committee Report 07-14, dated August 7, 2014 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, subject to staff review and confirmation that the applicable resources and funding level is provided within the Council approved Operating/Capital Budget.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(B.2)

Innisfil Community Grant Review Committee Report 02-14 dated April 7, 2014. Recommendation That the Innisfil Community Grant Review Committee Report 02-14, dated April 7, 2014 be received and the recommendations therein be approved.

(B.3)

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report 07-14 dated August 12, 2014. Recommendation That the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report 07-14, dated August 12, 2014 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, subject to staff review and confirmation that the applicable resources and funding level is provided within the Council approved Operating/Capital Budget.

Standard Requests

(C.1)

Request for Road Closure, re: 2014 Alcona Santa Claus Parade. Recommendation That the correspondence from ICEcorp dated August 13, 2014 requesting authorization to hold the 19th Annual Alcona Santa Clause Parade on Sunday, November 30, 2014 be received; and That Council has no objection to the temporary road closure of Innisfil Beach Road from the 25th Sideroad to Innisfil Beach Park (north side only) from 12:00 pm to 1:15 pm; Innisfil Beach Road to Jans Boulevard from 1:15 pm to 3:00 pm for the parade route; and the use of 25 Sideroad South and Lakelands Avenue as an alternate route to Innisfil Beach Park for the delivery of participants in the parade on November 30, 2014, subject to all the necessary requirements being met; and That By-law No. 100-14 be adopted to give effect to this recommendation.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(C.2)

Correspondence from ICE Corp requesting authorization to hold a Fireworks Display on December 31, 2014 at the Innisfil Recreation Complex. Recommendation That the correspondence from ICE Corp dated August 13, 2014 be received; and That Council approves ICE Corps request to hold a Fireworks Display on December 31, 2014 from 7:00-8:00 p.m. at the Innisfil Recreational Complex provided all municipal requirements are met.

(C.3)

Cameron Seis, 1st Stroud Scout Group Council Discretionary Fund Application. Recommendation That the Council Discretionary Fund Grant Application from Cameron Seis, 1st Stroud Scout Group in the amount of $1000 be received; and That the funding request be approved.

(C.4)

Dirk Seis, 1st Stroud Scout Group Council Discretionary Fund Application Recommendation That the Council Discretionary Fund Grant Application from Dirk Seis, 1st Stroud Scout Group in the amount of $1000 be received; and That the funding request be approved.

(C.5)

Paige Pirie, Team Agropoli 14 Girls Soccer Team Council Discretionary Fund Application. Recommendation That the Council Discretionary Fund Grant Application from Paige Pirie in the amount of $1000 be received; and That the funding request be approved.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

Staff Reports

(D.1)

Staff Report DSR-140-14 (Planning) re: Revised Final Commercial Water Taking Policies. Recommendation That Council adopt the revised commercial water taking policies contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 12 (By-law No. 057-14) subject to approval from the County of Simcoe.

(D.2)

Staff Report DSR-154-14 (Communications & Customer Service) re: Repeal Web Site Content Policy. Recommendation That Council repeal the Website Content Policy (CP.09-05), as described in staff report DSR-154-14.

(D.3)

Staff Report DSR-155-14 (Planning) re: Updates to the Town‟s Antenna System Siting Policy. Recommendation That DSR-155-14 be received by Council; and That Council approve the update to the Town‟s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03), to reflect amendments to Industry Canada‟s antenna tower siting procedures.

(D.4)

Staff Report DSR-156-14 (Planning) re: Memorandum of UnderstandingTown and LSRCA/NVCA. Recommendation That DSR-156-14 be received by Council; and That the Chief Administrative Officer sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), as attached, subject to final review and minor editing; and That the Chief Administrative Officer sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the Nottawasaga Valley Region Conservation Authority (NVCA), as attached, subject to final review and minor editing.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(D.5)

Staff Report DSR-161-14 (Planning) re: Request to extend Draft Plan Approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision I-T-0703 (Alonzi). Recommendation That Report DSR-161-14 be received; and, That the Town of Innisfil advise the County of Simcoe that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0703 (Alonzi) dated November 22, 2010 for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 22, 2015 as outlined in staff report DSR-161-14.

(D.6)

Staff Report DSR-162-14 (Planning) re: Request to extend Draft Plan Approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision I-T-88008 (Innisfil Executive Estates). Recommendation That Report DSR-162-14 be received; and, That the Town of Innisfil advise the County of Simcoe that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-88008 (Innisfil Executive Estates) dated November 5, 2013, for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 6, 2015 as outlined in staff report DSR-162-14.

(D.7)

Staff Report DSR-163-14 (Planning) re: Belpark Construction Ltd. Lift Holding 'H' – 43T-98005. Recommendation That Report DSR-163-14 be received; That Council approve the Application by Belpark Construction Ltd. to lift the Holding („H‟) provision from lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M-394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil, Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (43T-98005); and, That By-law No. 096-14 be adopted to give effect to the recommendation.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(D.8)

Staff Report DSR-164-14 (Engineering) re: End Field Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (“H”) Provision. Recommendation That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with 1315076 Ontario Inc. for the End Fields subdivision upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-164-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant in the amount of twenty (20) residential units for the End Fields subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges. That Council deems the Holding („H‟) provision on the subject lands in Bylaw No. 084-13 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

(D.9)

Staff Report DSR-165-14 (Engineering) re: Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Agreement. Recommendation That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with 1820839 Ontario Inc. for the Innisfil Executive Estates subdivision as outlined in DSR-165-14; dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Stroud Municipal Water System in the amount of thirty eight (38) residential units for the Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision at a cost of $1,500 per

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

residential unit due at building permit issuance; and That Council approves the single source procurement award for the Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) to 1820839 Ontario Inc.

(D.10)

Staff Report DSR-166-14 (Engineering) re: Pratt Alonzi Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (“H”) Provision. Recommendation That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with Crisdawn Construction Inc. for the Alonzi subdivision upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-166-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of one hundred and fifty two (152) residential units for the Alonzi subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges; and That Council deems the Holding („H‟) provision on the subject lands in Bylaw No. 166-12 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

(D.11)

Staff Report DSR-167-14 (Engineering) re: Previn Count 2, Phase 2A Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (“H”) Provision. Recommendation That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with SanDiego Homes Inc. for Previn Court 2 Phase 2A – Ralston Loop upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-167-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of thirty-five (35) residential units for the Previn Court 2 Phase 2A subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges; and That Council deems the Holding („H‟) provision on the subject lands in Bylaw No. 058-03 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting; and That Council authorizes the deletion of reference to the Phase 2A lands from the original Subdivision Agreement with 301099 Ontario Limited, operating as Previn Court Homes.

(D.12)

Staff Report DSR-169-14 (Development) re: Town Wide CIP Report. Recommendation That Staff Report DSR-169-14 regarding the Town-wide Community Improvement Plan, be received for Council‟s information.

(D.13)

Staff Report DSR-171-14 (Planning) re: Alcona Downs 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision Extension. Recommendation That Report DSR-171-14 be received; and, That the County of Simcoe be advised that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0603 (Alcona Downs 2), dated May 6, 2011 and redlined July 17, 2013, for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 6, 2015, as outlined in staff report DSR-171-14.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(D.14)

Staff Report DSR-172-14 (Planning) re: Medical Marihuana Production Facility Provisions. Recommendation That Staff Report DSR-172-14 be received; and That Council adopt By-Law No. 080-14 to amend the Town‟s Zoning ByLaw with provisions for the siting of medical marihuana production facilities in „Industrial General‟ and „Industrial Business Park‟ zones within the Town.

Other By-laws

(E.1)

Revised Purchasing By-law. [Ref: Staff Report DSR-115-14 dated July 9, 2014.] Recommendation That By-law No. 071-14, being a by-law to to establish and maintain a bylaw concerning the procurement of goods, services and construction, be adopted.

Consideration of a Closed Session

(F.1)

Consideration of a Resolution to hold a "Closed Session" Meeting. Recommendation That Council hold a “Closed Session” meeting as provided for by the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the Town‟s Procedural By-law 07711, immediately following this Council meeting at the Town Hall, to deal with: a) Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board.  1145 Innisfil Beach Road

Information List

(G.1)

Info List 16-14 dated September 17, 2014. Recommendation That Recommendations G.1 through to G.25 on information List 16-14 dated September 17, 2014 be adopted as printed; and

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

That Recommendation G. 26 through to G.32 on Supplementary Info List 16-14A dated September 17, 2014 be adopted as printed.

Consent List Continued (8.1)

Consent List Recommendation Recommendation (Councillor R. Boynton) That the Consent List for September 17, 2014 and the Recommendations contained therein be adopted as Resolutions of Council.

(8.2)

Resolve to Committee of the Whole. Recommendation (Deputy Mayor Davidson) That Council resolve into the Committee of the Whole.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Business Items (9.1)

Staff Report DSR-157-14 (Treasurer/CFO) re: Section 356/357 Property Tax Write-offs. Chair: Item 9.1 is a Hearing pursuant to Subsection 357(5) and Subsection 358(9) of the Municipal Act. Chair: Are there any applicants that wish to make representations? Chair: Call for the motion Recommendation (Councillor L. Dollin) That the Treasurer/CFO, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. M25, be authorized to write off the property taxes for the years 2013 and 2014 in the total amount of $111,059.39 for the properties identified in Appendix A to Staff Report DSR-137-14.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(9.2)

Councillor Motion Previously Introduced re: Speed Calming Measures Houston Avenue. Recommendation (Councillor R. Simpson) That Council directs the Town Engineer to investigate speed calming measures and speed reductions along Houston Avenue and any associated costs involved and report back to Council.

II.

Information List Items

III.

County Report (Mayor B. Baguley & Deputy Mayor D. Davidson)

IV.

Supplementary Business (9.3 )

Staff Report DSR-168-14 (Planning) re: Site Plan Control By-law Update. Recommendation (Councillor D. Lougheed) That Staff Report DSR-168-14 be received for Council‟s information; and That Council approve the proposed new Site Plan Control By-law (No. 09814) and repeal the Town‟s Current Site Plan Control By-law (No. 072-07 as amended); and That Council direct Staff to undertake consultation and prepare appropriate policies and provisions for site plan control in other areas of the Town, including shoreline areas.

(9.4 )

Staff Report DSR-141-14 (Clerk Services) re: Joint Audit Compliance Committee. Recommendation (Councillor R. Boynton) That Council approve the Town of Innisfil‟s participation in a joint compliance audit committee with other interested municipalities in south Simcoe County, as described in staff report DSR-141-14; and That Heather MacDonald be appointed to the committee as the representative for the Town of Innisfil; and That by-law No. 087-14 and the Terms of Reference for the South Simcoe Compliance Audit Committee, be adopted to give effect to the recommendation.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

(9.5 )

Staff Report DSR-160-14 (Legal Services) re: Proposed Risk Management Policy. Recommendation (Councillor M. Baier) That Council approve the proposed Risk Management Policy attached to Staff Report DSR-160-14 dated September 17, 2014.

(9.6 )

Zoning By-law Amendment for 3079 14th Line. - Chen [Public Meeting September 17/14]. Recommendation (Councillor L. Dollin) That By-law 094-14 being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by rezoning the lands described as Concession 13, North Part Lot 10, and known municipally as 3079 14th Line in the Town of Innisfil, be adopted.

(9.7 )

Zoning By-law Amendment for Block 64, Registered Plan 51M-786 and Block 87, Registered Plan 51M-905 (0 Gina Street and 0 Jans Boulevard) [Public Meeting September 17/14]. Recommendation (Councillor K. Simpson) That By-law 093-14 being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by rezoning the lands described as Block 64, Registered Plan 51M-786 and Block 87, Registered Plan 51M-905, in the Town of Innisfil, and known municipally as 0 Gina Street and 0 Jans Boulvard, be adopted.

(9.8 )

Part Lot Control Exemption By-law - Block 64, Registered Plan 51M-786 and Block 87, Registered Plan 51M-905 (0 Gina Street and 0 Jans Boulevard). [Public Meeting September 17/14]. Recommendation (Councillor R. Boynton) That By-law No. 095-14, being a by-law to exempt Block 64, Registered Plan 51M-786 and Block 87, Registered Plan 51M-905 in the Town of Innisfil from Part Lot Control, be adopted.

Council Agenda September 17, 2014

Rise Recommendation Recommendation (Councillor D. Lougheed) That Committee rise and return back into the formal Council Session to receive a report on the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole.

VI.

Consideration of the adoption of the recommendations from Committee of the Whole Recommendation (Deputy Mayor D. Davidson) That the Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole for the meeting of September 17, 2014 be adopted as Resolutions of Council.

10.

NOTICE OF MOTIONS

11.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

12.

CONFIRMING BY-LAW (12.1)

By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil at the meeting held on September 17, 2014 Recommendation (Councillor R. Boynton) That By-law No. 101-14, being the confirming by-law of the Regular Council Meeting held on September 17, 2014, be adopted.

13.

ADJOURNMENT

(13.1)

Meeting Adjournment. Recommendation (Councillor M. Baier) That Council adjourn at ______ p.m. until the next meeting or at the call of the Mayor.

Item 6.1 Council Agenda September 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL ANNUAL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN OCTOBER, 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 2014

2101 INNISFIL BEACH ROAD INNISFIL, ONTARIO L9S 1A1 TEL: (705) 436-3710 FAX: (705) 436-7120 Web Site: www.innisfil.ca

Table of Contents

Section 1:

Introduction ................................................................... 3

Section 2:

Message from the Mayor ............................................... 4

Section 3:

Achievements ................................................................ 5

Section 4:

Goals & Commitments to Remove & Prevent Barriers ........................................................................ 11

Section 5:

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee ................. 14

Section 6:

Contact Information .................................................... 14

Section 7:

Appendices .................................................................. 14

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

SECTION 1:

INTRODUCTION

The Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee (IAAC) meets on a monthly basis, except for the month of July. All meetings are open to the public and held at the Town Hall. Interested volunteers can apply and are appointed by Council on a four year term. The IAAC is dedicated to improving accessibility and removing barriers in the Town of Innisfil. They support and advocate for people with disabilities and everyone to ensure a barrier free community. The Committee to explores and participate in ongoing educational conferences, workshops, seminars and webinars related to accessibility and shares information with Council, staff and the community. The Accessibility Committee reviews all Accessibility Standards to ensure timelines and requirements are met. The IAAC is an active Committee that reviews Site Plans to ensure Accessibility Standards are in place and adhered to. To promote disability awareness the Committee developed an educational program known as ‘Disabled for a Day’. This program is conducted at local schools provide information and demonstrations using vision simulation googles, the Ontario Hearing Society’s Unfair Hearing Test and provides hands on experience using wheelchairs. The Committee is proud of their accomplishments and shares this information by providing Council a yearend report.

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

SECTION 2: MESSAGE FROM THE MAYOR

On behalf of the Council of the Town of Innisfil, I would like to express sincere appreciation to the members of the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee for their commitment and time given to making our community fully accessible for people with disabilities by 2025. The hours given to this work make a significant difference in building a welcoming and attractive place to live for everyone. In efforts to raise awareness of people with disabilities in 2014, the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee hosted the Disabled for a Day event with the 1 st Stroud Cub Scouts on March 19, as well as participated in the Annual Innisfil-Rotary Family Fun Day on June 21. Through these events, participants learned first-hand about the daily challenges that many Innisfil residents face. The Committee also participated in the new Innisfil Community Garden projects where gardens are accessible and easy to manage for those with disabilities. The annual review of the Municipal Accessibility Plan ensures that your Council not only meets the standards, but includes a comprehensive review of the general municipal accessibility practices, progress to date and plans for the coming year. The Town of Innisfil continues to work closely with the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee, encouraging and developing an accessible community that engages everyone, drawing participation from the whole community.

Mayor Barb Baguley

September 17, 2014

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

SECTION 3:

IAAC ACHIEVEMENTS

The Town is pleased to present a status report on its accessibility initiatives and achievements for the period of October, 1 2013 to September 30, 2014. The Accessibility Plan describes and promotes the achievements and measures that the Committee undertook to identify, remove, and prevent barriers for people of all ages and abilities in the Town of Innisfil. 3.1 A.

National Accessibility Awareness Week Recognized by hosting “Disabled for a Day” with the 1st Stroud Cub Scout at Sunnybrae Public School. Status  Held March 19, 2014  Excellent interactive program Action & Timeframe  An educational evening held with approximately 25 1st Stroud Cub Scouts (ages ranging from 8-10) was organized by the Committee which demonstrated various diffabilities and provides a hands on approach to try various challenges relating to vision, hearing, sense and wheelchair obstacles.  A question and answer period is conducted at the end of the demonstrations to provide an opportunity to hear from the children and learn their perspectives on disabilities.  Local media participated Appendices  Proclamation – Appendix ‘A’  Certificate of Appreciation – Appendix ‘B’  Pictures – Appendix ‘’C’

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Participated in Innisfil Rotary Family Fun Day. Status  Held June 21, 2014  Interactive display Action & Timeframe  Hosted an educational display showing various disabilities that included simulation goggles, unfair hearing test and wheelchair demonstrations

3.2

Site Plan Review The Town’s Planning Department provides the IAAC draft site plans for Accessibility review relating to various matters and to assist in removing barriers. Status  Ongoing reviews using guidelines & standards as reference tools.  7 reviews completed from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014: o Timerblock Homes o Proposed Medical Centre o Toronto Trap & Skeet Club (Pan-Am Games) o Barrie Volkswagon Audi Dealership o Proposed New Lefroy Fire Station o New Operations Building o Friday Harbour Action & Timeframe  The IAAC provides feedback to the Planning Services for their review and consideration to ensure accessibility barriers are removed  Items addressed include parking spaces relating to sizes and location for disability parking. Internal building reviews include ramps, railings, accessible washrooms and accessibility access.  Planning Services provides follow up with IAAC

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

3.3

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Conference & Workshops Universal Design Forum – Georgian College Annual General Meeting for Independent Living Services (ILS) and SMART (previously SCAN) Scheduled to attend the 2015 Inclusion Conference, hosted by the Peterborough Council for Persons with Disabilities Status  Forum May 20, 2014  SMART held September 17, 2014  Inclusion Conference to take place April, 2015 o Valuable information and speakers Action & Timeframe  Participated in the 1st Universal Design Forum as a vendor providing information about the IAAC and Town’s Accessibility Standards  Attend and participate in annual SMART meeting  Inclusion Conference is a by-annual event that hosts speakers and vendors from various organizations relating to accessibility  Participate in AODA workshops and seminars as they are available

3.4

Accessible Transportation The IAAC assists the Town in working towards accessible transportation Status  IAAC addresses all concerns brought forward by the public regarding accessible transportation needs and monitors communications which are shared with Town staff and Council Action & Timeframe  Ongoing  Updates provided to Council

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

3.5

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

GO Bus Shelters and Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) IAAC continues to work with Town staff regarding GO Bus Shelters at various intersections in Innisfil. IAAC has recommended APS upgrades to the traffic lights in Stroud at the intersections of County Road 4 and Victoria Street and Lynn Street. Status  Engineering Services provided an update on August 7, 2014: o GO Transit bus shelters and asphalt pads will be installed at the following locations in Innisfil:  North of Hwy. 89 in front of Trotter’s Trucking/Gas Station  South of Killarney Beach Road in Churchill; and  Victoria Street in Stroud o In addition GO Transit bus asphalt pads will be located at:  East side of Yonge St., north of Glenn Ave., in front of Rexall Pharmacy  West side of Yonge St., south of Lynn St., in front of Tim Horton’s; and  West side of Yonge St., north of Lynn St. Action & Timeframe  Projected completion date end of 2014

3.6

Accessible Community Gardens Innisfil Community Garden Committee project for community gardens at the Knock Community Centre which included accessible planting beds. Status  Provided support documentation to the Innisfil Community Garden Committee for a Town grant application  IAAC Member sits on Innisfil Community Garden Committee Board

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

 IAAC Committee Members volunteered on the Innisfil Community Garden Committee and built/installed the accessible garden beds  IAAC Committee member volunteered by planting and maintaining vegetables in the accessible garden beds; and  Donated vegetables to Barrie Food Bank, which supports Barrie and surrounding areas Action & Timeframe  February, 2014 support letter provided  June, 2014 beds planted  September, 2014 harvesting still continues Appendices  Pictures – Appendix ‘D’

3.7

Reviews Conducted by IAAC The Committee has provided the following reviews:  AODA’s Legislations Review 1  AODA – Accessible Customer Service Standard Review 2

3.8

Presentations to IAAC The Committee received the following presentations:  Clerk Services re: New Innisfil Grant Program o Community Grant Program is available for all organization to apply for funding in accordance with the guidelines that have been adopted by Council  DeafBlind Ontario Services re: Accessible Standards Guide o Provided information on the their services

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

3.9

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Accessibility Consultations  Stroud Curling Club – provided a review of current ground level washroom at the Stroud Arena and assisted in providing input on the design of a fully accessible washroom.  Gilford United Church requested assistant with their washroom renovations to ensure accessibility standards were met to convert an existing washroom to become fully accessible.  Send letters to business community when accessibility concerns are raised to offer Accessibility Consultations to assist in providing information on Standards to help make all businesses in Innisfil accessible and barrier free.

September 17, 2014

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

SECTION 4:

4.1

GOALS AND COMMITMENTS TO REMOVE AND PREVENT BARRIERS 2014-2015

Education The Committee explores and strives to participate in ongoing education and training initiatives to keep informed on the latest accessibility information. Information is shared with Council and Town staff on a regular basis. Status  Register to attend various workshops and conferences Action & Timeframe  Annual SMART and ILS meetings, September 2015  Participate in Accessibility Standards workshops/seminars, ongoing  By-Annual Inclusion Conference hosted by the Peterborough Council for Persons with Disabilities, April, 2015  Senior Summit, May 2015  CNIB Technology Fair

4.2

National Accessibility Awareness Week Recognized by hosting:  

Host ‘Disabled for a Day’ event at various Innisfil schools and local groups’ Host annual ‘Wheelchair & Sensory Obstacle Challenges’ at Innisfil Rotary Family Fun Day

Status  Disabled for a Day hosted in the Spring and Fall  Wheelchair & Sensory Obstacle Challenge hosted mid-June Action & Timeframe  Preparations begin in March/April for both events

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

4.3

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

International Day of Persons with Disabilities IAAC requests Council proclaim December 3rd Status  Post proclamation on Town’s website  Post on Town calendar Action & Timeframe  Prepare proclamation for 2nd meeting in November to declare International Day of Persons with Disabilities  IAAC will be participating in the “Wheelchair Learn to Curl” event November 1, 2014 hosted by the Stroud Curling Club and Michael McCreadie

4.4

Communication Work with the Town’s Communication Services to ensure monthly meetings and Accessibility activities are posted on the Town’s Community Bulletin and website. Status  Update Town’s website http://www.innisfil.ca/innisfil-accessibilityadvisory-committee  Post monthly meeting schedules on Town calendar Action & Timeframe  Monthly/weekly monitoring of accessibility information and news bulletins and update Accessibility page

4.5

Accessibility Consultations Promote and conduct reviews of various Town facilities to ensure accessibility requirements continue to be met. Communicate with local businesses to offer an Accessibility Consultation to assist in removing barriers. Status  Ongoing

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Action & Timeframe  Town Facility re-consultations to be conducted in 2015 and schedule with the Operations Manager  Presentation to be schedule with the Greater Innisfil Chamber of Commerce to promote Accessibility Consultation with the business community

4.6

Annual Accessibility Plan Plan developed by the IAAC with the assistance of Town Staff using a work plan. Status  Plan presented to Council September 17, 2014 Action & Timeframe  Plan adopted by Council Resolution No. CR-xxx-xx.14  Posted on Town’s website Appendices  Work Plan – see Appendix ‘E’

September 17, 2014

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

SECTION 5:

5.1

INNISFIL ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee (IAAC) Margaretta Papp-Belayneh, Chair Joe Winson, Vice Chair Councillor Rod Boynton Kim Bos, Committee Member Rick Winson, Committee Member Paul Baker, Committee Member Robert Davies, Committee Member Diane Sykes, Committee Member Kim Creamer, Assistant Clerk

SECTION 6:

CONTACT INFORMATION

The Town of Innisfil welcomes comments or questions regarding its Annual Accessibility Plan. For more information, please contact Kim Creamer, Assistant Clerk. General inquiry number:

Town of Innisfil Website:

SECTION 7:

705-436-3710 Toll-free: 1-888-436-3710 www.innisfil.ca

APPENDICES

Appendix A ........ National Accessibility Awareness Week Proclamation Appendix B ........ 1st Stroud Cubs Certificate of Appreciation Appendix C ........ Disabled for a Day Event Pictures Appendix D ........ Accessible Garden Bed Pictures Appendix E ........ Accessibility Work Plan

September 17, 2014

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

APPENDIX A

September 17, 2014

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

APPENDIX B

September 17, 2014

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

APPENDIX C

September 17, 2014

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Town of Innisfil

APPENDIX D INNISFIL COMMUNITY GARDEN – KNOCK COMMUNITY HALL

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

2013 – 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

APPENDIX ‘E’

September 17, 2014

Town of Innisfil

September 17, 2014

2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Annual Accessibility Plan

Item 7.2 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

Item A.1 Council Agenda Public Meeting Minutes Sept 17/14 September 3, 2014 Page 1 of 6

A Public Meeting of the Town of Innisfil Council was held on the above date in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Offices at 6:00 p.m., with the following members and staff present: Mayor: Deputy Mayor: *Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor:

B. Baguley D. Davidson D. Lougheed R. Simpson K. Simpson R. Boynton B. Loughead L. Dollin

Regrets: Councillor:

M. Baier

Chief Administrative Officer: Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor: Deputy CAO/Town Engineer: Acting Clerk: Manager of Land Use Planning: Policy Planner: Communications Coordinator: Assistant Clerk:

J. Skorobohacz J. Reynar A. Campbell K. Fraser T. Cane P. Pentikainen A. Munro K. Creamer

CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST [None declared]

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW NO. 080-13 FOR – TOWN WIDE PROVISIONS FOR MARIHUANA FACILITIES

3a.

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR Mayor Baguley stated that the purpose of this Public Meeting was to consider an amendment to Zoning By-law 080-13, as amended. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will apply to all land that is zone “Industrial General – IG” and “Industrial Business Park – IBP” in the Town of Innisfil. No site specific planning applications have been received by the Town.

3b.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The Clerk advised that Notice of this Public Meeting was circulated on 1st day of August, 2014 to all agencies. This notice was also posted on the Town Page in the Innisfil Examiner on August 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29, 2014, and on the Town’s website.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 6

3c.

STATEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE TOWN The Clerk stated that the following correspondence was received to date:

3d.

(3C.1)

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) dated July 31, 2014 advising they have no objections.

(3C.2)

Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) dated August 12, 2014 asking not to amend the agricultural definition to exclude medical marihuana.

(3C.3)

Simcoe County District School Board (SCDSB) dated August 25, 2014 advising they have no objections to the proposed zoning changes and no objections to potential facilities being located a minimum of 70 metres away from schools, residences and parks.

(3C.4)

AlternaMedz Canada Inc. dated August 26, 2014 providing at the request of Health Canada a revised “Notification” letter to advise the exact mailing address of the proposed medical marihuana production facilities. [letter previously submitted June 2, 2014 and placed on the July 9, 2014 Info. List 12-14 as Item G.12]

(3C.5)

Arne Sorensen dated September 2, 2014 advising he opposes the proposed amendment to zoning By-law 080-13 for a licensed medical marihuana production facility at 3745 Hwy. 89.

(3C.6)

Sarah Currie dated August 29, 2014 advising she does not support the proposed medical marihuana facility in Cookstown at 3745 Hwy. 89.

(3C.7)

Dianne Bravo dated September 2, 2014 expressing her comments and concerns regarding the proposed medical marihuana facility in Cookstown.

(3C.8)

Marco D. Colabella dated August 28, 2014 advising he opposes the proposed location of the medical marihuana facility in Cookstown.

PRESENTATION(S) Mr. Tim Cane provided a brief overview of the context of the draft planning provisions to update Zoning By-law 080-13 that will affect Town-wide provisions as previously discussed in a report presented to Council last March. The Town is looking at removing the ambiguity of these types of facilities and the land use being contemplated for such facilities. Mr. Cane confirmed that no planning applications have been submitted to the Town of Innisfil for the production of medical marihuana. 

Councillor D. Lougheed arrived at the meeting.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 6

Mr. Pentikainen will summarize information relating to context, land use considerations, examples of Municipal provisions and the proposed zoning provisions for Innisfil. Medical marihuana productions facilities are licensed by Federal Government/Health Canada. They are used to produce, process, test, destroy, store, and distribute medical marihuana. All of this must take place entirely indoors. A high level of security that includes surveillance cameras and physical barriers such as fencing is required. The facilities must also be equipped with an air filtration system that prevents the escape of smells and odours. Health Canada has also said that â&#x20AC;&#x153;municipal laws and zoning bylaws will need to be respectedâ&#x20AC;? in the license application process. This provides the Town with the opportunity to develop zoning provisions that appropriately site medical marihuana facilities within Innisfil. Previous Legislation states that access to marihuana for medical reasons and its production is federally regulated under both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Although marihuana remains illegal in Canada, in 2001, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations were implemented. This allowed individuals to access marihuana for medical reasons with a prescription from a doctor. Under these old regulations, users were able to produce medical marihuana in their own homes. In 2001, there were fewer than 100 people able to access marihuana for medical reasons. This number has increased to nearly 40,000 people today and is forecast by Health Canada to increase to 450,000 people over the next 10 years. As the number of people accessing and growing medical marihuana has increased significantly, so to have the public health, safety and security risks of unlicensed facilities. Police and fire departments have been unaware of where medical marihuana is being produced, and municipalities were very limited in their ability to ensure that local by-laws were being complied with. The Federal Government developed new regulations in 2013 called the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. These regulations took effect on April 1 of this year, to make the personal production of medical marihuana in homes illegal, and to require users to purchase it from federally licensed commercial distribution facilities. The federal government is forecasting that as a result of this commercialization, Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s medical marihuana industry will be worth over 1 billion dollars in 10 years. Health Canada has received over 1000 applications, but thus far only 13 facilities have been issued a license. This new legislation however was appealed prior to it taking full effect, and a Federal Court judge granted an injunction for medical marijuana users that already have a personal production license. This allows them to continue growing their own medical marijuana until a federal court decision is made. Health Canada is still processing applications and it is important that the Town has provisions in place to appropriately site these facilities. The new Federal regulations contain strict security requirements for medical marihuana facilities and prohibit medical marihuana from being produced inside of residential dwellings. However, the federal regulations do not contain any further measures to address other land use considerations such as potential traffic, noise and infrastructure requirements. The regulations do not recommend where they should be located and this has led municipalities across Canada to consider two key questions: whether they should be permitted in agricultural and/or industrial zones, and whether there should be a minimum separation distance from sensitive land uses such as homes, schools and parks.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 4 of 6

The draft provisions propose that medical marihuana facilities be permitted in the Town’s industrial zones, and specifically on land zoned Industrial Business Park and Industrial General. This will have the effect of directing these facilities to the Innisfil Heights industrial business park along Highway 400 at IBR, and to parcels of land designated IG along major roads in the Town such as along Highway 89 near Cookstown. A definition of medical marihuana production facility is also being proposed for the Town’s Zoning By-Law. In addition to being located in an industrial zone, there are other minimum zoning requirements that a proposed medical marihuana production facility must meet. The building must be at least 70m from a residential or community service zone or any school, park, community centre or day nursery. This separation distance of 70m is based on the Ministry of Environment’s D-6 Guidelines for Compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses, and the interpretation that medical marihuana facilities are a type 1 industrial use with low potential for noise and odour emissions. This is also consistent with the separation distance that is identified for all industrial uses in the Town’s Official Plan. No outdoor signage will be permitted, which also matches the requirements of the federal regulations. This is to ensure that nothing on the outside of the building will distinguish it as a medical marihuana facility. Access to municipal water and sewage servicing is preferred, but development on private servicing may be permitted subject to proof that there is adequate servicing. Mr. Pentikainen outlined the rationale for the industrial use and noted Health Canada will only be granting a 3-year production license to successful applicants. If large-scale commercial production facilities are constructed in agricultural areas and the 3-year licenses are not issued or renewed, this will have the further effect of degrading prime agricultural land and preventing its use for traditional farming practices. Mr. Pentikainen concluded that the overall aims of the provisions are to site federally licensed medical marihuana production facilities in industrial zones, which is where they will have minimal land use impact. Similar uses are already permitted in the Town’s industrial zones and this will help protect agricultural land from incompatible land uses. This importance of protecting and conserving farmland is reflected in both Town and provincial planning policies as well as in the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 community vision. 3e.

QUESTION/ COMMENTS – PUBLIC Donna Orsatti, 1987 St. Pauls Road, Innisfil, L9S 1T6 expressed concern for noise and air quality and how this will be address. Ms. Orsatti supports the Town’s proposal for such facilities to be placed in the industrial area and should be 150 metres away from residential and school areas. She does not support them being on agricultural land. Ms. Orsatti enquired about the demands on water, hydro and increased traffic. Patti Satok, 6 George Street, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 advised she is a legal medical marihuana user and is registered with Peace Natural Project however they are currently out of stock and is unable to obtain her prescription. She has lost her job as a result of having this and provided clarification for those that use medical marihuana as a form of natural pain relief. Ms. Satok asked everyone to refer to a recent article done by The

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 5 of 6

Sun about her situation and awareness. Ms. Satok supports a medical marihuana production facility in Innisfil. Arne Sorensen, 3703 15th Line, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 provided a summary of his written concerns and is opposed to the proposal of medical marihuana production facilities. Concerned about the value of properties, water, security, air quality and increased crime. Donna Cox, 4 Heritage Road, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 advised she is a concerned mother and worried about what message is being sent to children if this proposal is adopted. Sarah Currie, 4040 15th Line Cookstown, L0L 1L0 expressed concerns related to the article in the Innisfil Journal dated August 5, 2014 that told readers a medical marihuana production facility was being proposed for Cookstown. Ms. Currie presented a petition of those in opposition of this proposal and expressed concerned about the air quality, security and disturbance in the area. Greg Cox, 4 Heritage Road, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 understands the use and reasons for medical marihuana however is concerned about a facility in Cookstown near residential and school areas. This is a good opportunity however who is really funding such a facility and who are we inviting into our community and concerned about property values and security.  Mr. Cane clarified that an application has been submitted to Health Canada not the Town of Innisfil. 3f.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS – COUNCIL Councillor R. Boynton advised that Council has to consider where such a facility could be placed not if it comes to Innisfil and must deal with Federal Government downloading. Councillor D. Lougheed requested confirmation that Health Canada is the one that decides where medical marihuana production facilities can be placed and the policy statement respect municipalities who put regulations in place to help determined the best location for such a facility. If no municipal regulations are in place can Health Canada approve the location? He supports staff’s recommendation to place such facilities in the industrial areas however would like agricultural areas reconsidered as outlined in the correspondence from Ontario Federation of Agricultural. 

Mr. Cane advised that Health Canada looks at municipal regulations when they consider an application. If no regulations are in place, Health Canada can make the final decision of where a facility could be located.

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson inquired if the Town could set provisions that these facilities only be considered on sanitary services. Could this matter be taken to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)? 

Mr. Cane advised that this would restrict where these types of facilities could be placed as the Town’s industrial core is currently not on sanitary services. If an application was made to the OMB and adequate information could support a facility on septic services, it could be difficult to oppose.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 6 of 6

Councillor Dollin advised that she did advise residents that the Town had received and application and stands corrected. If the Town does not set a boundary for minimum distance, does the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Guidelines take effect? Is this distance property line to property line and what is the difference from the egg farm which is an entire indoor operation on agricultural land to a medical marihuana facility? 

Mr. Cane advised MOE guidelines are only guidelines and not mandated. These guidelines show a distance separation of 70 metres from boundary to boundary and the Town’s Official Plan is 60 metres from use to use. This proposal combines both and is 70 metres from use to boundary. All uses are determined by servicing requirements.

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson enquired what impact would this have if approved for the Cookstown area on the Volunteer Fire Department. 

Mr. Cane and Fire Chief Pegg advised that any alarms/false alarms are dealt with in the same manner as all alarm calls and billed accordingly.

If you have not made oral or written submissions in regard to this proposal before a decision is reached, you should be aware that the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss your appeal. Due to comments received, be advised that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will not be considered by Council on September 3, 2014. Council expects the staff recommendation report will be presented at the Council meeting schedule for September 17, 2014. Anyone wishing to be contacted before this matter is considered by Council, please fill out the Notification Form located by the entrance to the Council Chambers. Council thanked all in attendance for their participation and indicated that they would consider all of the matters before reaching a decision. This Public Meeting is now adjourned. 4.

ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:02 P.M. APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CR-xxx.xx.14 SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.

____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

______________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

Item A.2 Council Agenda Public Meeting Minutes Sept 17/14 September 3, 2014 Page 1 of 4

A Public Meeting of the Town of Innisfil Council was held on the above date in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Offices at 7:03 p.m. with the following members and staff present: Mayor: Deputy Mayor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: 1.

B. Baguley D. Davidson D. Lougheed R. Simpson K. Simpson R. Boynton B. Loughead M. Baier L. Dollin

Chief Administrative Officer: Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor: Deputy CAO/Town Engineer: Acting Clerk: Manager of Land Use Planning: Senior Planner: Communication Coordinator: Assistant Clerk:

J. Skorobohacz J. Reynar A. Campbell K. Fraser T. Cane G. Lambright A. Munro K. Creamer

CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST [None declared]

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW NO. 080-13 FOR – 2245 20 Sideroad

3a.

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR Mayor Baguley stated that the purpose of this Public Meeting was to consider a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Amendment to Zoning By-law 080-13 of the Town of Innisfil under Section 51, and 34 respectfully of the Planning Act. The land affected by the proposed amendment is known municipally as 2245 20 Sideroad in the Town of Innisfil.

3b.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The Clerk advised that Notice of this Public Meeting was posted on the properties and circulated on the 15th day of August, 2014 to all agencies and landowners within 120 metres of the area affected. This notice was also posted on the Town Page in the Innisfil Examiner on August 15, 22 and 29, 2014m and on the Town’s website.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 4

3c.

STATEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE TOWN The Clerk stated that no correspondence was received to-date.

3d.

PRESENTATION(S) Mr. Garry Lambright, Senior Planning – Staff Report DSR-143-14 Mr. Lambright advised the purpose and effect of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is to permit the development of a primarily residential subdivision consisting of 140 single-detached residential dwellings and 99 townhouse dwellings (Blocks 100, 106 to 107, 112, 138 to 140, 143, 149 to 150). for a total of 239 dwelling units. In addition, there are two (2) storm water management facilities (Block 152, and 153), environmental protection and open space (Block 151 and 160 with area of 1.98 ha), internal roads/widenings (Blocks 156 and 158), and reserves (Blocks 154 to 157), in accordance with the enclosed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Table A. The purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision is to rezone the subject lands from “Agricultural General (AG) Zone” and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to “Residential (R2) Zone,” “Residential (R3) Zone,” “Residential Townhouse (RT) Zone,” “Residential Townhouse Exception (RT-XX) Zone,” “Future Development (FD) Zone,” “Open Space (OS) Zone,” “Open Space Exception (OS-3) Zone,” and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to implement the proposed Alcona Capital Properties Draft Plan of Subdivision (I-T-1301) to reflect the proposed land uses. A Site Inspection was conducted on August 14, 2014 and confirmed the subject lands are primarily vacant agricultural lands with some areas of trees near the north and east boundaries. Treed areas occupy approximately 5.24 hectares of the subject lands. Mr. Lambright advised that the proposed two Storm water Management Ponds currently do not meet the Town’s Engineering Standards in terms of block size and staff are working with the Developer to meet appropriate engineering standards in addition to helping address the current over dedication of parkland in Alcona. These Storm water Management Blocks may increase in size to address these issues. Both the Draft Plan of Subdivision and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendment are being reviewed concurrently by Staff and commenting agencies. Staff is working with the Applicant and partner agencies to address comments for Draft Plan conditions. Staff will report back to Council recommending whether the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment should be recommended for approval.

3e.

QUESTION/COMMENTS – PUBLIC Stan Dario, 2245 Sproule St., Innisfil, L9S 0E2 inquired if any walkways have been planned for this subdivision that are adjacent into other adjoining areas.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 4



Mr. Cane provided a brief overview of the connecting access trails that will be connected via Sproule Street as part of the storm water pond design, with another proposed connection to Innisfil Beach Road.

Robert Wilcox, 1465 Rankin Way, L9S 0C5 expressed concerns and opposition to the removal of the trees/forested area and the disruption of wild life for this proposal. He requested that an environmental study be completed and also expressed concern with flooding from this area. 

3f.

Mr. Cane advised that replacement trees will be planted throughout the subdivision to accommodate the trees being removed. Environmental Studies have been completed for this subdivision and the storm water retention ponds will be created to capture water from this site.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS – COUNCIL Deputy Mayor D. Davidson enquired about a berm being constructed between an old subdivision and this new proposal. 

Mr. Cane advised buffer treatments could investigated.

Councillor K. Simpson supports leaving a tree berm or buffer area around the storm water detention ponds. Councillor R. Boynton enquired about additional trails for the public since there are no parks proposed for this development. Will the public have access to the storm water management ponds and to the environmentally protected lands? Expressed concern that the size of this proposal and there is no place for kids and people to walk. 

Mr. Cane advised the storm water pond designs will not be fenced and open with trails and passive areas and looking for support from the LSRCA for the environmental protected area to the north for walking trails. Staff is working with the developer to consider with the design of these storm waters and any land that may be available for small parkette.

If you have not made oral or written submissions in regard to this proposal before a decision is reached, you should be aware that the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss your appeal. Anyone wishing to be contacted before this matter is considered by Council, please fill out the Notification Form located by the entrance to the Council Chambers. Council thanked all in attendance for their participation and indicated that they would consider all of the matters before reaching a decision. This Public Meeting is now adjourned.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 4 of 4

ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:28 P.M. APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CR-xxx.xx.14 SEPTEMBER 27, 2024.

____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

______________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

Item A.3 Council Agenda Sept 17/14 Council Minutes

September 3, 2014

This Council meeting of the Town of Innisfil Council was held in the Council Chambers with the following members and staff present: Members Present Mayor: Deputy Mayor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor:

B. Baguley D. Davidson D. Lougheed R. Simpson K. Simpson R. Boynton B. Loughead M. Baier L. Dollin

Staff Present Chief Administrative Officer: Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor: Deputy CAO/Town Engineer: Acting Clerk: Treasurer/CFO: Manager of Land Use Planning: Policy Planner: Assistant Clerk:

J. Skorobohacz J. Reynar A. Campbell K. Fraser L. Davis T. Cane P. Pentikainen K. Creamer

OPENING OF MEETING BY MAYOR BAGULEY The meeting was called to order by Mayor B. Baguley at 7:32 p.m, following the Public Planning Meetings.

OPEN FORUM None received.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (3.1)

Agenda for September 3, 2014.

CR-134.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor D. Lougheed Councillor M. Baier

That the contents of the agenda for September 3, 2014 be approved as amended with the addition of Items: • 9.2 Appointment By-law for Municipal Law Enforcement Officers. • 9.3 Correspondence - Dreamland Homes re: Staff Report DSR-146-14 • 9.5 Staff Report DSR-170-14 re: Interim Delegation of Council

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 Authority – Restricted Acts. • 10.1 Notice of Motion from Councillor R. Simpson; and The withdrawal of Item 9.4 [Staff Report DSR-160-14 re: Queen Street Land Acquisition] at the request of Staff; and The withdrawal of Item E.1 – By-law 080-14 re: Medical Marihuana Production Facilities. --carried-4.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Councillor R. Boynton declared a conflict on Item C.1 due to being a member of the Innisfil Celtic Festival organizing committee. Councillor L. Dollin declared a conflict on Item D.7 due to be being the Chair of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

PRESENTATIONS & PETITIONS [None Received.]

DEPUTATIONS (6.1)

Amanda Dibbits, Executive Assistant to the Mayor and CAO, re: Town's Key Performance Indicators / Balanced Scorecard [Ref: Staff Report DSR-145-14 dated September 3, 2014.] Ms. Dibbits provided an overview of the Town's Balanced Scorecard. During the development of Inspiring Innisfil 2020, the need to research and identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that track financial stability was set as a priority and goal for 20132016. KPI's helps to ensure Staff is focusing on our strategies and identifying action gaps; identify trends and risks; and to help identify resource needs for the Town's priorities. Ms. Dibbits advised that Staff will continue to develop the Balanced Scorecard and data management process for each indicator during the pilot period. Council provided comments and questions of clarification which were addressed by Ms. Dibbits.

CR-135.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor M. Baier Councillor D. Lougheed

That the deputation from Ms. Dibbits regarding the Town's Key Performance Indicators and Balanced Scorecard be received

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 as information. --carried-7.

DELEGATIONS (7.1)

Frank Abbaglivo - Request for Payment Plan for Permit Fees 1057 Spooner Road. Not in attendance.

CONSENT LIST A.

Adoption of Minutes

(A.1)

Minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 2203 Alderslea Crescent dated August 13, 2014.

CR-136-01.14

Resolution That the minutes of the Public Meeting for Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 2203 Alderslea Crescent, dated August 13, 2014, be approved as printed and Council requests the Director of Development to consider the input provided at the Public Meeting and report back in due course.

(A.2)

Regular Council Meeting Minutes dated August 13, 2014.

CR-136-02.14

Resolution That the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting dated August 13, 2014 be adopted as printed.

(A.3)

Closed Session Report 14-14 dated August 13, 2014.

CR-136-03.14

Resolution That the minutes of the Closed Session Report 14-14 dated August 13, 2014 be adopted as printed.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 B.

Reports of Various Committee, Boards & Commissions

(B.1)

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report 06-14 dated June 10, 2014.

CR-136-04.14

Resolution That the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report 06-14, dated June 10, 2014 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, subject to staff review and confirmation that the applicable resources and funding level is provided within the Council approved Operating/Capital Budget.

(B.2)

Innisfil Community Health Committee Report 06-14 dated July 17, 2014.

CR-136-05.14

Resolution That the Innisfil Community Health Committee Report 06-14, dated July 17, 2014, be received and the recommendations therein be approved, subject to staff review and confirmation that the applicable resources and funding level is provided within the Council approved Operating/Capital Budget.

Standard Requests

(C.1)

Exemptions to Parks By-law No. 098-07 and Noise By-law No. 05106 - Innisfil Celtic Festival. [Councillor R. Boynton declared a conflict on Item C.1.]

CR-137-01.14

Resolution That the correspondence from the Innisfil Celtic Festival dated July 21, 2014 regarding a request for an exemption to Parks By-law 098-07 to host a sheep herding demonstration and an exemption to Noise By-law No. 051-06 at the Innisfil Celtic Festival on September 13, 2014 at Innisfil Beach Park be received; and That the memorandum from the Community Standards Officer dated August 27, 2014 be received as information; and That the request from the Innisfil Celtic Festival for an exemption to Parks By-law 098-07 to host a sheep herding demonstration be approved; and That the request for an exemption to Noise By-law No. 051-06 be approved from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday, September 13, 2014.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(C.2)

Exemption to Animal Control By-law No. 068-06 - Ciampichini.

CR-136-06.14

Resolution That the correspondence from Anna Ciampichini dated July 25, 2014 regarding a request for an exemption to Animal Control Bylaw No. 068-06 for number of dogs be received as information; and That Council grants exemption from By-law No. 068-06 to allow three dogs to reside at 2051 McFadden Street for a period of one year to expire on September 3, 2015.

Staff Reports

(D.1)

Staff Report DSR-107-14 (Legal Services/Planning) re: Parkland Over Dedication [Tabled July 9, 2014 - CR-116-07.14]

CR-136-07.14

Resolution That Council approves the use of $331,147.50 from the Alternative Revenue Source Reserve Fund, in accordance with DSR-107-14 dated July 9, 2014, to fund the over-dedication of parkland with respect to the Alcona Secondary Plan, subject to the payment of more than $725,000 from the developers’ group trustee for the 7th/8th Line Agreement. That Council approve the transfer of approximately 1.87 hectares of Block 72, Plan 51M-285 (Alcona Downs Phase 1) generally in accordance with Attachment 2 of DSR-107-14 for the amount of $2 to correct the parkland overdedication. That staff continues to negotiate with the owners of Alcona Downs Phase 3 to confirm the owner’s contribution towards the establishment of park facilities on the retained parklands shown on Schedule 2 to DSR-107-14.

(D.2)

Staff Report DSR-138-14 (Planning) re: LSAMI P2 Phase 1 (I-T0504) – Request to Lift Holding (H) Provision.

CR-136-08.14

Resolution That Report DSR-138-14 be received; and That Council deems the Holding ('H') provision on the subject lands in By-law No. 085-14 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(D.3)

Staff Report DSR-142-14 (IT) re: Hosting Agreement - Essa Township.

CR-136-09.14

Resolution That Staff Report DSR-142-14 being a report to enter into an agreement for I.T. Services Hosting with the Township of Essa be received; and That Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a three year agreement with the Township of Essa for the provision of I.T. hosting services.

(D.4)

Staff Report DSR-144-14 (Planning) re: Part Lot Control Exemption for SanDiego Homes - Lots 8, 9 and 10, 51M-852 in the Town of Innisfil.

CR-136-10.14

Resolution That Staff Report DSR-144-14 be received; and That Council approve the applications from SanDiego Homes Inc. to exempt Lot 8, 9 and 10, Registered Plan 51M-852 in the Town of Innisfil from Part Lot Control; and That Council approve By-Law No. 088-14 to give effect to the recommendation.

(D.5)

Staff Report DSR-145-14 (CAO) re: Town of Innisfil's Draft Balanced Scorecard.

CR-136-11.14

Resolution That Staff Report DSR-145-14 dated September 3, 2014, being a report and presentation to Council on the draft Balanced Scorecard, be received for information.

(D.6)

Staff Report Exemptions.

CR-136-12.14

Resolution

DSR-146-14

(Engineering)

re:

Noise

By-law

That Council exercise its discretion as per Clause 5(a) of By-law No. 051-06, being a bylaw respecting the emission of sound (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Noise By-lawâ&#x20AC;?), and conduct a pilot program as outlined in Staff Report DSR-146-14 dated September 3, 2014, with the view that staff will track any respective complaints related to noise through the duration of the pilot program; and provide a report to Council in February 2015 with any potential revisions to the Noise By-law.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(D.7)

Staff Report DSR-147-14 (Engineering) re: Source Protection Plan - Part IV Enforcement Transfer Agreement. [Councillor L. Dollin declared a conflict on Item D.7].

CR-138-01.14

Resolution That Council direct the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor and the Deputy CAO/Town Engineer to finalize the terms of the Transfer Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding as outlined in DSR-147-14, dated September 3, 2014; and That the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor be authorized to make amendments to said agreements so as to prepare the final form of the agreement and memorandum of understanding; and That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Transfer Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) for the transfer of Part IV Enforcement Authority provided under the Clean Water Act, 2006 from the Town to the LSRCA.

(D.8)

Staff Report DSR-148-14 (Planning) re: Vetere Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment - 2203 Alderslea Cres. (Ref: Staff Report DSR-129-14 dated August 13, 2014.)

CR-136-13.14

Resolution That Council approve By-law No. 081-14 to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 15 to redesignate the subject lands at 2203 Alderslea Crescent from “Residential Low Density 1” to “Residential Low Density 1 Exception” and direct Staff to forward same to the County of Simcoe for consideration as outlined in DSR-148-14, dated September 3, 2014; and That Council approve By-law No. 082-14 to rezone the subject lands at 2203 Alderslea Crescent from “Residential 1 (R1) Zone” to Residential 1 Exception (R1-43) Zone”, subject to approval by the County of Simcoe, and subject to the lapsing of the required appeal period of adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 15; and That a future circulation of a Notice of Passing of Zoning By-law No. 082-14 occurs when Official Plan Amendment No. 15 is in force and effect, indicating the appeal date and related information; and That Staff shall circulate an amended Zoning By-law for Council’s consideration should the County of Simcoe request modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 15 which affects the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(D.9)

Staff Report DSR-149-14 (Engineering) re: Queen and Church Streets MTO Agreement.

CR-136-14.14

Resolution That Council direct the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor and the Deputy CAO/Town Engineer to finalize the terms of a road works agreement (“Agreement”) with the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) for the Queen and Church Streets construction as outlined in DSR-149-14, dated September 3, 2014; and That the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor be authorized to make amendments to said agreements so as to prepare the final form of the agreement; and That the Deputy CAO/Town Engineer be authorized to execute the Agreement for the Queen and Church Streets construction. That Staff be authorized to use surplus funds from the Queen/Church St. budget to carry out repairs to King St. from the intersection of Queen/Church St. to Hamilton St.

(D.10)

Staff Report DSR-150-14 (Clerk Services) re: Amendments to the Records Management By-law No. 053-10.

CR-136-15.14

Resolution That Council provide delegated authority for the Records Coordinator to revise the retention times for corporate records, currently retained pursuant to By-Law No. 053-10 and its associated Schedules, so that retention times may be updated as documents are moved into the new M-files electronic data management system; and That such revisions will be recorded and submitted for Council approval as part of a new records retention by-law and schedules once the M-files records management system is fully implemented, anticipated to be completed by December, 2014; and That the Records Coordinator will make revisions only as necessary to maintain consistency and compliance and will ensure that such revisions do not fall outside the parameters of legislative retention requirements.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 (D.11)

Staff Report DSR-151-14 (Engineering) re: 2015 Capital Budget InYear Design Funding. Item D.11 referred to Committee of the Whole.

(D.12)

Staff Report DSR-152-14 (Operations) re: 3 Way Stop at Intersection of William St. and Sandy Trail.

CR-136-15.14

Resolution That the request to reconfigure the intersection of William Street and Sandy Trail to provide stop a 3 way stop be approved, as outlined in DSR-152-14, dated July 9, 2014; and That By-law No. 090-14 be adopted to give effect to the recommendation.

Other By-laws

(E.1)

Provisions for Medical Marihuana Production Facilities. [Public Meeting Sept 3/14.] Resolution Item E.1 withdrawn.

(E.2)

Amendments to Parking By-law No. 070-11.

CR-136-16.14

Resolution That By-law No. 089-14, being a by-law to amend By-law No. 07011 to provide for the restricting and regulating of vehicle and heavy travel, parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways, under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil, and to provide for permit parking on highways and other designated areas, be adopted.

F. (F.1)

Consideration of a Closed Session Consideration of a Resolution to hold a "Closed Session" Meeting. Item F.1 referred to Committee of the Whole.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 G.

Information List

(G.1)

Info List 15-14 dated September 3, 2014.

CR-136-17.14 to CR-136-36.14

Resolution

That Recommendations G.1 through to G.13 and G.15 through to G.21 be adopted as printed on information List 15-14.

Consent List Continued

(8.1)

Consent List Recommendation

CR-136.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor K. Simpson Deputy Mayor D. Davidson

That the Consent List for September 3, 2014 and the Recommendations contained therein be adopted as Resolutions of Council, except Items C.1 and D.7 which are considered separately as a declared interest and that Items D.11, F.1 and G.14 be referred to the Committee of the Whole. --carried-[Councillor R. Boynton declared a conflict on the following motion and did not vote the matter.] CR-137.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor B. Loughead Councillor R. Simpson

That the Consent List Item C.1 for September 3, 2014 and the Recommendation contained therein be adopted as Resolutions of Council. --carried-[Councillor L. Dollin declared a conflict on the following motion and did not vote the matter.] CR-138.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor B. Loughead Councillor R. Simpson

That the Consent List Item D.7 for September 3, 2014 and the Recommendation contained therein be adopted as Resolutions of Council. --carried--

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(8.2)

Resolve to Committee of the Whole.

CR-139.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor B. Loughead Councillor R. Simpson

That Council resolve into the Committee of the Whole. --carried-9.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Business Items (9.1)

Councillor Motion previously introduced on August 13, 2014.

CR-140-01.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Boynton Councillor L. Dollin

Whereas flooding and water flows have traditionally been an issue in the Roberts Road, Park Road, and Alderslea Road areas; Therefore Be It Resolved that Council requests staff to ensure that the area in question is included in the Stormwater Management Master Plan review to ensure that proper grading exists resulting in proper water flow in that area, and the effect that new infill lots will have on those flows. --carried-(D.11 )

Staff Report DSR-151-14 (Engineering) re: 2015 Capital Budget InYear Design Funding.

CR-140-02.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Boynton Councillor L. Dollin

That Council approves $472,465 representing 10% of six proposed 2015 Capital Budget projects in order to allow the design and, subject to Council approval of the 2015 capital budget, the construction to be completed in 2015, as outlined in DSR-151-14, dated September 3, 2014; and That the funding be provided from reserves and reserve funds as indicated in the Financial Section of DSR-151-14. --carried--

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 (F.1 )

Consideration of a Resolution to hold a "Closed Session" Meeting. Original Recommendation That Council hold a “Closed Session” meeting as provided for by the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the Town’s Procedural By-law 077-11, immediately following this Council meeting at the Town Hall, to deal with: a) A proposed or pending acquisition or disposal of land by the municipality or local board. • Maple Road • Evans Place b) Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or Board. • 37 Queen Street

CR-140-03.14

Revised Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor B. Loughead Councillor R. Simpson

That Council hold a “Closed Session” meeting as provided for by the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the Town’s Procedural By-law 077-11, immediately following this Council meeting at the Town Hall, to deal with: a) A proposed or pending acquisition or disposal of land by the municipality or local board. • Maple Road • Evans Place • Queen Street Urbanization b) Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or Board. • 37 Queen Street --carried-II.

Information List Items (G.14 )

Original Recommendation That the correspondence from Drainage Investment Group (DIG) dated July 14, 2014, re: introduction of their not-for-profit organization, be received as information.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 CR-140-04.14

Revised Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor L. Dollin Councillor R. Boynton

That the correspondence from Drainage Investment Group (DIG) dated July 14, 2014, re: introduction of their not-for-profit organization, be received; and That Staff be directed to investigate funding availability for the Landowners affected by the South Innisfil Creek Drain assessment. --carried-III.

County Report (Mayor B. Baguley & Deputy Mayor D. Davidson) None received.

IV.

Supplementary Business (9.2)

Appointment of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers.

CR-140-05.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Simpson Councillor B. Loughead

That By-law No. 097-14, being a by-law to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers, be adopted as printed. [Mitchel Harris & Kyle Jones] --carried-(9.3 )

Correspondence - Dreamland Homes re: Support for Exemption to Noise By-law No. 051-06 [Ref: DSR-146-14.]

CR-140-06.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor M. Baier Councillor D. Lougheed

That the correspondence from Dreamland Homes dated August 27, 2014, re: support for Exemption to Noise By-law No. 051-06 to allow construction on Saturday's be received as information. --carried-(9.4 )

Staff Report DSR-160-14 (Engineering) re: Queen Street Land Acquisition. [Item 9.4 withdrawn at the request of Staff.]

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

(9.5 )

Staff Report DSR-170-14 (Clerks) re: Interim Delegation of Council Authority â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Restricted Acts.

CR-140-07.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson Councillor B. Loughead

That delegated authority for decisions related to restricted acts be granted to the Chief Administrative Officer or the Deputy Chief Administrative Officers, pursuant to Subsection 275(6) of the Municipal Act 2001, commencing only upon confirmation that restricted act provisions are in effect for the Town of Innisfil, and ending with the swearing in of the 2014-2018 Council, or until such time as it can be determined that Council for the Town of Innisfil will not be subject to restricted acts; and That By-law No. 099-14 be approved to give effect to the recommendation. --carried-V.

Rise Recommendation

CR-140-08.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor L. Dollin Councillor R. Boynton

That Committee rise and return back into the formal Council Session to receive a report on the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole. --carried-VI.

Consideration of the adoption of the recommendations from Committee of the Whole

CR-140.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor D. Lougheed Councillor M. Baier

That the Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole for the meeting of September 3, 2014 be adopted as Resolutions of Council. --carried-10.

NOTICE OF MOTIONS Councillor R. Simpson will introduce a motion requesting Staff to investigate speed limits and the installation of speed calming measures and any associated costs along Houston Avenue at the September 17, 2014 Regular Council Meeting.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014

11.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL Councillor D. Lougheed • Attended the recent Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference in Ottawa. Councillor R. Boynton • Reminded Council and the Public that the Innisfil Celtic Festival is taking place on September 13, 2014 from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm at Innisfil Beach Park. Also advised that I-Rally for Cancer’s Annual Gala for Gilda is taking place on September 19, 2014 at the Ferndale Banquet Hall. The theme for this year’s event is “Country Hoe Down”. Councillor L. Dollin • Attended the South Innisfil Creek Drain Procedural Hearing held on September 3, 2014. • Advised Council and the Public that Paws for a Cause is taking place on September 7 in Stroud; the Cookstown Chamber of Commerce will be hosting their Golf Tournament on September 11 at Habourview Golf Course in Gilford. • Advised that the Parade Marshall for the 2014 International Plowing Match (IPM) in Ivy will be 2014 Olympic Gold Medalist Jennifer Jones. Keith Robinson of Cookstown will be honoured for competing in his 65th consecutive IPM. Councillor R. Simpson • Attended the South Innisfil Creek Drain Procedural Hearing held on September 3, 2014. • Advised that he will be judging the Corn Eating Contest at Paws for a Cause at 11:30 am in the Stroud Arena. Mayor B. Baguley • Advised Council and the Public that Paws for a Cause is taking place on September 7 in Stroud. CAO • Expressed thanks on behalf of the Town for Summer Students who worked for the municipality this summer. • Advised Council and the Public that the County of Simcoe will be hosting the Warden’s Golf Tournament on September 4. • Advised that the September 17 Council meeting will be last meeting of this Council. A special meeting is being planned for November. Formal date to be determined. Councillor D. Lougheed • Attended the recent Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference in Ottawa.

Council Minutes September 3, 2014 12.

CONFIRMING BY-LAW (12.1)

By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil at the meeting held on September 3, 2014.

CR-141.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor M. Baier Councillor D. Lougheed

That By-law No. 092-14, being the confirming by-law of the Regular Council Meeting held on September 3, 2014, be adopted. --carried-13.

ADJOURNMENT (13.1)

Meeting Adjournment.

CR-142.14

Resolution Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson Councillor K. Simpson

That Council adjourn at 8:39 p.m. until the next meeting on September 17, 2014 or at the call of the Mayor. --carried--

Karen Fraser,

Acting Clerk

Barbara Baguley,

Adopted September 17, 2014, Resolution # CR-XXX-XX.14

Mayor

SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 COUNCIL MINUTES APPENDIX A INFORMATION LIST #15-14 ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AS INFORMATION Town Correspondence CR-136-17.14

G.1 That the correspondence from the Supervisor of Roads dated August 5, 2014 addressed to Roger and Ashley Boilard, re: flooding concerns, be received as information.

CR-136-18.14

G.2 That the copy of the signed Letter of Agreement for the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding to Increase Capacity of the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant, be received as information.

CR-136-19.14

G.3 That the correspondence from the Policy Planner dated August 25, 2014, re: Notice of Concurrence for Antenna Systems Proposed by Innisfil Hydro be received as information.

Proclamations CR-136-20.14

G.4 That the correspondence from Quest Collegiate dated August 12, 2014 requesting the Town proclaim September 27, 2014 as Recovery Day Simcoe County 2014 be received and hereby proclaimed.

Intergovernmental Correspondence CR-136-21.14

G.5 That the correspondence from the Town of Penetanguishene dated June 25, 2014 addressed to the Premier of Ontario, re: Call for a Formation of Small and Rural School Alliance, be received as information.

CR-136-22.14

G.6 That the correspondence from the Township of Essa dated July 14, 2014, re: Angus Tornado Incident June 17, 2014, be received as information.

Board and Agency Correspondence CR-136-23.14

G.7 That the Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board minutes of meeting held June 16, 2014, be received as information.

CR-136-24.14

G.8 That the Press Release from the NVCA dated July 23, 2014, re: groundwater study to enhance source water protection in central Simcoe County, be received as information.

CR-136-25.14

G.9 That the Press Release from the NVCA dated July 31, 2014, re: Go Green to Keep it Blue! – NVCA offers grants to improve stream habitat and water quality, be received as information.

CR-136-26.14

G.10 That the NVCA Conservation Update dated August, 2014, be received as information.

CR-136-27.14

G.11 That the OMB Memorandum of Oral Decision dated July 28, 2014, re: Case No. PL091167 – Simcoe County Official Plan, be received as information. [Fwd to Legal & Planning Services – July 30/14]

CR-136-28.14

G.12 That the Minutes of the Alliston & Area Physician Committee Meeting held on July 17, 2014, be received as information.

Information List # 15-14

CR-136-29.14

Appendix A

September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 3

G.13 That the correspondence from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority dated July 30, 2014, re: Announcement of new Chief Administrative Officer, be received as information.

General Correspondence CR-140-04.14

G.14 That the correspondence from Drainage Investment Group (DIG) dated July 14, 2014, re: introduction of their not-for-profit organization, be received as information.

CR-136-30.14

G.15 That the correspondence from Electronic Park Music Festival dated August 6, 2014, re: announcement of postponement of 2nd Annual EDM Festival scheduled for September 20, 2014, be received as information.

CR-136-31.14

G.16 That the correspondence from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario dated July 21, 2014, re: extension of deadline to nominate a physician for a Council Award to October 1, 2014, be received as information.

CR-136-32.14

G.17 That the correspondence from MPAC dated July 31, 2014, re: Regulations on Valuations of Billboards, Non-profit Hospices Exemption and Housekeeping Amendments, be received as information.

CR-136-33.14

G.18 That the correspondence from Project Assist dated July 25, 2014, re: announcement by the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council (Council) and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. that Innisfil Fire & Rescue will receive $5,000 credit at the Council’s Distribution Centre to purchase firefighter training materials, be received as information.

CR-136-34.14

G.19 That the AMO Communications dated August 14, 2014, re: Members’ Policy Update: OPP Billing Model Announcement, be received as information.

CR-136-35.14

G.20 That the correspondence from Building Industry and Land Development Association dated August 22, 2014, re: Support for a Request for Amendment to Noise By-law No. 051-06 for Saturday construction, be received as information. [Ref: Staff Report DSR-146-14 dated September 3, 2014.]

CR-136-36.14

G.21 That the correspondence from Sharon Villani dated August 18, 2014, re: New Alcona GO Station, be received as information.

ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA INDICATED FOR REVIEW & REPLY, WITH A COPY TO COUNCIL AS INFORMATION None received ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA FOR REVIEW, ACTION AND REPLY, WITH A COPY TO COUNCIL AS INFORMATION None received.

Information List # 15-14

Appendix A

September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 3

ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA INDICATED FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL None received.

TOWN OF INNISFIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CLOSED SESSION

Item A.4 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

REPORT NO. CW-15.14 WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

8:45 p.m.

In accordance with the Town’s Procedural By-law 077-11, Section 116, Council Resolution No. CR-140-03.14 was adopted on September 3 2014 to hold a Committee of the Whole “Closed Session” meeting at the Municipal Office with the following members present. Mayor: Deputy Mayor: Councillor: Councillor: *Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: 1.

B. Baguley D. Davidson D. Lougheed R. Simpson K. Simpson R Boynton B. Loughead M. Baier L. Dollin

Chief Administrative Officer: Deputy CAO/Solicitor: Deputy CAO/Town Engineer: Acting Clerk:

J. Skorobohacz J. Reynar A. Campbell K. Fraser

The Committee was provided information relating to a proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality or local board pertaining to Maple Road. 

The Committee considered the information provided by the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor and gave direction to staff.

*Councillor Ken Simpson arrived at 8:53 p.m.

The Committee was provided information on Evans Place road end as it relates to a proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality or local board. 

The Committee was presented information relating to a proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality or local board pertaining to Queen Street Urbanization. 

The Committee considered the information provided by the Deputy CAO/Town Engineer and provided direction to staff.

The Committee was provided information on a litigation or potential litigation, including matters before Administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board relating to 37 Queen Street. 

.5.

The Committee considered the information presented by the Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor and provided direction to staff.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. __________________________ Chairperson

Item A.5 Council Agenda Sept 17/14 Hearing Pursuant to Animal Control By-law 068-06

Jason Pacitto August 20, 2014 Page 1 of 2

Animal Control By-law 068-06 Hearing of the Town of Innisfil Council was held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Offices at 6:00 p.m. with the following members present: Attendance: Mayor: B. Baguley, Chair Deputy Mayor: D. Davidson Councillor: D. Lougheed Councillor: R. Simpson Councillor: B. Loughead Councillor: L. Dollin Regrets: Councillor: Councillor: Councillor: 1.

Town Solicitor: Acting Clerk: Chief Building Official: Law Clerk: Student at Law:

J. Reynar K. Fraser D. Rodgers T. Morden L. Parkin

M. Baier R. Boynton K. Simpson

OPENING OF HEARING Chair opened the hearing by indicating that this is a Hearing pursuant to Section 8.4 of By-Law No. 068-06, the Town of Innisfil Animal Control By-Law, and is being held at the written request of the owner of a dog which has been designated a “Dangerous Dog” under the By-Law.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES Appellant – Mr. Jason Pacitto Town Representative – Mr. Lee Parkin, Student at Law Witness – Mr. John Irving Witness – Ms. Sherri Hall, Animal Control Officer

STATEMENT FROM STAFF AND SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE 

Mr. Parkin provided an overview of the rationale for the designation and the documents that were provided by the victim to Clerk Services and Municipal Law Enforcement, which were also provided to the appellant.



Mr. Parkin examined Mr. Irving and Ms. Hall.

PRESENTATION BY APPELLANT 

Mr. Pacitto presented his evidence with respect to the character of the dog and advised that this was the first incident of this nature. He submitted letters of character and photographs regarding the dog as evidence.



Mr. Parkin cross-examined the Appellant.

Hearing Pursuant to Animal Control By-law 068-06 August 20, 2014

HEARING PANEL QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION 

Questions were asked and addressed.



Mr. Pacitto cross-examined the witnesses.

RESPONSE FROM STAFF 

Mr. Parkin addressed questions of the Hearing Panel.

HEARING PANEL DELIBERATION PERIOD 

Page 2 of 2

Questions were asked and addressed and final comments presented.

DECISION The appeal by Mr. Jason Pacitto is hereby dismissed; and The designation of “Dangerous Dog” remain in force and effect and is hereby required to comply with the conditions as set out below, pursuant to Section 8.5 and Section 8.7 of the Town of Innisfil By-law 068-06:

10.

ADJOURNMENT 

The hearing adjourned at 6:58 p.m.

Item B.1 Council Agenda Sept 17/14 Innisfil Heritage Committee

HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT 07-14 MEETING DATE:

August 7, 2014

LOCATION:

Innisfil Town Hall Community Rooms B & C William M. Kell

CHAIR:

TIME: 7:00 pm

ATTENDANCE:

Historical Society Member/Chair: Vice Chair: Member: Member: Councillor: Committee Co-ordinator:

William M. Kell Derrick Pirie Ileen Sabean Gina Hartly Doug Lougheed Kevin Jacob

REGRETS:

Member:

David Steele

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:00 pm.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2.1)

Approval of the Agenda for August 7, 2014. Resolution Moved By: Councillor D. Lougheed Seconded By: I. Sabean That the agenda for August 7, 2014 be approved as amended with the additions of items 5.2 and 6.2. --carried--

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AND THE NATURE THEREOF None received.

PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS None received.

Heritage Committee Report 07-14

August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 5

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (5.1)

Minutes of the July 3, 2014 Committee meeting. Proposed Designation of 37 Queen Street, Cookstown â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cookstown United Church The Committee Coordinator provided an overview of the process to date. The deadline to submit objections to the Acting Clerk is August 18, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. No objections have been received at the time of the meeting.

(5.2)

Committee Minutes The Committee discussed the methods currently used to record minutes of Committee meetings and suggested possible alternatives. Resolution Moved By: Councillor D. Lougheed Seconded By: I. Sabean That Committee minutes be recorded as recommendations passed by the Committee with the exception of announcements from Committee members, Questions from the Public and other items not considered business items. --carried--

NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS (6.1)

Designation Update and By-law Preparation - 37 Queen Street, Cookstown (Cookstown United Church) The Committee Coordinator provided an overview of the process to date and advised of the steps needed to be done by the Committee, as per previous designations, in order for the designation by-law to move forward for Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consideration. Resolution Moved By: I. Sabean Seconded By: G. Hartly That the update regarding the designation of 37 Queen Street Cookstown (Cookstown United Church) be received; and That the Committee continue the process of preparing a draft designation bylaw for consideration by Council. --carried--

Heritage Committee Report 07-14

(6.2)

August 7, 2014 Page 3 of 5

Additional Heritage Signs for Cookstown. The Committee Co-ordinator provided an overview of the memo from Becky Breedon, Development and Marketing Co-ordinator for the Town Of Innisfil. In Spring 2014, Town staff received confirmation from the County of Simcoe that the Trails Connecting Communities Program (TCCP) application had been approved. Within the application Town staff had proposed to introduce two (2) historical markers at the entranceways of the Trans-Canada Trail highlighting the heritage of the railway in Innisfil. After the additional signs were approved, the County proposed three additional historical markers within the Village of Cookstown. The three proposed historical markers that have tentatively been approved by the County of Simcoe are:  A marker at 10 Church Street about Emily Murphy;  A marker at 1 Hamilton Street (Old Town Hall) about the history of the building and Cookstown; and  A marker at the Cenotaph about the memorial trees As per the TransCanada Trails signs, the request from Town Staff is for the Committee to cover the design, fabrication and installation cost of these three proposed signs with the County reimbursing half the cost upon completion. Resolution Moved By: Councillor D. Lougheed Seconded By: D. Pirie That the Committee approves the purchase of additional three historical markers for the village of Cookstown at:  10 Church Street  1 Hamilton Street  Village Cenotaph and Memorial Trees --carried--

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES (7.1)

Correspondence from the Grand River Conservation Authority dated July 4, 2014, re: 2014 Heritage River Anniversary Award.

(7.2)

Correspondence from Ileen Sabean, re: Treaty No. 18, Upper Canada Land Surrenders.

Heritage Committee Report 07-14

August 7, 2014 Page 4 of 5

Ms. Sabean provided some background on Treaty No. 18 and its significance to the Town of Innisfil. She stated that this may be something that could be recognized with a future heritage sign or as an anniversary celebration. Resolution Moved By: Councillor D. Lougheed Seconded By: D. Pirie That item 7.1 and 7.2 be received as information. --carried--

PENDING ITEMS (8.1)

Properties for consideration for the Heritage Registry  21 Church St, Cookstown (old Presbyterian Church)  34 King Street South, Cookstown Ms. Hartly advised that she has spoken further with the owner of 34 King Street South regarding the designation of a property.

(8.2)

Plaque ceremony for 1350 6th Line (Cortelluci/Sawyer Property)

(8.3)

Soules Cemetery

(8.4)

2015 Ontario Heritage Week

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Councillor D. Lougheed  Advise that he had a discussion with the owner of 2 Church Street, Cookstown. A thorough inspection of the building has determined that it is structurally sound.

10.

QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. R. Reid advised that he has been involved with underground surveying of older cemeteries in the Toronto area and offered to provide contact information if the Committee is interested.

11.

UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETINGS September 4, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Community Rooms B & C, Innisfil Town Hall October 2, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Community Rooms B & C, Innisfil Town Hall November 6, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Community Rooms B & C, Innisfil Town Hall

Heritage Committee Report 07-14

12.

August 7, 2014 Page 5 of 5

ADJOURNMENT Moved By: D. Pirie Seconded By: Councillor D. Lougheed That the meeting adjourn at 8:41 p.m. --carried--

TOWN OF INNISFIL COMMUNITY GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEE

Item B.2 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014 5:30 P.M. – COMMUNITY ROOM A REPORT NO. 02-14

Present: Chair: Member: Member: Member: Member: Staff: 1.

Colin Wilson Paul Landry

CALL TO ORDER (1.1)

Regrets: Vice Chair: Member:

Deb Crawford Gwen Bennett John Pugsley Dr. B. Lamba Deirdre FitzGerald Karen Fraser

The Chair called the meeting to Order at 6:14 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2.1)

Agenda for April 7, 2014. Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the agenda for April 7, 2014 be approved as amended with the addition of Items 6.3 and 8.2. -carried-

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AND THE NATURE THEREOF Member J. Pugsley declared a conflict of interest on Item 5.3 due to an employment relationship with the Ontario Trillium Foundation. He did not vote on the matter or participate in discussion. Member D. FitzGerald declared a conflict of interest on Item 7.5 due to being a member of the Innisfil YMCA. She did not vote on the matter or participate in discussion. Member G. Bennett declared a conflict of interest on Item 7.5 due to being a member of the Innisfil YMCA. She did not vote on the matter or participate in discussion. …/

ICGRC Report 02-14

April 7, 2014

Page 2

Member D. FitzGerald declared a conflict of interest on Item 7.6 due to membership in the Cookstown and District Chamber of Commerce. She did not vote on the matter or participate in discussion.

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (4.1)

ICGRC Report No. 01-14, dated January 14, 2014 Recommendation Moved By: B. Lamba Seconded By: D. FitzGerald That the Innisfil Community Grant Review Committee Report No. 01-14, dated January 14, 2014, be accepted as printed and forwarded to Council for approval. -carried-

(4.2)

Business Arising from the January 14, 2014 Minutes: [None presented]

CORRESPONDENCE (5.1)

Request from Cookstown Curling Club Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Pugsley B. Lamba

That the correspondence from the Cookstown Curling Club dated February 21, 2014, regarding the use of Inspiring Innisfil grant proceeds for furnace replacement, be received; and That the Innisfil Community Grant Review Committee requests that a reply be provided to the Cookstown Curling Club indicating that there is no provision for such a request under the current guidelines, therefore the request is denied. -carried-

(5.2)

Correspondence from Innisfil Beach Cruisers Car Club â&#x20AC;Ś/

ICGRC Report 02-14

Moved By: Seconded By:

April 7, 2014

Page 3

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the correspondence from the Innisfil Beach Cruisers Car Club dated February 28, 2014, thanking the Inspiring Innisfil Grant Review Committee, be received; and That the correspondence information.

forwarded

Council

-carried-

(5.3)

Correspondence to the Ontario Trillium Foundation Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba D. FitzGerald

That the correspondence from Karen Fraser dated April 7, 2014, thanking the Ontario Trillium Foundation for helping to promote the Inspiring Innisfil Fund at the “Funder is In” event, be received; and That the correspondence information.

forwarded

Council

-carried-

AUDIT AND BUDGET REPORTS (6.1)

Budget to Actual Variance Report, March, 2014 – Inspiring Innisfil Fund Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba D. FitzGerald

That the Budget to Actual Variance Report for the period ending March, 2014, be received. -carried-

…/

ICGRC Report 02-14

(6.2)

April 7, 2014

Page 4

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Veterans of Innisfil Book Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Pugsley B. Lamba

That the Final Report from the Veterans of Innisfil Book, for funding in the amount of $4,500 on January 21, 2014, be received; and That staff request clarification around actual payments made and that final statements be provided. -carried(6.3)

Revision to Final Reporting Form Moved By: Seconded By:

D. FitzGerald B. Lamba

That the Final Reporting Form be amended to require inclusion of a detailed summary of project revenues and expenses and year-end financial statements for the year the project was completed. -carried-

CONSIDERATION/RECOMMEDATION OF APPLICATIONS (APPEALS)

(7.1)

Consideration of an Application from Innisfil Community Garden requesting $1,500.00 towards the establishment of a community vegetable garden.

Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Pugsley B. Lamba

That the Committee recommends the application from Innisfil Community Garden for $1,500 be approved conditional upon the provision to the Innisfil Community Grant Review Committee, an approved plan endorsed by the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee by April 30, 2014. -carried-

â&#x20AC;Ś/

ICGRC Report 02-14

(7.2)

April 7, 2014

Page 5

Consideration of an Application from Welcome the World Wheelchair Curling requesting $23,700.00 towards the initiation of wheelchair curling at the Stroud Curling Club.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba G. Bennett

That the Committee recommends the application from Welcome the World Wheelchair Curling in the amount of $23,700 to introduce wheelchair curling at Stroud Curling Club be declined; and That the applicant be advised to contact the Town of Innisfil as landowner, to review and consider any required accessibility renovations. -carried-

(7.3)

Consideration of an Application from Alcona Beach Club Inc. requesting $12,775.00 towards aesthetic improvements to the club event hall.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the Committee recommends the application from Alcona Beach Club Inc. in the amount of $12,775 for aesthetic improvements to the club event hall be approved. -carried-

(7.4)

Consideration of an Application from Celebrate Lake Simcoe requesting $15,000.00 towards a new partnership with SPLASH for its annual festival.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba G. Bennett

That the Committee recommends the application from Celebrate Lake Simcoe in the amount of $15,000 towards a new partnership with SPLASH for its annual festival be approved. -carried-

(7.5)

Consideration of an Application from YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka (Innisfil â&#x20AC;Ś/

ICGRC Report 02-14

April 7, 2014

Page 6

YMCA) requesting $5,000.00 towards support for community recreation programming.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the Committee recommends the application from YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka (Innisfil YMCA) in the amount of $5,000 for community recreation programming, be approved. -carried-

(7.6)

Consideration of an Application from Cookstown and District Chamber of Commerce requesting $17,025.70 towards benches and garbage cans for Cookstown’s downtown core.

Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Pugsley B. Lamba

That the Committee recommends the application from Cookstown and District Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $17,025.70 for benches and garbage cans for Cookstown’s downtown core be declined; and That the applicant be advised to contact the Town of Innisfil to review and consider the request through the budget review process. -carried-

(7.7)

Consideration of an Application from Churchill Curling Club requesting $12,000.00 towards a new curling ice scraper.

Moved By: Seconded By:

D. FitzGerald G. Bennett

That the Committee recommends the application from Churchill Curling Club in the amount of $12,000 for the purchase of a new ice scraper be approved. -carried-

…/

ICGRC Report 02-14

(7.8)

April 7, 2014

Page 7

Consideration of an Application from Nottawasaga Community Economic Development Corporation (N.C.E.D.C.) requesting $10,455.00 for reforestation projects along identified stream corridors in Innisfil.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba D. FitzGerald

That the Committee recommends the application from Nottawasaga Community Economic Development Corporation (N.C.E.D.C.) in the amount of $10,455 for re-forestation projects along identified stream corridors in Innisfil be approved. -carried-

(7.9)

Consideration of an Application from Off Leash Dog Park Committee requesting $4,900.00 towards lighting and waste receptacles for the dog park.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the Committee recommends that the application from the Off Leash Dog Park Committee in the amount of $4,900 for lighting and waste receptacles for the dog park be declined; and That the applicant be advised to contact the Town of Innisfil to review and consider the request through the budget review process. -carried-

(7.10)

Consideration of an Application from Innisfil Minor Lacrosse Association requesting $8,236.03 towards Innisfil Wolfpack Jerseys.

Moved By: Seconded By:

B. Lamba J. Pugsley

That the Committee recommends the application from Innisfil Minor Lacrosse Association in the amount of $8,236.03 for the purchase of Innisfil Wolfpack Jerseys be approved. -carried-

â&#x20AC;Ś/

ICGRC Report 02-14

April 7, 2014

Page 8

NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(8.1)

(8.2)

Items for Discussion: (8.1.1)

Karen provided an update on Grant Education Sessions.

(8.1.2)

Suggested dates for cheque presentation were discussed. Karen will send an e-mail to committee members requesting preferred dates.

(8.1.3)

Fall 2014 intake dates were discussed. September 5th was preferred date. Tentative review date is September 22, 2014. Revisions to the Final Report form were discussed.

Request to move balance of unspent Inspiring Innisfil Spring 2014 funds to the Fall 2014 intake. Moved By: Seconded By:

G. Bennett J. Pugsley

That the committee requests that Council authorize the transfer of the unspent balance of Inspiring Innisfil Spring 2014 funds to the Fall 2014 intake for distribution to the public. -carried-

NEXT MEETING [To be determined]

10.

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

â&#x20AC;Ś/

Item B.3 Council Agenda Sept. 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL INNISFIL ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT 07-14 AUGUST 12, 2014

TOWN HALL COMMUNITY ROOM ‘B & C’ – 1:00 P.M. Present:

Chair Acting Chair Vice Chair Councillor Member Member Member Assistant Clerk

Margaretta Papp-Belayneh Joe Winson Rick Winson Rod Boynton Kim Bos Paul Baker Robert Davies Kim Creamer

Regrets:

Member

Diane Sykes

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:16 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2.1)

Approval of the Agenda for August 12, 2014. Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Boynton K. Bos

That the agenda for August 12, 2014 be approved as amended with the addition of Item 6.7, 7.8 and 7.9. --carried--

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

August 12, 2014 Page 2 of 9

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Councillor R. Boynton declared a conflict on Item 7.4 due to being a competitor and did not participation in any discussion or vote on the matter.

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (4.1)

IAAC Report No. 06-14, dated June 10, 2014. Moved By: Seconded By:

R. Winson K. Bos

The Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 06-14, dated June 10, 2014 be accepted as printed and forwarded to Council for approval. --carried-(4.2)

Business Arising from the Minutes: The Committee read the minutes and provided comments on:  Accessible Community Gardens went well this year with food being donated to the Barrie Food Bank  Suggest promoting the accessible beds early for next year’s planting  IAAC will send letter to Innisfil Community Gardens

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

August 12, 2014 Page 3 of 9

PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS (5.1)

Deaf Blind Ontario Services â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Accessibility Standards Guide for Residential Properties. Ms. Girard advised DeafBlind Ontario Services was founded in 1989 and is the largest not-for-profit organization in Ontario providing intervenor, residential and other specialized services to adults who are Deafblind. Over 60 individuals lives in six service locations throughout Simcoe County, York Region, Middlesex-Oxford, Tri-Cities, Durham-Peterborough and the National Capital Region. Ninety-five percent of what we learn comes from our eyes and ears. Deafblindess is a complex disability combining varying degrees of both hearing and visual impairment, making it unique to each individual. Without the support of specially trained staff, called Intervenors, their clients have no understanding of every day concepts we take for granted. Their clients have the capacity to build their life skills, gain independence and contribute to the great community with the support of specially trained Intervenors and specialized housing that caters to their needs. Ms. Gaudet advised the Committee DeafBlind Ontario Services has 16 homes and three apartments across the province. The clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes have been adapted as much as possible to meet their needs. In 2013, DeafBlind Ontario Services conducted a complete review of its homes for both sensory and physical accessibility, which resulted in developing the Accessibility Standards Guide. This Guide was developed to share standards and provide helpful tips that focus on establishing inclusive home environments for individuals with varying sensory loss. The objective of using these standards is to increase functionality, safety, independence and overall accessibility for those varying abilities.

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

August 12, 2014 Page 4 of 9

This Guide is available to anyone in the community who needs to adapt their home in order to make them more accessible for individuals with sensory or physical impairments. For an electronic version of the Accessibility Standards Guide, please contact Susan Manahan at 905-853-2862, ext: 228 or email your request to ddc@deafblindontario.com Moved By: Seconded By:

P. Baker R. Winson

That the presentation by Shannon Girard, Manager of Regional Operations and Suzanne Gaudet, Senior Coordinator of Development from Deaf Blind Ontario Services, be received with thanks. --carried--

NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS (6.1)

2015 Budget Submission and 2014 Budget Summary. ď&#x201A;ˇ The Committee reviewed and accepted the budget submission and summary. Moved By: Seconded By:

R. Winson K. Bos

That the 2014 Budget Summary and 2015 Budget Submission, be accepted as presented and provided to the Acting Clerk for consideration by Council during Budget deliberations. --carried--

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

(6.2)

August 12, 2014 Page 5 of 9

Memorandum from the Innisfil Community Health Committee (ICHC) re: no Blood Testing Labs in Innisfil & shortage of Government Funded PSWs. [Ref: IAAC May 13/14, Item 6.7(2 & 3)] Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Boynton R. Winson

That the memorandum from the ICHC dated July 28, 2014, be received as information; and That the IAAC Chair make further enquiries for other services available in Innisfil. --carried--

(6.3)

Update re: crossing time for the pedestrian traffic signal at Innisfil Beach Road & Adullam Ave. [Ref: IAAC May 13/14, Item 6.7(1)] ď&#x201A;ˇ Time increased by the Contractor Moved By: Seconded By:

K. Bos J. Winson

That the update from the Assistant Clerk be received as information and the IAAC expresses their appreciation in this matter being addressed in a quick manner. --carried--

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

(6.4)

August 12, 2014 Page 6 of 9

Memorandum from Amber Leal, Engineering Technologist re: update on GO Transit Bus Stops. Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Winson R. Davies

That the memorandum dated August 7, 2014 regarding GO Transit Bus Stops at various intersections in Innisfil, be received as information and the Committee extends their appreciation to staff in working towards improving this service in Innisfil. --carried-(6.5)

Independent Living Services of Simcoe County â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SMART Agenda for September 17, 2014. Moved By: Seconded By:

K. Bos R. Winson

That the SMART Agenda be received and that Margaretta Papp-Belayneh, Joe Winson and Paul Baker be authorized to attend this event and the funding be approved under the IAAC 2014 Budget. --carried-(6.6)

Draft Consultation Feedback Survey. (prepared by Rick Winson) Moved By: Seconded By:

P. Baker J. Winson

That the Feedback Survey be received and forwarded to the Gilford United Church for comments and any future consultations for feedback. --carried--

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

(6.7)

August 12, 2014 Page 7 of 9

Draft 2013/2014 Annual Work Plan Review. Moved By: Seconded By:

R. Winson K. Bos

That the draft 2013/2014 Annual Work Plan be received and the comments provided by the Committee be incorporated and update by the Assistant Clerk and brought back to the next meeting for finalization. --carried-(6.8)

Draft Annual IAAC Plan and Presentation to Council September 17, 2014. Moved By: Seconded By:

R. Davies Councillor R. Boynton

That the draft Annual Accessibility Plan and Power Point Presentation be received and the comments provided by the Committee be incorporated and update by the Assistant Clerk and brought back to the next meeting for finalization. --carried-(6.9)

Feedback re: Family Fun Day Participation.  Good participation  Vision Simulation & Unfair Hearing test demonstrations were well received  Downsized wheelchair demonstrations conducted  Brochures and information handed out  Need to secure a canopy early next year Moved By: Seconded By:

J. Winson P. Baker

That the feedback be received as information. --carried--

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

August 12, 2014 Page 8 of 9

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES (7.1)

Updated pictures of the Accessible Gardens at Knock Community Centre.

(7.2)

Independent Living Services dated June 9, 2014 thank you letter for attending the Universal Design Forum May 20, 2014.

(7.3)

Copy of letter sent to Rose D`Angelo dated June 12, 2014.

(7.4)

Copy of letter sent to Petro Gas Station at 2371 25 Sideroad re: accessibility barriers.

(7.5)

AMCTO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 13, 2015 marks the 10th anniversary of the Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act (AODA). Seeking assistance to create a focus group this fall in each Zone to help outline the scope and to build a meaningful agenda for this event.

(7.6)

Accessibility Directorate of Ontario dated July 21, 2014 re: Release of new Policy Guidelines on the Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces are now available on the website. Accessibility@ontario.ca

(7.7)

Copy of letter sent to R. H. Carter Architects Inc. re: Audi Dealership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Site Plan SP-2014-0014.

(7.8)

Rogers TV provided promotion of a new restaurant in Toronto called Signs Restaurant & Bar that provides service in sign language.

(7.9)

Static Parachuting located in Brampton and Niagara Falls. People in wheelchairs can participate in the experience too.

Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee Report No. 07-14

Moved By: Seconded By:

August 12, 2014 Page 9 of 9

R. Winson K. Bos

That Items 7.1 to 7.9 be received as information. --carried--

NEXT MEETINGS 2014 Meeting Schedule. All meetings start at 1:00 p.m. and will be held in Community Rooms B&C on the main level. September 9th

September 17th – Annual Plan

th – Community Room A

October 7

presentation – Council Chambers

November 18th

December 9th

ADJOURNMENT Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor R. Boynton J. Winson

The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m. --carried--

Item C.1 Council Agenda 1326Sept Innisfil17/14 Beach Road Innisfil, ON, L9S 4B7 Gord Wauchope, Chairman Phone: (705) 436-5388 Email: blackhawks2213@bell.net

August 13, 2014

Mayor Barb Baguley and Members of Council Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON, L9S 5A3 RE: 2014 Santa Claus Parade The 2014 Santa Claus Parade in Alcona is scheduled to be held on Sunday November 30 th, 2014. Once again ICECorp will be the prime organizer of this highly anticipated and successful event. Last year there were over 60 floats and it was the largest Santa Claus Parade to Date. In preparation for this event we will be meeting with South Simcoe Police to discuss and work on a plan to eliminate some of the congestion and traffic problems related to the road closures and restrictions in order to conduct the parade. In addition we will be submitting a Special Event Permit to the Town, within the next few weeks, in order to cover all associated issues with having such a large parade. The route will be the same as last year commencing at Innisfil Park and proceeding west along Innisfil Beach Road to Jans Boulevard which will be the termination point of the parade. Given that Council has a reduced meeting schedule due to the upcoming municipal election, with only two (2) regular council meetings scheduled, we are submitting this early request for the following.  Road Closure of Innisfil Beach Road from 1:15pm to approximately 3:00pm for the duration of the Santa Claus Parade from Innisfil Park to Jans Boulevard.  Lane restriction closure on the north side of Innsifil Beach Road from Innisfil Park to 25 Sideroad from 12 noon to 1:15pm.  Authorization to use Innisfil Park Parking Lots, at no cost, from 10:00am to 3:00pm in order to assemble/organize the floats and parade.  Authorize that 25 Sideroad South and Lakelands Avenue be used as an alternate route for delivery of people participants of the parade to Innisfil Park to be coordinated between ICECorp, South Simcoe Police, and Innisfil Roads Department.  That a staff member be given delegated authority of council to approve parade operational requests which may be not be covered by this correspondence and/or

ICECorp’s dedicated Signature and Community Sponsors Aqua Gem Companies

Mayor Baguley and Council – 2014 Santa Claus Parade (cont’d) recommended by police, fire or town, given that no regular council meetings may be available to do same. We thank council for consideration of our early requests, given the circumstances. Once again we believe that this year’s version of the Santa Claus Parade will be enjoyable and entertaining to all. Respectfully submitted,

Gord Wauchope, Chairperson Innisfil Community Events Corporation

Page 2 of 2 ICECorp’s dedicated Signature and Community Sponsors Aqua Gem Companies

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. 100-14 A By-Law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to provide for the temporary closing of highways, being Innisfil Beach Road from the 25 th Sideroad to Innisfil Beach Park (north side) from 12:00 pm to 1:15 pm; and Innisfil Beach Road from Innisfil Beach Park to Jans Boulevard from 1:15 pm to 3:00 pm, Town of Innisfil, County of Simcoe on Sunday November 30, 2014.

WHEREAS Council on August 13, 2014 received a request from ICEcorp to temporarily close highways, being Innisfil Beach Road from the 25 th Sideroad to Innisfil Beach Park (north side) from 12:00 pm to 1:15 pm; and Innisfil Beach Road from Innisfil Beach Park to Jans Boulevard from 1:15 pm to 3:00 pm, Town of Innisfil, County of Simcoe, on Sunday, November 30, 2014; and WHEREAS Pursuant to Subsection 23.2(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, a municipality may delegate to a committee of council or an employee of the municipality, subject to certain restrictions, the power to close a highway temporarily. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil hereby enacts as follows: 1. Council does hereby temporarily stop up and close to vehicular traffic: Innisfil Beach Road from the 25 th Sideroad to Innisfil Beach Park (north side) from 12:00 pm to 1:15 pm; and Innisfil Beach Road from Innisfil Beach Park to Jans Boulevard from 1:15 pm to 3:00 pm, Town of Innisfil, County of Simcoe on Sunday, November 30, 2014; and 2. That all emergency services be so notified, i.e. South Simcoe Police Services, Innisfil Fire & Rescue Services and Ambulance. 3. Council does hereby authorize the Mayor and Acting Clerk to take all necessary action to carry out the provisions of this by-law including the execution of any documentation in connection with the temporary closing. 4. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passing. PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

_____________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

_____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

Item C.2 Council Agenda 1326 Innisfil Beach Road Sept 17/14 Innisfil, ON, L9S 4B7

Gord Wauchope, Chairman Phone: (705) 436-5388 Email: blackhawks2213@bell.net

August 13, 2014

Mayor Barb Baguley and Members of Council Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON, L9S 5A3 RE: 2014/2015 New Year’s Eve Skate and Fireworks Once again this New Year’s Eve ICECorp will be hosting Innisfil’s only New Year’s Eve celebration – the New Year’s Eve Skate and Fireworks. Similar to previous years there will be a family skate, hot dogs, pizza, drinks, games and prizes. The evening is completed with a spectacular fireworks display welcoming in the New Year – 2015. Given that council has a reduced schedule with only two (2) regularly scheduled meetings, at this time, we are submitting this early request for council approval to hold a fireworks display at required by the Bylaw 073-10. Once again we will be using the services of Al Kinsella, a licensed fireworks technician, who has done many events for us in the past and is well regarded by Fire Services. We are not requesting any fee consideration for the Fire Services inspection as we have already utilized our Council Discretionary Fund allotment for 2014. Your consideration of this early request is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted,

Gord Wauchope, Chairperson Innisfil Community Events Corporation

ICECorp’s dedicated Signature and Community Sponsors Aqua Gem Companies

Item C.3 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

EVALUATION SHEET FOR COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY GRANT APPLICATIONS Please Note: This evaluation is a suggestion only, and is intended to aid Council in its funding decision.

Applicant’s Name:

Scouts Canada – 1st Stroud Scout Club

Purpose for Funds:

Travel Grant – Cameron Seis July 2015 Scouting Jamboree in Japan

Date to Council: Amount Requested:

September 17, 2014 $1,000.00

For each of the following criteria, staff has suggested a rating of High, Medium, or Low , where High represents a strong recommendation, and low represents a low recommendation (H-M-L) Eligibility Considerations

    

Have all eligibility tests pursuant to section 2.3 of guidelines been met? Is the applicant a resident of the Town of Innisfil? Is the application complete including signatures and supporting documents? Has the applicant applied for Inspiring Innisfil or Council Discretionary funding in the past two years? Would this funding application be more appropriately considered under the Inspiring Innisfil Community Fund?

(H-M-L)

Fund Administration Considerations     

Are there sufficient details to fully establish the scope of the purpose for funding? Is there a leadership structure to manage and monitor the use of funds, if granted? Does it appear that future funding may be required? Has a sustainability plan been initiated or considered by the applicant? Is there an overall plan in place for use of funds, if granted?

(H-M-L)

Community Benefit Considerations    

Will the funds be used to serve and involve the community as a whole? Will the funds be used to foster positive change? Is there an obvious benefit to the residents of Innisfil? Does this funding request support one or more of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020* pillars? (Community Building/Tourism, Arts, Culture and Heritage/Economy) Overall Suggested Rating

Evaluator’s Date: Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk September 10, 2014 Name: Notes: Travel grants are encouraged through the Council Discretionary Fund. Benefit to the community could be increased if the applicants are encouraged to bring the cultural experiences obtained through travel, back to the residents of Innisfil. This could be encouraged either through delegation before Council or through an Open House forum. This application represents partial funding for a local scout to travel with the 1st Stroud Scout Group to Japan in March, 2015 for the World Scout Jamboree. In keeping with prescribed travel grant requirements, this application appears to be a fit. Approval is recommended. Pending funding availability through the Council Discretionary Fund for 2014, this application could be tabled for consideration with the 2015 applications as the event will occur in 2015.

Item C.4 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

EVALUATION SHEET FOR COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY GRANT APPLICATIONS Please Note: This evaluation is a suggestion only, and is intended to aid Council in its funding decision.

Applicant’s Name:

Scouts Canada – 1st Stroud Scout Group

Purpose for Funds:

Travel Grant – Dirk Seis July 2015 Scouting Jamboree in Japan

Date to Council: Amount Requested:

September 17, 2014 $1,000.00

    

(H-M-L)

Fund Administration Considerations     

(H-M-L)

Community Benefit Considerations    

Evaluator’s Date: Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk September 10, 2014 Name: Notes: Travel grants are encouraged through the Council Discretionary Fund. Benefit to the community could be increased if the applicants are encouraged to bring the cultural experiences obtained through travel, back to the residents of Innisfil. This could be encouraged either through delegation before Council or through an Open House forum. This application represents partial funding for a parent volunteer to travel with the 1st Stroud Scout Group to Japan in March, 2015 for the World Scout Jamboree. In keeping with prescribed travel grant requirements, this application appears to be a fit. Approval is recommended. Pending funding availability through the Council Discretionary Fund for 2014, this application could be tabled for consideration with the 2015 applications as the event will occur in 2015.

Item C.5 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

From: Marc Seguin [mailto:mseguin@innisfil.ca] Sent: August-22-14 1:50 PM To: Karen Fraser; Derrick Pirie Subject: RE: Sponsorship/Travel Grant Thanks Karen… Derrick: Please let me know how I might connect with you or page to get you some items. Marc Marc Seguin Manager of Economic & Community Development 705-436-3740 Ext. 1510 1-888-436-3710 (toll free)

From: Karen Fraser Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:07 PM To: Derrick Pirie Cc: Marc Seguin Subject: Sponsorship/Travel Grant

Hello Derrick, Just circling back with you following our meeting on Wednesday of this week. I’ve met this morning with Marc Seguin, Manager of Economic & Community Development, to share details of Paige’s opportunity to represent Innisfil and Canada at an international U14 soccer tournament in Italy next March. Marc is receptive to promoting Innisfil through Paige’s exciting opportunity. Unfortunately, a formal sponsorship program does not yet exist at the Town. Which means there is no budget or funding for such an initiative. In the interim, Marc would be pleased to provide Paige with some Innisfil branded gift items that she can take with her to share with other tournament participants. Derrick, I encourage Paige to apply for the Inspiring Innisfil grant program’s $1,000 travel grant. The deadline for application is September 5, 2014. Alternatively, there will be another application intake in mid-March, 2015, which may or may not be suitable for timing with the event. I’ve attached a grant application and application guidelines to assist you with the process. You will also find information on the Town’s web page at http://www.innisfil.ca/innisfilcommunity-grant-programs. It was a pleasure meeting with you, and hearing Paige’s exciting news. Please don’t hesitate to contact me to discuss further. Many thanks, Karen Fraser, CMO, Dipl.M.A. Acting Clerk 705-436-3740 Ext. 2402

EVALUATION SHEET FOR COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY GRANT APPLICATIONS Please Note: This evaluation is a suggestion only, and is intended to aid Council in its funding decision.

Applicant’s Name:

Team Agropolis 14 Girls (Paige Pirie)

Purpose for Funds:

Travel Grant – International soccer Tournament in Italy – March 2015

Date to Council: Amount Requested:

September 17, 2014 $1,000.00

    

(H-M-L)

Fund Administration Considerations     

(H-M-L)

Community Benefit Considerations    

Evaluator’s Date: Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk September 10, 2014 Name: Notes: Paige has been selected to participate in an international soccer tournament in Italy through a cultural/sporting exchange. Selection was based on her high calibre of play. Staff was approached prior to submission of the application to obtain sponsorship for Paige. As a sponsorship program does not exist in Innisfil, the travel grant application was recommended. Paige has agreed to share her travel experiences with Council and residents of Innisfil, either through delegation before Council or other forum. This application represents partial funding for the event, with additional fundraising being undertaken. This application appears to be a fit with prescribed travel grant requirements. Approval is recommended. Pending funding availability through the Council Discretionary Fund for 2014, this application could be tabled for consideration with the 2015 applications as the event will occur in 2015.

Item D.1 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-140-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Revised Final Commercial Water Taking Policies

CROSS REFERENCE:

DSR-095-14, DSR-060-14

RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the revised commercial water taking policies contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 12 (By-law No. 057-14) subject to approval from the County of Simcoe. 1.0

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

The purpose of this Staff Report is to outline revisions to the commercial water taking policies that were presented to Council on July 9, 2014. The policies were referred back to staff for consideration of the following additions: a) Testing for tolerance in possible drought scenarios; b) Conditions to restrict pumping during drought conditions; and c) To explore options to levee a fee or tariff on exported water. Based on this direction from Council, these considerations have been incorporated, where possible, into the commercial water taking policies (i.e. Section 3.7) contained in the attached Official Plan Amendment. The term ‘commercial water taking’ refers to the taking of water from the environment (from lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, and groundwater) for the purposes of commercial resale and/or distribution of water. The policies reflect numerous legislative changes that the Ontario Government has made in recent years to protect, improve and restore the quality and quantity of water. Particularly, the Clean Water Act (2006) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) require planning authorities to restrict development in or near vulnerable surface and ground water features. Through water conservation practices that sustain water quality, planning authorities are also directed to plan for the efficient and sustainable use of water resources. Prior to the final policies being presented at the July 9th Council Meeting, the draft commercial water taking policies were considered by Council and residents at the Public Meeting on May 14, 2014. Through this process, comments were received from the County of Simcoe, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA). The comments received from these agencies are also reflected in the Official Plan Amendment (OPA). …/

Staff Report DSR-140-14 Revised Final Commercial Water Taking Policies 2.0

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 3

REVISIONS TO COMMERCIAL WATER TAKING POLICIES

As identified in the OPA (see Attachment 1), a new section (‘3.7’) will be added into the Town’s Official Plan with policies and conditions to regulate the commercial taking of water. The following identifies any revisions to the policies based on the areas where Council requested staff to provide further consideration: a) Testing for tolerance in possible drought scenarios This request from Council resulted in a revision to the OPA. The following statement has been added to policy 4.2.1ii), to specify one of the required conditions for commercial water taking: “The quantity of water available for other uses in the area and the base flow for rivers and streams, wetlands and other water bodies in the watershed will not be negatively impacted, as also proven through testing for tolerance in possible drought scenarios.” b) Conditions to restrict pumping during drought conditions This request from Council has resulted in a revision to the OPA. In the paragraph that describes the conditions for approval and the requirements from Council for a monitoring agreement to ensure that neighbouring drinking water supplies are not negatively impacted, the following sentence has been added: “Council can also identify in the agreement that the taking of water will be restricted during drought conditions.” c) To explore options to levee a fee or tariff on exported water This request from Council did not result in any revisions to the OPA. Staff conducted further research and determined that the Town does not have the legislative authority to impose a fee or tariff on the extraction of water. Although the taking of water in an amount greater than 50,000 litres per day has been deemed to be a land use under the Planning Act, permits for the taking of water are issued by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The OWRA does not contain provisions that would enable the Town to impose a fee or tariff on the taking of water. The OWRA only enables the MOECC to charge $3.71 for every one million litres of water that is extracted for commercial or industrial purposes. Furthermore, the Municipal Act specifically prohibits a municipality from passing a business licensing by-law (s.152) or imposing a fee (s.394) on any business in reference to the “generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation of natural resources.” Under the Municipal Act (s.14), the Town is also unable to develop a by-law that would frustrate the purposes of provincial legislation. As such, the Town does not have legislative authority to develop policies which would impose a fee on the extraction of water. 3.0

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

There are no direct financial costs associated with the adoption of this Staff Report. The time required to process a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit commercial water taking will be billed to the applicant on a cost-recovery basis.

Staff Report DSR-140-14 Revised Final Commercial Water Taking Policies 4.0

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 3

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES

Council can adopt the commercial water taking policies contained in the OPA or request Staff to make further revisions. 5.0

CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS

The policies and regulations for the commercial taking of water will provide greater support to existing policies in the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s OP to protect, improve or restore the quantity and quality of water within Innisfil. The conditions that are specified in the OPA for the commercial taking of water incorporate additional comments that were received from Council. They will help ensure that the aesthetic impact of the extraction is minimized and that neighbouring drinking water supplies are not negatively impacted. Upon Council adoption of the OPA, Staff will prepare and submit the necessary application to the County of Simcoe for approval of the OPA. If approved by the County, site-specific amendments to the Zoning By-Law may be considered based on the conditions specified in the OPA. PREPARED BY: Paul Pentikainen, M.Pl, MCIP, RPP Policy Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Official Plan Amendment No. 12 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; By-Law 057-14

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. 057-14 A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to Adopt Amendment No. 12 to the Town of Innisfil Official Plan with Polices for Source Water Protection and Commercial Water Taking WHEREAS Section 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended provides that Council may amend its Official Plan; AND WHEREAS Section 40 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, requires Council to amend its official plan to conform to the significant threat policies set out in local source protection plans; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil deems it desirable to amend the Town of Innisfil Official Plan with source water protection and water taking policies; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts as follows: 1.

THAT the attached explanatory text and policies which constitute Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Innisfil are hereby adopted.

THAT Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto forms part of Amendment No. 12.

THAT the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil makes application to the County of Simcoe for approval of said Amendment.

THAT the Clerk is hereby authorized, and directed to make such application on behalf of the Corporation, and to execute under the Corporate Seal such documents as may be required for the above purposes.

PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. _____________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

_____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF INNISFIL The attached explanatory text and Schedule ‘A’ constitutes Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Innisfil, which was adopted by the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil by By-law No. 057 -14 in accordance with Section 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, on the 17th day of September, 2014.

Barbara Baguley,

Karen Fraser,

Mayor

Acting Clerk

AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF INNISFIL

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT The following Amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Innisfil consists of three (3) parts: PART A – THE PREAMBLE

Consists of the purpose, location and basis for the Amendment, and does not constitute part of the actual Amendment.

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

Which sets out the actual Amendment consisting of the text and Schedule A which constitutes Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan for the Town of Innisfil.

PART C – THE APPENDICES

Consists of a list of information pertinent to this Amendment in the form of background information. This Section does not constitute part of the actual Amendment.

AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF INNISFIL

INDEX

PAGE

The Constitutional Statement ..................................................................................................... 3

PART A - THE PREAMBLE 1.

PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 5

LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 5

BASIS.............................................................................................................................. 5

PART B - THE AMENDMENT 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 7

DETAILS OF AMENDMENT ............................................................................................ 7

IMPLEMENTATION....................................................................................................... 14

INTERPRETATION ...................................................................................................... 14 SCHEDULE ‘A’ ............................................................................................................. 15

PART C - THE APPENDICES (will be included in Final OPA submission to County) Appendix A

Public Meeting Minutes

Appendix B

Reports to Council

Appendix C

Agency and Public Comments

PART A – PREAMBLE 1.0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Amendment is to conform to the land use policies of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan, as required by the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 and to regulate the commercial taking of water throughout the Town. 2.0

LOCATION

The policies contained within this Amendment apply generally across the Town. 3.0

BASIS

With the overall aim of protecting, improving and restoring the quality and quantity of water, the Ontario Government has made numerous legislative changes in recent years. These changes have been largely in response to the tragedy that occurred in Walkerton in 2000, where contamination of the municipal drinking water supply resulted in seven deaths and about 2,500 people becoming ill. This led to the Walkerton Inquiry and a report by Commissioner Dennis O’Connor, which made a total of 93 recommendations for protecting and improving the quality and quantity of water in Ontario. These recommendations resulted in the adoption of several new pieces of provincial legislation such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and the Clean Water Act, 2006, amendments to the Water Resources Act, as well as changes to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (as subsequently amended by the new Provincial Policy Statement, 2014). The Clean Water Act, 2006 prescribes the development of source water protection plans as the central component in a multi-barrier approach to protecting Ontario’s existing and future drinking water sources. The Town of Innisfil falls within the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region and in accordance with the Clean Water Act, must comply with the Source Protection Plan that is adopted for this region. Particularly, as per Section 39 (1) (a) of the Clean Water Act, all planning decisions shall be in conformity with the policies that address drinking water threats. The Town’s Official Plan (OP) must therefore be amended to conform to the land use policies of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan (SGBLS SPP). The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The Planning Act requires that planning decisions shall be consistent with the PPS. The PPS supports source water protection through its policies in section 2.2 that require planning authorities to protect, improve or restore water quality and quantity by recognizing the watershed as the ecological scale for planning. Further, it provides direction to all planning authorities to restrict development and site alteration in or near vulnerable surface and ground water features so that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored. Through water conservation practices that sustain water quality, planning authorities are also directed to plan for the efficient and sustainable use of water resources. As such, the key purpose of this Amendment therefore will be to implement the direction of the 2014 PPS within the Town of Innisfil for the protection of water resources, and to provide updated mapping and policies based on new information and requirements arising from the development of the SGBLS SPP and the Assessment Report approved by the Ministry. The

updated maps in this Amendment identify vulnerable areas where a significant drinking water threat could occur within Innisfil. The policies of this Amendment state that that any use or activity that is, or would be a significant drinking water threat within these vulnerable areas, will be required to conform to all applicable Source Protection Plan policies and as such, may be prohibited or restricted. A further purpose of this Amendment is to reflect the direction and emphasis of the PPS to plan for the efficient and sustainable use of water resources. This is achieved through policies that regulate the commercial taking of water within the Town. Although permits for the taking of water in an amount greater than 50,000 litres per day are issued by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act, water taking has been deemed to be a land use, based on a decision made in 2002 by the Divisional Court of Ontario. As such, the policies in this Amendment state that the Town is applying land use controls to water taking under the Planning Act. Based on the conditions specified in this Amendment, the commercial taking of water will occur only through a site-specific amendment to the Zoning By-Law. Overall, the policies and regulations of this Amendment for source water protection and the commercial taking of water will provide greater support to existing Town and County of Simcoe OP policies to protect, improve or restore the quantity and quality of water within Innisfil. This will enable the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s OP to conform to source protection planning requirements and implement the direction of the PPS. This Amendment will also assist with the goals of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 vision for promoting and protecting the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga watersheds for their critical ecological, heritage and tourism benefits.

PART B – THE AMENDMENT 1.0

INTRODUCTION

All of this part of the document entitled Part B – The Amendment consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment Number 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Innisfil. 2.0

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT

The Official Plan of the Town of Innisfil is amended as follows: 2.1

The existing policies in section 4.1.1 are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “4.1.1 Areas of significant groundwater recharge, including ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas, shall be protected to ensure the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed. Development and incompatible land uses shall be generally directed away from these significant groundwater recharge areas. Areas of potential major groundwater recharge are schematically delineated in Appendix 5. For greater certainty regarding the location of these areas, the appropriate Conservation Authority should be consulted.”

2.2

The existing policies in section 4.1.2 are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “4.1.2 An aquifer can be easily altered and contaminated from both human activities and natural processes. Areas of high aquifer vulnerability have been identified through Source Water Protection planning. Certain uses and activities set out in Policy 4.2.1 that are prohibited within Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones may also be prohibited or restricted in Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability.”

2.3

In the existing policies in section 4.1.3, the word ‘Area’ after ‘Lake Simcoe Region Conservation’ is hereby replaced with ‘Authority’.

2.4

The last sentence of section 4.1.4 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “Areas of potential groundwater discharge have been mapped through Source Water Protection planning and are schematically delineated in Appendix 7.”

2.5

The existing policies in section 4.1.5 are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “4.1.5 An application for major development or the preparation of a secondary plan within areas of significant groundwater recharge and discharge shall be accompanied by a hydrogeological study. This study shall be prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the municipality and local conservation authority prior to any planning approvals or the issuance of permits under the Ontario Building Code Act or Regulations passed through the Conservation

Authorities Act. For the purposes of this policy, major development is defined as a proposal with an impervious area greater than 500 square metres.” 2.6

The existing policies in section 4.1.6 are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “4.1.6 The hydrogeological studies required in Section 4.1.5 must demonstrate that the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area and the function of the recharge area will be protected, improved, or restored. The studies must also demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the associated aquatic features that depend on the recharge areas including wetlands, watercourses, seeps and springs, and fish habitat. In particular, the hydrogeologic studies shall:        

Characterize groundwater system (i.e., stratigraphy, aquifer zones, groundwater flow, vertical hydraulic gradients, etc.); Characterize shallow soils hydraulic conductivity and infiltration potential, Characterize sensitivity to contamination; Define recharge/discharge conditions; Identify groundwater /surface water interactions (i.e. cold water fisheries, wetlands, ponds fed by groundwater); Define the influence boundaries; Assess impact of proposed site development with water balance analysis (i.e. pre- and post-development scenarios); and Evaluate mitigation options and provide recommendations for preferred and appropriate mitigation options.

Prior to the preparation of any hydrogeological study, the qualified professional shall consult with the municipality and conservation authority in order to establish the proper terms of reference for the study. Based on the magnitude, scale, and nature of the proposed development, the municipality in consultation with the conservation authority may scope the study. 2.7

Section 4.2 is hereby renamed ‘Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones’ and the existing policies in this section are hereby repealed and replaced with the following policies: “4.2 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS AND INTAKE PROTECTION ZONES Intent: In accordance with the technical terms and definitions of the Source Protection Plan for the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region, this Plan designates Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA’s) around each municipal drinking-water supply well. These WHPA’s are schematically delineated in Appendix 8. WHPAs are the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or well field that supplies a municipal residential system or other designated system through which contaminants are reasonably likely to eventually reach the water well or wells. The purpose of these designations is to prevent land uses involving hazardous chemicals and/or substances, disease causing organisms and land uses and activities that increase the vulnerability of groundwater from

becoming water quantity and/or quality threats to municipal drinking-water supply wells. The maps in Appendix 8 of this Plan make reference to two, five, ten and twentyfive year time of travel capture zones (WHPA categories A, B, C, and D) surrounding each municipal drinking-water supply well. These capture zones reflect the length of time groundwater within the zone will take to reach the municipal drinking-water supply well. The size and shape of the capture zones is influenced by many factors including the well pumping rate, the topography of the land, the nature of the subsurface materials, and the rate and direction of groundwater flow. Similar to Wellhead Protection Areas, Surface Water Intake Protection Zones (IPZ’s) represent geographic areas (land and water) that contribute water to the surface water intake of the Town’s municipal drinking-water supply system and may be susceptible to contamination. IPZ’s are delineated surrounding the Alcona Water Treatment Plant to protect the quality and quantity of the surface water entering the intake, mainly by protecting the surface water upstream of the intake from hazardous spills (a small portion of the IPZ surrounding the Barrie Water Treatment Plant also crosses into the Town and is identified in this Plan). IPZ 1 and IPZ 2 areas within the Town are designated on Appendix 9a and 9b. Policies: 4.2.1 In vulnerable areas identified in Appendix 8, any development, redevelopment, site alteration and proposed land uses that involve any of the following activities shall be prohibited or restricted where they would constitute a significant drinking water threat: i. Application of agricultural source material to land; ii. Handling and storage of agricultural source material; iii. Application of non-agricultural source material; iv. Handling and storage of non-agricultural source material; v. Application of commercial fertilizer to land; vi. Handling and storage of commercial fertilizer; vii. Application of pesticide to land; viii. Handling and storage of pesticide; ix. Application of road salt; x. Handling and storage of road salt; xi. Storage of snow; xii. Handling and storage of fuel; xiii. Handling and storage of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs); xiv. Handling and storage of organic solvents; and xv. Use of land as livestock grazing, or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area of farm animal yard. 4.2.2

Where an application for development, redevelopment and site alteration within a vulnerable area involves any of the activities identified in Policy 4.2.1, the application will be forwarded to the Risk Management Official (RMO) for review, in accordance with the Source Protection Plan. The RMO will determine whether the application involves an activity that is a significant drinking water threat and whether the Source Protection Plan

manages or prohibits the activity. The application may only be permitted if the Risk Management Official (RMO) has issued a Notice to Proceed and is satisfied that a Risk Management Plan, as required and as defined in the Source Protection Plan, will adequately manage the potential threat and ensure there will be no negative impacts to drinking water sources. The development proposal or planning application will be halted and not considered complete until the Risk Management Plan and/or all other required information and supporting studies, as applicable and requested by the RMO, have been submitted and deemed complete by the RMO. 4.2.3

The implementing zoning by-law shall contain an overlay zone to identify vulnerable areas where the uses set out in policy 4.2.1 that constitute a drinking water threat are prohibited.

4.2.4

Where the establishment of a transport pathway is a threat to drinking water sources, the development proposal or planning application shall not proceed until the Risk Management Official has issued Notice and is satisfied that appropriate measures are taken to prevent significant threats to vulnerable areas and drinking water sources.

4.2.5

The location and establishment of new municipal drinking water wells shall be cognizant of the potential impact of existing uses and permitted uses in designations within the wellhead protection areas of the proposed well. Designations that permit uses that involve activities which may constitute a significant drinking water threat shall be avoided.

4.2.6

In cases where a new municipal well is proposed, the Town shall endeavour to acquire land or easements over land within a 100 metre radius of any new municipal well, or maintain control over the activities through land use restrictions.

4.2.7

The design of parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and walkways that would impact vulnerable areas, shall minimize the need for road salt application (e.g. eliminate ponding) and the implementation of salt management measures shall be required as a condition of site plan approval.

4.2.8

Any development or redevelopment of storm water management facilities and wastewater treatment facilities (municipal and private) may only be permitted in vulnerable areas where it does not result in a drinking water issue or threat. The discharge from these facilities shall be directed outside of vulnerable areas and the Town may require a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) as part of a complete application to avoid locating threats associated with development infrastructure in vulnerable areas.

4.2.9

Within a vulnerable area where a proposed small on-site sewage system would be a significant drinking water threat, any new development that includes use of the small on-site sewage system may only be permitted based on the most current version of the Ministry of Environmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines for individual on-site servicing. Lots that existed on record as

of the effective date of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan shall be exempt.” 2.8

The existing section 4.4 (‘Landform Conservation’) is hereby renumbered as section 4.3 with its subsections being renumbered accordingly.

2.9

The existing section 4.5 (‘Energy Conservation’) is hereby renumbered as section 4.4 with its subsections being renumbered accordingly.

2.10

The existing section 4.6 (‘Waste Disposal Assessment Areas’) is hereby renumbered as section 4.5 with its subsections being renumbered accordingly.

2.11

Within the existing policies in section 4.6 (‘Waste Disposal Assessment Areas’), the following changes are hereby made: i) ii) iii)

In the first sentence that exists in sub-section 4.6.3, the reference to ‘Section 4.6.2’ be changed to ‘Section 4.5.2’; In the second sentence that exists in sub-section 4.6.4, the references to ‘Section 4.6.2 and 4.6.3’ be changed to ‘Section 4.5.2 and 4.5.3’; and In the first sentence that exists in sub-section 4.6.5, the reference to ‘Section 4.6.3’ be changed to ‘Section 4.5.3’.

2.12

The existing section 4.7 (‘Water Resources’) is hereby renumbered as section 4.6 with its subsections being renumbered accordingly.

2.13

Within the existing policies in section 4.7 (‘Water Resources’), the following changes are hereby made: i) ii) iii)

2.14

In existing sub-section 4.7.1 ii, the date ‘(April 2006)’ be deleted after ‘Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Plan’; The ‘South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan’ be listed as a new sub-section ‘4.6.1 iii’; and The existing sub-section ‘4.7.1 iii’ be renumbered to ‘4.6.1 iv’.

A new section ‘4.7’ entitled ‘Commercial Water Taking’ is hereby inserted after section 4.6 with the following policies: “4.7

COMMERCIAL WATER TAKING

Intent: It is the intent of the Town to be involved in the process of considering and approving applications that involve water taking for the purpose of resale or distribution of water as a commercial use. It is also Council’s goal to ensure that property owners and residents in the vicinity of a proposed water taking are informed and given opportunity to comment on the proposal. The intent of the policies in this section is to minimize the land use footprint of the proposed water taking and to ensure that the quality and quantity of water available for existing and future designated land uses is maintained.

Policies: 4.7.1

It is recognized that the approval of all applications for water taking rests with the Ministry of Environment, in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act, as amended. The taking of more than 50,000 litres of ground or surface water per day or commercial water taking has been deemed to be a land use in accordance with the Planning Act. Commercial water taking may be permitted in all land use designations and a site-specific amendment to this Plan will not be required. However, commercial water taking will be regulated by the Town and may only be permitted through an amendment to the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s implementing Zoning Bylaw, subject to the policies and conditions specified in sub-section 4.7.2. No permit or license for water taking shall be issued by the appropriate authority until an amendment to the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Zoning By-Law has been adopted by Council.

4.7.2

In consideration of a site-specific Zoning By-law amendment to permit commercial water taking, as an exception in the designations of this Plan, Council shall be satisfied that at a minimum, and as proven through the applicable studies and/or reports as requested, that the following conditions are being met: i) The quality of vulnerable surface and groundwater, sensitive surface water features and sensitive groundwater features, and their hydrogeological functions, shall be protected, improved or restored; ii) The quantity of water available for other uses in the area and the base flow for rivers and streams, wetlands and other water bodies in the watershed will not be negatively impacted, as also proven through testing for tolerance in possible drought scenarios; iii) Municipal and private drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas are protected; iv) Linkages and related functions among groundwater features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas are maintained; v) The water taking does not preclude other developments and maintains the potential for future intended and designated land uses in the area as envisioned by this Plan; vi) Haulage routes for the transporting of water to processing and/or bottling plants and the subsequent distribution are appropriate for the proposed use and the surrounding area; vii) The proposed water taking will occur through the implementation of efficient and sustainable water management and conservation measures; viii) The cumulative impact of the water taking has no negative impacts on ground and surface water resources on an integrated watershed management basis; ix) The water taking will be subject to Site Plan Control to ensure that all proposed development and site alteration will have minimal impact to ensure sustainable and efficient use of the land; and x) The area to be re-zoned is restricted to a limited size and minimized land use footprint to accommodate the proposed use

and only the development that is necessary for the actual extraction and transport of water will be permitted. No accessory or associated facilities shall be permitted unless already allowed under the designations of this Plan. As a condition of site plan approval, Council shall also require the proponent to enter into a monitoring and financial assurance agreement to ensure that neighbouring drinking water supplies will not be negatively impacted by the extraction. If it is deemed that the extraction is having a negative impact on the quality and/or overall quantity of water available in the area, Council will have the ability, pursuant to the monitoring and financial assurance agreement, to require the water extraction to decrease or cease or require mitigation measures be undertaken. Council will also identify in the agreement that the taking of water will be restricted during drought conditions. 4.7.3

If permits for the commercial taking of water are currently active exist and remain in place at the date of adoption of the policies in this Plan, the policies of sub-sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 do not apply.”

2.15

In the first sentence that exists in sub-section 9.19.5, “site plan approval” is hereby inserted after “for” and before “an official plan amendment”.

2.16

In sub-section 9.19.5, the existing “w)” is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: “w) a wellhead/vulnerable areas protection – risk assessment study and/or risk management plan as per Section 4.2.2”

2.17

In the existing sub-section 9.19.5, the following is hereby inserted: “ff) salt management plan – as per section 4.2.7”

2.18

i. ii.

The existing map entitled ‘Appendix 5 – Areas of Groundwater Recharge’ is hereby repealed and replaced with maps entitled in Schedule ‘A’ to this Amendment as follows: “Appendix 5a – Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas – LSRCA” “Appendix 5b – Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas – NVCA”

2.19

The existing map entitled ‘Appendix 7 – Areas of Groundwater Discharge’ is hereby repealed and replaced with maps entitled in Schedule ‘A’ to this Amendment as follows:

i. ii.

“Appendix 7a – Potential Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Areas – LSRCA” “Appendix 7b – Potential Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Areas – NVCA”

2.20

The existing maps identified as Appendix 8a to 8i are hereby repealed and replaced with the maps entitled in Schedule ‘A’ as follows:

“Appendix 8a – Thornton WHPA”

ii. iii. iv. v. 2.21

i. ii. 3.0

“Appendix 8b – Innisfil Heights WHPA” “Appendix 8c – Stroud WHPA” “Appendix 8e – Churchill WHPA” “Appendix 8f – Barrie WHPA” The existing map identified as Appendix 9 is hereby repealed and replaced with the maps entitled in Schedule ‘A’ as follows: “Appendix 9a – Innisfil Intake Protection Zones” “Appendix 9b – Barrie Intake Protection Zones”

IMPLEMENTATION This Amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Innisfil shall be implemented by sitespecific amendments to the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 054-04, as amended, passed pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. Upon approval of this Amendment, Town Council may consider site-specific Zoning By-law amendments to permit commercial water taking.

4.0

INTERPRETATION The provisions set forth in the Official Plan of the Town of Innisfil, as amended from time to time regarding the interpretation of that Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment, and as may more specifically be set out or implied within the policies contained herein.

PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. _____________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

_____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

SCHEDULE ‘A’ BY-LAW NO. 057-14 The maps identified in this ‘Schedule A’ will replace existing maps in the Town of Innisfil Official Plan as outlined in sub-sections 2.18 to 2.21 of the explanatory text of the Amendment. These maps which comprise ‘Schedule A’ are listed as follows: 1. Appendix 5a – Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas – LSRCA 2. Appendix 5b – Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas – NVCA 3. Appendix 7a – Potential Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Areas – LSRCA 4. Appendix 7b – Potential Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Areas – NVCA 5. Appendix 8a – Thornton WHPA 6. Appendix 8b – Innisfil Heights WHPA 7. Appendix 8c – Stroud WHPA 8. Appendix 8d – Churchill WHPA 9. Appendix 8e – Barrie WHPA 10. Appendix 9a – Innisfil Intake Protection Zones 11. Appendix 9b – Barrie Intake Protection Zones

Item D.2 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-154-14

DATE:

August 21, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Michèle Newton, Manager, Communications & Customer Service

SUBJECT:

Repeal Website Content Policy CP.09-05

RECOMMENDATION: That Council repeal the Website Content Policy (CP.09-05), as described in staff report DSR-154-14.

BACKGROUND: The Town of Innisfil’s current policy (CP.09-05) is currently outdated and requires an approach that is no longer relevant to the Town’s new website that was launched in June 2013. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: With the creation of the Communications Services department in 2011, the management of the website content shifted to the Communications Officer, and now the Manager of Communications and Customer Service. The policy reflects website content managed by a committee, which is no longer an effective way to manage the content. For example, the website content committee is to approve external links from the town website at a quarterly meeting. This approach is not expedient, nor efficient in making the website accurate and functional. A new website management policy is under development and it will address website layouts and functionality relating to the end user, how the content submissions from town service areas will be managed, and how we will maintain corporate communications standards across the website and microsites.

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to repeal the policy. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: N/A …/

Staff Report DSR-154-14 Repeal Website Content Policy CP.09-05

Sept. 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION: Communications Services is developing a new website policy that aligns with the corporate communications standards and the current/future website layout and functionality requirements for accessibility and end user effectiveness.

PREPARED BY: MichĂ¨le Newton

APPROVED BY:

________________________ MichĂ¨le Newton Manager, Communications & Customer Service

Item D.3 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-155-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy Response to Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

RECOMMENDATION: That DSR-155-14 be received by Council; and That Council approve the update to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-1303), to reflect amendments to Industry Canada’s antenna tower siting procedures. 1.0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Staff Report is to:  Provide an overview of amendments to Industry Canada’s antenna tower siting procedures, which took effect on July 15, 2014;  Outline proposed updates to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy to reflect the amendments to Industry Canada’s guidelines and procedures; and  Update Council on the effect of the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy and progress on improving telecommunications networks in Innisfil. 2.0

BACKGROUND

Antenna systems and telecommunication facilities (e.g. cell towers) are federally regulated and Industry Canada is their ultimate approval authority. In the document Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (CPC-2-0-03), Industry Canada provides procedures to guide the siting of antenna systems across the country. These procedures were recently updated with changes that took effect on July 15, 2014. For consistency with the changes to the overarching Industry Canada procedures, only minor technical amendments to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy will be required. Industry Canada requires proponents to consult with the local Land Use Authority (e.g. the Town) and to solicit public input in accordance with any municipal policy/protocol that is in effect. Therefore, despite the default public consultation requirements that are provided in CPC2-0-03, Industry Canada recommends that municipalities establish a local protocol to more effectively assess the siting of antenna systems based on community preferences. Through a local protocol, the Town can assess and determine whether it will issue a Notice of Concurrence to Industry Canada to support a proposed antenna system. Although Industry Canada can exempt an applicant from certain requirements of a local protocol, this does not normally occur …/

Staff Report DSR-155-14 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03)

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 6

when the policies of a municipality are proactive, reasonable and reflect community preferences. The Town’s Antenna System Siting Policy was adopted last summer by Council to identify community preferences and a consultation process for the siting of antenna systems within Innisfil. This new Policy was consistent with the Industry Canada procedures that were in effect at the time, and reflected comments that were received from Council and residents during the policy development process. Overall, the community discussion indicated the growing demand for improved telecommunications infrastructure to support the community and economic development aims of the Town. The Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy has provided greater flexibility for the siting of antenna systems within both urban and rural areas of Innisfil, while still reflecting community preferences and sensitivities. This is primarily because the Town’s Policy was customized with community preferences based on the ‘Antenna System Siting Protocol Template’ that was jointly developed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA). Many of the amendments to Industry Canada’s antenna tower siting procedures are based on the guidelines and recommendations of this ‘Protocol Template’, and are therefore already reflected in the Town’s Policy. 3.0

DISCUSSION

3.1 Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures (CPC-2-0-03) With the purpose of providing clarity and strengthening community consultation requirements, Industry Canada’s antenna tower siting procedures were amended with changes that took effect on July 15, 2014. The changes were initially proposed in a consultation document that was released in February 2014. Industry Canada invited comments on these proposed changes, before releasing a document in June 2014 to confirm the amendments (see Attachment 2). Some of the more significant changes to the antenna tower siting procedures are summarized in the following table: Table 1: Changes to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures (CPC-2-0-03)

Issue/Consideration Free standing towers less than 15m exempt from municipal concurrence Modifications to existing antenna systems exempt from municipal concurrence

Duration of concurrence

Old CPC-2-0-03

New CPC-2-0-03

-New towers less than 15m in -All new towers (even those height exempt less than 15m) subject to municipal concurrence -Existing antenna systems -Antenna systems may not be can be increased by up to increased by more than 25% 25% without municipal of their original height without concurrence concurrence -No modification can be made within 1 year after initial construction -Increase in height to towers originally built to be less than 15m is not exempt from municipal concurrence -No expiry date -Construction must take place within 3 years of date of concurrence

Staff Report DSR-155-14 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03) Definition of tower height

Environmental review

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 6

-No definition on interpretation -Height is measured from the of tower height lowest ground level at the base of the tower, including the foundation, to the tallest point on the antenna system -No attempt may be made to artificially reduce the tower height by influencing the ground elevation (e.g. by adding soil at base of tower) -No environmental review by -Proposed antenna systems Industry Canada on federal land or incidental to an existing project designation under Canada Environmental Assessment Act require environmental review by Industry Canada

Overall, the changes to the Industry Canada procedures will result in strengthened community consultation as fewer antenna system proposals will be exempt from the requirement for municipal concurrence. Particularly, all new free-standing antenna towers will now require public consultation and municipal concurrence, regardless of height. Furthermore, fewer modifications to existing antenna systems will be exempt from the requirement for municipal concurrence. This is because the height of existing antenna systems may only be increased by up to 25% of the original structure’s height, and that this increase in height cannot occur within one year of construction, or to a tower that was initially constructed to be less than 15 metres in height. These specific changes to the Industry Canada exemptions will therefore result in the majority of the updates to the Town’s Policy. 3.2 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy The Town’s Policy will be updated for consistency with Industry Canada’s amended procedures, and particularly to the changes summarized in Table 1. The following table summarizes the proposed updates to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy, which are identified in red font (tracked changes) in Attachment 1. Table 2: Proposed Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy

Section Reference in Town’s Policy 3. Definitions: ‘Antenna System’ 3. Definitions: ‘Preferred Distance’

3. Definitions: ‘Proponent’

Proposed Update -Paragraph added to clarify how height of antenna system is measured (based on updated CPC-2-0-03) -Term changed to ‘Preferred Separation Distance’ to clarify that it is the Town’s preference to locate antenna systems a minimum of the 120m separation distance away from community sensitive land uses such as residences and schools -Clarification that preferred sites to which the 60m separation distance applies includes municipal and public utility sites that are within or adjacent to Settlement Areas -Clarification that the Town’s Policy applies to anyone who is proposing to install, modify or replace an antenna system, regardless of the type (based on updated CPC-2-0-03)

Staff Report DSR-155-14 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03) 4.1. Industry Canada Exemptions from Consultation 6.1. Location: ‘Discouraged Locations’ 6.2. Design Preferences: ‘Structure Style and Colour’ 8. Public Consultation Requirements

9.4. Duration of Concurrence

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 6

-Changes to reflect Industry Canada’s new restrictions on installations that are exempt from municipal concurrence (e.g. antenna towers less than 15m are no longer exempt) -Within areas designated Natural Environment Area in Town’s OP, identifies additional requirement for an environmental review by Industry Canada where applicable under CPC-2-0-03 -The statement ‘Lattice towers shall be discouraged within the Town’ has been moved to top of this section so that this design preference is clear to proponents -Clarification in public notice requirements for consistency with Industry Canada (e.g. newspaper notice required when proposed antenna greater than 30m; proponent must provide public 30 days to submit comments) -Concurrence expires if construction has not been completed within 3 years; proponent may be granted an extension by the Town (based on updated CPC-2-0-03)

Overall, the proposed updates to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy will provide further clarity to ensure consistency with the new Industry Canada tower siting procedures. 3.3 Progress on Improving Communications Networks in Innisfil Upon its adoption by Council last summer, the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy has been used to assess all proposals for antenna systems within Innisfil. To date, in accordance with the new policies, Staff has provided Notices of Concurrence to Industry Canada to support construction of six new antenna towers (see Table 3). While construction has not yet taken place at these locations, the towers should be constructed within the next half year to help improve communications networks in Innisfil. The construction of towers at the Alcona Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Fennel’s Corner hydro site will occur sooner, as the proponent has tendered for their construction. In addition, proponents continue to be interested in establishing antenna systems in other locations of the Town. Table 3: Notices of Concurrence Issued for Antenna Systems in Innisfil

Location Alcona (Wastewater Treatment Plant - 1578 Saint John’s Rd) Fennel’s Corner (Hydro site 2255 Highway 89) Sandy Cove (Hydro site 1104 Lockhart Rd) Lefroy (New hydro site 1570 5th Line) Innisfil Heights (Hydro site 2033 Commerce Park Dr) Gilford (Golf course – 1284 Shore Acres Dr)

Proponent Innisfil Hydro Innisfil Hydro Innisfil Hydro Innisfil Hydro Innisfil Hydro Rogers

The Town’s Policy identifies municipal and public utility sites as priority locations for new antenna systems. By serving as the 'host' for these facilities, the Town receives financial revenues and is able to more effectively influence the design and structure of the antenna system. As such, on sites that are identified as ‘Preferred Locations’ in the Town’s Policy, the

Staff Report DSR-155-14 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03)

September 17, 2014 Page 5 of 6

Town has chosen to partner with a division of Innisfil Hydro, who will be constructing the towers and then leasing space to telecommunications carriers. This also supports the Town’s requirements for co-location, or the sharing of a tower by multiple carriers. The Town’s Policy identifies three streams that have varying levels of community consultation and public notification. This will depend on the antenna system that is proposed and whether it complies with the Town’s Development Guidelines and/or the Industry Canada exclusion criteria. The three streams in the Town’s Policy are as follows:   

Stream 1 – Industry Canada Exclusions o (Proponent notifies Town staff) Stream 2 – Local Concurrence by Town Staff o (Proponent notifies Town residents) Stream 3 – Local Concurrence (or Non-Concurrence) by Town Council o (Proponent notifies Town residents and holds public information session)

Each of the six antenna systems that have received local concurrence were processed under Stream 2. Since the proposals complied with the Town’s Development Guidelines, Staff was able to issue the Notice of Concurrence to Industry Canada after the public notification process was completed and no major concerns were raised. Specifically, the proposed antenna towers were being sited the minimum separation distance away from homes and schools, and their proposed design was in accordance with the Town’s Policy. Furthermore, five of the six proposed antenna systems are on municipal or public utility sites, which are priority locations under the Town’s Policy. (Note: Although the proposed Rogers antenna tower is on a privately owned site in Gilford, it received local concurrence since it complied with the Town’s Development Guidelines and because there were not any alternative municipal or public utility ‘priority’ sites nearby to improve cellular coverage in Gilford). Overall, the Town’s Policy is proving to be effective in improving communications networks in Innisfil. Particularly, the ability for Staff to provide concurrence in a more streamlined ‘Stream 2’ process has served as a useful incentive for proponents to comply with the location and design guidelines of the Town’s Policy. However, while all proponents and telecommunication carriers were initially receptive to the Town’s approach of partnering to site antenna towers on municipal/public utility sites, one of the major telecommunications carriers has recently indicated that they are not willing to support this partnership. This is not in accordance with the Town’s Policy, which requires proponents to co-locate their facilities to minimize the number of new antenna towers being constructed in Innisfil. Therefore, any proposals that the Town receives for antenna systems on privately owned land that are in proximity to the municipal/public utility sites for which Town Concurrence has already been issued (or are in proximity to other municipal/public utility sites that Staff determine would be a viable alternative), will be processed under Stream 3 of the Town’s Policy. In these circumstances, the proponent must conduct a full public consultation process, including public notification and an information session, and Council will consider whether local concurrence for the proposal should be provided to Industry Canada. 4.0

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

There are no direct financial costs from approving the recommendations of this report. All costs in processing applications for antenna systems are billed to the proponent on a cost-recovery basis.

Staff Report DSR-155-14 Updates to Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03) 5.0

September 17, 2014 Page 6 of 6

CONCLUSION

The proposed updates to the Town’s Antenna Systems Siting Policy will provide further clarity to existing policies and ensure consistency with the new Industry Canada tower siting procedures. The updates will strengthen public consultation, as fewer antenna systems will be exempt from the requirement for municipal concurrence. Overall, the Town’s Policy is proving to be effective in improving telecommunications networks to support the community and economic development aims of Inspiring Innisfil 2020. To date, six proposed antenna systems have received Town concurrence and should be constructed within the next half year. In addition, proponents continue to be interested in establishing antenna systems in other locations of the Town. Council and residents can therefore be assured that telecommunications networks in Innisfil will be improved in the near future. PREPARED BY: Paul Pentikainen, M.Pl, MCIP, RPP Policy Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Town of Innisfil Antenna System Siting Policy (CP.08-13-03), Proposed Updates Tracked Changes 2. Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures, June 2014

TOWN OF INNISFIL CORPORATE POLICY POLICY: Antenna System Siting Policy POLICY NO.: CP.08-13-03

COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: August 14, 2013 RES. NO.: CR-186-01.13 REVISED DATE: RES. NO.:

PURPOSE:

The overall purpose and goal of this Antenna System Siting Policy is to provide objective consideration for Antenna Systems within the Town of Innisfil, to accommodate the necessary infrastructure that improves communication networks to unify residents, businesses, and communities, while supporting the community and economic development aims of Inspiring Innisfil 2020.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 2 of 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS ANTENNA SYSTEM SITING PROCESS FLOWCHART ................................................ 2 1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................... 5 2. JURISDICTION AND ROLES .................................................................................. 6 3. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 8 4. EXEMPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 10 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.

INDUSTRY CANADA EXEMPTIONS FROM MUNCIPAL CONSULTATION .. 10 NOTIFICATION OF EXEMPT ANTENNA SYSTEMS ...................................... 11 LOCAL CONSULTATION EXEMPTIONS ....................................................... 13 PRE-CONSULTATION WITH THE TOWN ......................................................... 14

5.1 5.2 5.3 6.

NOTIFICATION................................................................................................ 14 SITE INVESTIGATION MEETING WITH TOWN ............................................. 14 CONFIRMATION OF MUNICIPAL PREFERENCES AND REQUIREMENTS 15 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES .......................................................................... 16

6.1 6.2 7.

LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 16 DESIGN PREFERENCES ............................................................................... 17 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION................................................................................. 21

7.1 7.2 8.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................... 21 FEES ................................................................................................................ 22 PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ............................................................... 23

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.

NOTICE RECIPIENTS ..................................................................................... 23 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 23 WRITTEN CONSULTATION ........................................................................... 24 PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION ................................................................. 25 POST CONSULTATION REVIEW ................................................................... 25 STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE OR NON-CONCURRENCE ....................... 26

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 10. 11. 12. 13.

CONCURRENCE AND CONCURRENCE WITH CONDITIONS ..................... 26 NON-CONCURRENCE .................................................................................... 26 RESCINDING A CONCURRENCE .................................................................. 26 DURATION OF CONCURRENCE ................................................................... 26 TRANSFER OF CONCURRENCE .................................................................. 27 CONSULTATION PROCESS TIMEFRAME ....................................................... 27 LETTER OF UNDERTAKING ............................................................................. 27 REDUNDANT ANTENNA SYSTEM.................................................................... 27 LEASE AGREEMENTS ...................................................................................... 28

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 3 of 28

ANTENNA SYSTEM SITING PROCESS FLOWCHART (NOTE: THIS FLOW CHART IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND MUST BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENTIRETY OF THE POLICIES CONTAINED WITHIN THIS POLICY)

STREAM 1: INDUSTRY CANADA EXCLUSIONS Proposals that meet Industry Canada’s Exclusion Criteria under Industry Canada’s CPC-2-0-03

Proponent provides notification to Town 60 day s

Industry Canada Decision

Notification to the Town of the installation within a reasonable time after.

STREAM 2: LOCAL CONCURRENCE BY TOWN STAFF Proposals that do not meet Industry Canada’s Exclusions, but comply with the Development Guidelines identified by the Town and are located outside of the Preferred Separation Distance

60 days

Municipal Consultation and Public Notification: - Submission of drawings, maps, site plan, etc. - Review of proposal by agencies and departments - Public Notification to properties within min. of 120m (Settlement Area) or 300m (outside Settlement Area)

Town Staff issues Concurrence to Industry Canada and notifies the Proponent

Industry Canada Decision

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 4 of 28

STREAM 3: CONCURRENCE OR NON-CONCURRENCE BY TOWN COUNCIL Proposals that do not meet Industry Canada exclusions and do not comply with Development Guidelines identified by the Town and/or within the Preferred Separation Distance

120 Days

Municipal Consultation: Submission of drawings, maps, site plan, etc. - Review of proposal by agencies and departments -

Public Consultation: Public Notice Information Packages prepared by proponent and circulated by the Town to landowners within 120m (Settlement Areas) or 300m (outside Settlement Area), Industry Canada, MP, Ward Councillors & Adjacent Municipalities within 500m Public Information Session Submission of comments and response by proponent Staff prepares Report to Council indicating: o Whether proponent has complied with procedure, and o Request direction from Council, either: ď&#x201A;§ Concurrence ď&#x201A;§ Non-concurrence

Letter to Industry Canada from Town stating Council Resolution

Industry Canada Decision

Impasse Process if Town does not concur

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 5 of 28

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of this Antenna System Siting Policy is to provide objective consideration for Antenna Systems within the Town of Innisfil, to accommodate the necessary infrastructure that improves communication networks to unify residents, businesses, and communities, while supporting the community and economic development aims of Inspiring Innisfil 2020. To support achievement of this overall goal, the objectives of this Policy are as follows: 1. To establish a siting and consultation process that is harmonized with Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03) and Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna Siting Protocols for reviewing land use issues associated with Antenna System siting proposals, but reflects the local conditions and sensitivities of the Town of Innisfil; 2. To set out an objective process, criteria and guidelines that are fair, transparent, consistent and predictable for the evaluation of Antenna System siting proposals that: a. Prioritize the siting of Antenna Systems to municipal and public utility owned land, buildings and structures; b. Rationalize the number of new antenna sites through co-location; c. Locate and site Antenna Systems in a manner which minimizes land use conflicts, visual impact and respects natural and human heritage features; d. Facilitate meaningful public consultation with respect to mitigating concerns over the siting of antenna systems, where appropriate; and e. Allow Industry Canada and the communications industry to identify and resolve any potential land use, siting or design concerns with the Town at an early stage in the process. 3. To provide a practical and timely review process for Antenna System siting proposals; 4. To establish a local consultation framework that facilitates public input into the siting and design of Antenna Systems to maximize community benefit; 5. To provide the Town with the information and materials necessary to provide an informed statement of concurrence, concurrence with conditions, or nonconcurrence to Industry Canada.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 6 of 28

JURISDICTION AND ROLES

INDUSTRY CANADA: Under the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister of Industry has sole jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international communication facilities. The final decision to approve and licence the location of Antenna Systems is made only by Industry Canada. In June 2007, Industry Canada issued an update to its Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03) which outlines the process that must be followed by Proponents seeking to install or modify Antenna Systems, effective January 1, 2008. This was updated by Industry Canada with changes that took effect on July 15, 2014. Industry Canada also requires that Proponents intending to install or modify an Antenna System notify and consult with the Municipality (land use Authority), and the local community within a Preferred Separation Distance from the proposed structure. Industry Canada also published a Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna Siting Protocols in January 2008, stating that it “considers that the Municipality's and local residents’ questions, comments and concerns are important elements to be considered by a Proponent seeking to install, or make modifications to, an antenna system.” The CPC also establishes a dispute resolution process to be used where the Proponent and Municipality have reached an impasse.

ROLE OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL: the ultimate role of the Town is to issue a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence to the Proponent and to Industry Canada. This statement will consider the land use compatibility of the Antenna System, any responses from affected stakeholders and the Proponent’s adherence to this Policy. The Town will also guide and facilitate the siting process by: 

Communicating to Proponents the particular amenities, sensitivities, planning priorities and other relevant characteristics of the area;



Developing the design guidelines for Antenna Systems contained in Section 6 of this Policy; and

•

Establishing and helping facilitate a community consultation process, where appropriate.

By working with Proponents throughout the siting process, beginning with early preconsultation, the Town will seek to facilitate Antenna System installations that are responsive to public demand and sensitive to the local community.

ROLE OF THE PROPONENT: Proponents need to strategically locate Antenna Systems to satisfy technical and operational requirements in response to public demand, while respecting local sensitivities. Throughout the siting process, Proponents must adhere to the antenna siting guidelines in the CPC including: •

Investigating sharing or using existing infrastructure before proposing new antenna-supporting structures (consistent with CPC-2-0-17 Conditions of Licence

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 7 of 28

for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements); •

Contacting the Town to discuss and determine local Policy requirements regarding Antenna Systems;

•

Payment of all applicable fees to the Town of Innisfil; and

•

Undertaking public notification and addressing relevant concerns as required and appropriate.

OTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Proponents must comply with the following federal legislation and/or regulations, where warranted, and as updated: •

Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 – Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 KHZ to 300 gHZ - Safety Code 6 (2009);

•

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (in some circumstances); and

•

NAV Canada and Transport Canada’s painting and lighting requirements for aeronautical safety (in some circumstances).

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 8 of 28

DEFINITIONS

ANTENNA SYSTEM: an exterior transmitting device â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or group of devices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; used to receive and/or to transmit radio-frequency (RF) signals, microwave signals, or other federally-licenced communications energy transmitted from, or to be received by, other antennas. Antenna Systems include the antenna, and may include a supporting tower, mast or other supporting structure, and an equipment shelter. This Policy most commonly refers to the following two types of Antenna Systems: 1. Freestanding Antenna System: a structure (e.g. tower or mast) built from the ground for the expressed purpose of hosting an Antenna System or Antenna Systems; 2. Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna System: an Antenna System mounted on an existing structure, which could include a building wall or rooftop, a light standard, water tower, utility pole or other structure. The height of an Antenna System is measured from the lowest ground level at the base, including foundation, to the tallest point of the Antenna System. Depending on the particular installation, the tallest point may be an antenna, lightning rod, aviation obstruction lighting or some other appurtenance. Any attempt to artificially reduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc.) will not be included in the calculation or measurement of the height of the Antenna System. CO-LOCATION: the placement of antennas and equipment operated by one or more Proponents on a telecommunication Antenna System operated by a different Proponent, thereby creating a shared facility. COMMUNITY SENSITIVE LAND USES: Residential dwellings, schools and community parks located within the Town of Innisfil. TOWN STAFF: the Town Staff member(s) of the Town of Innisfil tasked with receiving, evaluating and processing submissions for Antenna Systems. TOWN COUNCIL: the elected/appointed Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilors of the Town of Innisfil. MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS: branches of municipal government that administer public services and are operated by Town staff. OTHER AGENCIES: bodies (e.g. conservation authorities, boards or commissions) that administer public services but are not operated or staffed by the Town. PREFERRED SEPARATION DISTANCE: A minimum of 120 metres (or three times the height of the tower, if greater) away from existing and approved residential dwellings or school sites, as measured horizontally from the base of the proposed Freestanding or building/Structure-mounted Antenna System, to the nearest edge of the closest residential dwelling or school property.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 9 of 28

Notwithstanding the abovethis , within Settlement Areas, on municipal or public utility owned properties that are within or adjacent to Settlement Areaswithin or directly adjacent to non-residential areas, antenna systems may be located a minimum distance of at least 60 metres away from existing or approved residential dwellings, on the condition that the Aantenna Ssystem conforms to a high level of urban design, as specified by the Town. PROPONENT: a company or organization anyone who is proposing to install, modify or replace site an Antenna System, regardless of type. This includes telecommunications carriers, third party tower owners who install Antenna Systems for leasing purposes, businesses, governments, Crown agencies, operators of broadcasting undertakings and the public (including for amateur radio operation and over-the-air TV reception. (including contractors undertaking work for telecommunications carriers) for the purpose of providing commercial or private telecommunications services, exclusive of personal or household users. RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS: Existing or approved residential dwellings (in accordance with how the term 'dwelling' is defined in the Town's Zoning By-Law) on land that is zoned or designated to permit residential uses in the Town's Zoning By-Law and/or Official Plan, excluding mixed-use 'Commercial' areas. SETTLEMENT AREAS: land that is located within the boundaries of the Town's urban and village settlements, as identified in the Town of Innisfil Official Plan. STEALTH DESIGN TECHNIQUES: the blending in, camouflaging or hiding of an antenna system with surrounding buildings, structures or landscaping such as within church steeples, sculptures/street art, trees, lighthouses, clock towers, flagpoles, agricultural buildings (e.g. silos), or lighting standards.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 10 of 28

EXEMPTIONS

This section outlines the criteria for identifying Antenna Systems excluded from the consultation process by Industry Canada, the need to consider local circumstances for all exempt structures, and the process for Proponents to notify and discuss proposed exempt structures with the Town. Depending on the type of Antenna System proposed and the proposed system’s proximity to Ccommunity Ssensitive Land Uses locations, structures typically excluded by Industry Canada may be required to follow all or part of the pre-consultation, proposal submission and public consultation identified in this Policy.

4.1 INDUSTRY CANADA EXEMPTIONS FROM CONSULTATION For the following types of installations, Proponents are excluded by Industry Canada from the requirement to consult with the Town and the public, but must still fulfill the General Requirements outlined in Section 7 of the CPC: 1. New Antenna Systems, including masts, towers or other antenna-supporting structure, with a height of less than 15 metres above ground level except where required by the Town as per section 4.2.2; 2.1. Maintenance of existing radio apparatus including the Antenna System, transmission line, mast, tower or other antenna-supporting structure; 3.2. Addition or modification of an Antenna System (including improving the structural integrity of its integral mast to facilitate sharing), the transmission line, antenna sSupporting structure or other radio apparatus to existing infrastructure, a building, water tower, etc., including additions to rooftops or support pillars, provided: a) the additions or modifications do not increase result in anthe overall height increase aboveof the existing structure by more thanof 25% of the original structure’s height; b)

the existing Antenna System is at least 15 metres in height; and

Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.54 cm, No bullets or numbering

b) the existing Antenna System has not previously been modified to increase its original height by 25%; c) the proposed increase in height is not occurring within 1 year after initial construction of the Antenna System; and c)d) the proposed increase in height is not occurring to an Antenna System that was initially constructed to be less than 15 metres in height for the purposes of operation by telecommunications carriers, broadcast undertakings, or third party tower owners. 4.3. Maintenance of an Antenna System’s painting or lighting in order to comply with Transport Canada’s requirements; and

Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.54 cm, No bullets or numbering

Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, Add space between paragraphs of the same style, No bullets or numbering

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 11 of 28

5.4. Installation, for a limited duration (not more than 3 months), of an Antenna System that is used for a special event, or one that is used to support local, provincial, territorial or national emergency operations during an emergency, and is removed within 3 months after the emergency or special event. The Town may grant, upon request, additional time for the removal of Antenna Systems used for a special event or emergency operation. The CPC also states that individual circumstances vary with each Antenna System installation and modification, and the exclusion criteria above should be applied in consideration of local circumstances. Consequently, Industry Canada states that it may be prudent for the Proponents to consult the Town and the public even though the proposal meets an exclusion identified above. Therefore, when applying the criteria for exclusion, Proponents should consider such things as: 

the Antenna System’s physical dimensions, including the antenna, mast, and tower, compared to the local surroundings;



the location of the proposed Antenna System on the property and its proximity to neighbouring residents;

•

the likelihood of an area being a community sensitive location; and

•

Transport Canada marking and lighting requirements for the proposed structure.

4.2 NOTIFICATION OF EXEMPT ANTENNA SYSTEMS Notwithstanding Industry Canada’s exemption criteria for certain Antenna Systems, the Town will be informed of all new Antenna System installations within its boundaries so that it can:  be prepared to respond to public inquiries; 

be aware of site co-location opportunities within the Town;



maintain records to refer to in the event of future modifications and additions; and



engage in meaningful dialogue with the Proponent with respect to the appearance of the Antenna System and structure prior to the Proponent investing in full design.

Therefore, Proponents are required to undertake the following steps for all exempt Antenna System installations before commencing construction: 4.2.1 Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna Systems The Proponent will in all cases provide the following information for all new Antenna Systems or modifications to existing Antenna Systems that are mounted to an existing structure, including (but not limited to) a building/rooftop, water tower, utility pole or light standard:

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 12 of 28

1. The location of the Antenna System (address, name of building, rooftop or wall mounted, etc.); 2. Description of proposed screening or Stealth Design measures with respect to the measures used by existing systems on that site and/or the guidelines expressed in Section 6; 3. The height of the Antenna System; 4. The extent and height of any modifications to existing Antenna Systems. The Town may notify the Proponent of any inconsistency with the guidelines expressed in Section 6 of this Policy and the parties will work towards a mutually agreeable solution. If not resolved, the Town will advise Industry Canada of its concerns. 4.2.2 Freestanding Antenna Systems The Proponent will confirm to the Town that the Freestanding Antenna System to be erected, or an addition or modification to an existing Freestanding Antenna System as defined in Section 4.1(3), meets the exclusion criteria in Section 4.1 by providing the following: 1. The proposed location, including its address and location on the lot or structure; 2. A short summary of the proposed Antenna System including a preliminary set of drawings or visual rendering of the proposed system; and 3. A description of how the proposal meets one of the Section 4.1 exclusion criteria. The Town will review the documentation and will contact the Proponent where there is a site-specific basis for modifying the exemption criteria based on the guidelines expressed in Section 6 of this Policy. In such cases, the Town and the Proponent will work toward a mutually agreeable solution, which may include the Town requesting the proposal be subject to all or part of the pre-consultation, proposal submission and public consultation process defined in Sections 5, 7 and 8 of this Policy, as applicable, concluding with a letter of concurrence or nonconcurrence. The Town requests that all proposals for additions or modifications of new Freestanding Antenna Systems that are proposed withinnot outside the Preferred Separation Distance (as identified in Section 3 of this Policy) be subject to the pre-consultation, proposal submission and public consultation process identified in this Policy. For this reason, Proponents are strongly encouraged to initiate this process before investing in a final design or site.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

4.3

Page 13 of 28

LOCAL CONSULTATION EXEMPTIONS

In addition to the Industry Canada exclusions from public consultation, in the circumstances in which Town Staff has been delegated authority by Town Council to provide local concurrence to Industry Canada, the Proponent will be exempt from the requirement to conduct the full public consultation process identified in Section 8 of this Policy. In these circumstances, the Proponent will be exempt from holding a public information session as per Section 8.4, but must still provide notification as per Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Town Staff will provide local concurrence to Industry Canada in the following circumstances where: 1. The proposed Antenna System complies with all the Development Guidelines identified in Section 6 of this Policy, particularly where the proposed antenna system: i) is located on municipal and public utility owned land; ii) conforms to a high level of urban design to suit the surrounding area; and 2. The proposed Antenna System is located outside of the Preferred Separation Distance (as identified in Section 3 of this Policy).

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 14 of 28

PRE-CONSULTATION WITH THE TOWN

Prior to submitting an Antenna System proposal, the Proponent will undertake the following steps as part of pre-consultation with the Town. Pre-consultation is one of the most important elements in the antenna siting process as it generally occurs at a point before the Proponent is committed to a site or design. As a result, this stage represents the best opportunity to influence the siting decision. In addition to a discussion of submission requirements, the proposal will benefit most from early direction on matters of siting and design. Proponents must initiate pre-consultation as early as possible in the antenna siting process for all exempt and non-exempt installations.

5.1

NOTIFICATION

Proponents will notify Town Staff that locations in the community are being considered for a potential Antenna System. Upon this initial notification, Town Staff will provide the Proponent a copy of this Policy, which outlines the approval process, excluded structures, requirements for public consultation and guidelines regarding matters such as site selection, co-location, installation, design and landscaping.

5.2

SITE INVESTIGATION MEETING WITH TOWN

Prior to submitting an Antenna System siting proposal, the Proponent will initiate a site investigation meeting with the Town. Town Staff will notify the Ward Councillor(s) of the upcoming site investigation meeting and provide available information as required. Town Staff will also provide this notification to adjacent municipalities within 500 metres of the proposed site. The Proponent will ensure that it is represented at the meeting by appropriate individuals involved with the development and design of the Antenna System. The purpose of the site investigation meeting is to: •

Explore the potential for siting on municipal and public utility owned land, buildings and structures;

•

Identify preliminary issues of concern, such as design/structure considerations;

•

Identify requirements for public consultation (including the need for additional forms of notice and a public information session);

•

Guide the content of the proposal submission;

•

Identify the need for discussions with any Municipal Departments and Other Agencies as determined to be necessary by Town Staff; and

•

Confirm applicable building permits for modifications to existing buildings associated with the Antenna System.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 15 of 28

The Proponent will bring the following information to the site investigation meeting: 1. The proposed location; 2. Alternative locations considered; 3. The type and height of the proposed Antenna System; and 4. Preliminary drawings or visual renderings of the proposed Antenna System superimposed to scale; and 5. Documentation regarding the investigation of co-location potentials on existing or proposed Antenna Systems.

5.3 CONFIRMATION OF MUNICIPAL PREFERENCES AND REQUIREMENTS Following the site investigation meeting, Town Staff will provide the Proponent with an information package that includes: 1. Proposal submission requirements and any applicable application forms; 2. A list of plans and studies that may be required (e.g. environmental impact statements); 3. A list of municipal departments and other Agencies to be consulted; and 4. An indication of the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preferences regarding design and co-location for the site(s) under discussion. The application will not be determined by the Town to be 'complete' (to initiate the consultation process timeframes specified in Section 10 of this Policy) until all the submission requirements of the information package have been satisfied.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 16 of 28

DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

New Antenna Systems will be sited and designed to respect local sensitivities and preferences as identified by the Town. As an order of priority, and to maximize their community benefit, new Antenna Systems will be targeted to appropriately located municipal and public utility owned land, buildings and structures, in accordance with the Development Guidelines of this Policy as they pertain to Location (Section 6.1), including Co-location, and Design Preferences (Section 6.2).

6.1

LOCATION

Co-location: In order to minimize the total number of new Antenna System structures being constructed, before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the Town will require the Proponent to explore the following options for co-location: •

Consider sharing an existing Antenna System, including modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; and

•

Locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure, including (but not limited to) rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards.

Where Co-location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, a new Antenna System should be designed with Co-location capacity to the satisfaction of the Town. The Town recognizes that the objectives of promoting Co-location and making Antenna Systems less noticeable may sometimes come into conflict. Therefore, the Town intends to review each submission on its own site-specific merits with a view to promoting both objectives and achieving an appropriate balance between them. The Town will prefer a single carrier monopole design or other Stealth Design technique for areas that are within not outside the Preferred Separation Distance of residential areas and school sites. However, the Proponent should in all cases, verify the Town’s sitespecific design preferences during the pre-submission consultation process before investing in a final design or site. Preferred Locations: Antenna Systems are preferred in areas that maximize the distance from Community Sensitive Land Uses; specifically, a minimum of 120 metres (or three times the height of the proposed Antenna System, if greater) from existing or approved residential dwellings and school sites (notwithstanding a minimum distance of 60 metres away from residential dwellings within or adjacent to Settlement Areas on municipal and public utility owned properties), and are located within the following areas, ranked in order of preference:

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 17 of 28

•

As a priority, on municipal and public utility owned land, buildings and structures;

•

Rural and Agricultural areas, particularly lower priority agricultural land (i.e. Class 4-7 farmland), and where possible and appropriate, mounted/disguised on or within existing agricultural buildings and/or facilities (e.g. silos); and

•

Industrial and Commercial areas as identified in the Town's Official Plan and other non-residential areas, where the minimum Preferred Separation Distance separation can be achieved.

Discouraged Locations: Antenna Systems will be specifically discouraged from locating within the following areas: •

On any residentially zoned property in the Town's Zoning By-Law;

•

Schools, parks and daycare sites;

•

Areas within 120 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline, unless fully disguised using Stealth Design Techniques that are considered by the Town to be compatible with the surrounding area;

•

Areas designated Natural Environment Area in the Town's Official Plan, unless assessed in an Environmental Impact Statement Study (EIS) as showing no negative impact or a determination of environmental effects by Industry Canada, as applicable under Section 7.4 of CPC-2-0-03 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act;

•

Locations within Rural and Agricultural areas that are within 1 kilometre of an existing Freestanding Antenna System; and

•

Areas in proximity to airfields, to avoid interference with any airport operations.

6.2

DESIGN PREFERENCES

In general accordance with the Town of Innisfil Official Plan, Antenna Systems should be designed in terms of appearance and aesthetics to respect their immediate surroundings, including being unobtrusive and inconspicuous, minimizing visual impact, avoiding disturbance to natural features, and reducing the need for future facilities in the same area, where appropriate. The Town’s preferred design preferences are described below. The Town will identify to the Proponent which of the design preferences will be required in the proposed location. Once the Antenna System is installed, the Proponent will continue to appropriately maintain the structure and consider any design and/or technological advancements that will allow it to better suit the surrounding environment.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 18 of 28

Structure Style and Colour: •

Lattice towers shall be discouraged within the Town.

•

The architectural style of the Antenna System should be unobtrusive and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and adjacent uses. Monopoles are preferred near residential areas.

•

In all instances, the Proponent should mitigate negative visual impacts of the antenna system through the use of appropriate landscaping, screening, and stealth design techniques, including decreasing its size and visibility, so that it blends in with the surrounding area to the greatest extent possible.

•

Antenna Systems will be promoted to be designed using stealth techniques and/or combined with landmark features such as a flagpole, tree, clock tower, street art/ sculptures, or agricultural silo where appropriate, subject to any applicable Design Guidelines.

•

Towers and communication equipment shall have a non-reflective surface or paint treatment.

•

Special design treatments will be applied to any Antenna Systems proposed to be located near parks and open space areas or on buildings and/or sites designated and/or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act to improve land use compatibility.

•

Exposed cable trays will not be run up the exterior faces of buildings.

•

Antennas that extend above the top of a supporting utility pole or light standard should appear (e.g. in colour, shape and size) to be a natural extension of the pole.

•

New structures in residential or high-traffic areas should consider multi-use design (street lighting, electric vehicle charging, parking payment terminals, signage, Wi-Fi etc.).

•

Individual wall-mounted antennas should be fixed as close to the wall as possible and should not project above the height of the wall face they are mounted on, in order to avoid visual clutter, and should be painted to match the wall colour.

•

Antenna Systems and their associated facilities located on rooftops should be not be visible from the street, and be set back from the roof edge to the greatest extent possible.

•

The use of guy wires and cables to steady, support or reinforce a tower shall be prohibited.

•

Lattice towers shall be discouraged within the Town.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 19 of 28

Buffering and Screening: •

Antenna Systems and associated equipment shelters should be attractively designed or screened and concealed from ground level or other public views to mitigate visual impacts. Screening could include using existing vegetation, landscaping, fencing, or other means in order to blend with the built and natural environments. A mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is preferred to provide year-round coverage.

•

Where adjacent to a principal building, equipment shelters should be constructed of a material similar in appearance to the materials used in the facades of the principal building and one of the same colours used in the principal building.

Height: •

For Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna Systems, the Town prefers that the height not exceed 3 metres measured from the top of the roof.

•

Height for a Freestanding Antenna System must be measured from grade to the highest point on the structure, including lighting and supporting structures. Depending on its proposed location, when determining concurrence, the Town may consider a preferred height limit for a freestanding antenna system to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Yards, Parking and Access: •

Adequate yards, to be determined on a site-by-site basis, should separate Antenna Systems from adjacent development without affecting the development potential of the lot over the lease period. The Antenna System site should provide parking and/or have direct access to a public right-of-way that does not unduly interfere with traffic flow or create safety hazards.

Equipment Cabinets in Public Spaces: •

Where feasible, locate equipment in an existing building or structure before constructing a new equipment shelter. When a new equipment shelter is necessary, cabinets shall be designed in a manner which integrates them into their surroundings, by compatible exterior finishes including graffiti resistant materials.

•

Cabinet dimensions shall be as minimal as possible.

•

Cables and wires should be concealed or covered.

Signage and Lighting:

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 20 of 28

•

Small owner identification signs up to a maximum of 0.19 square metres may be posted on Antenna Systems and associated equipment shelters or perimeter fencing.

•

No advertising sign or logo is generally permitted, however, appropriate signage may be used as part of screening or disguise, subject to approval by the Town.

•

Unless specifically required by Transport Canada and/or NAV Canada, or for emergency purposes, the display or use of any lighting is discouraged.

•

Where Transport Canada and/or NAV Canada requires a structure to be lit, the lighting should be limited to the minimum number of lights and the lowest illumination allowable, and any required strobe lightning should be set to the maximum strobe interval allowed by Transport Canada.

•

The lighting of Antenna Systems and associated equipment shelters for security purposes should be shielded from adjacent residential properties, be kept to a minimum number of lights and illumination intensity utilizing 'dark sky lighting techniques', and be provided by a motion detector or similar system.

Rooftop Equipment: •

Equipment shelters located on the roof of a building should be set back from the roof edge to the greatest extent possible, and of a colour to match the penthouse/building.

•

Rooftop equipment for the antenna system should not be higher than 3 metres from the top of the roof.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 21 of 28

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

For a proposed Antenna System, except for cases in which consultation is not required as per Section 4.2.1 or the Town has not requested consultation as per Section 4.2.2, the Proponent will submit to the Town an Antenna System siting proposal.

7.1

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The Proponent must include the following information when submitting an Antenna System siting proposal in order for the application to be deemed 'complete': 1. A Site Selection/Justification Report from the Proponent that provides the following: i.

application form/fee as per the Fees By-Law of the Town;

ii.

a map showing the area to be serviced by the antenna system and the location of all existing towers within it;

iii.

the rationale for the antenna system's location and its height;

iv.

the coverage and capacity of existing Antenna Systems in the general area;

a summary of opportunities for Co-location on existing or proposed Antenna Systems;

vi.

why the antenna could not or should not be co-located on an existing tower, or placed on a building or structure within the proponent's search area;

vii.

any alternate sites for the location of the antenna system that were investigated by the proponent, and the rationale for eliminating these sites as the preferred alternative;

viii.

any design elements proposed in order to minimize the visual impact of the antenna system;

ix.

any lighting and marking features that are anticipated to be required by Transport Canada;

Colour photographs of the proposed site and visual rendering(s) of the proposed Antenna System superimposed to scale;

xi.

A site plan showing the proposed development situated on the site;

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 22 of 28

xii.

A map showing the horizontal distance between the property boundary of the proposed site and nearby residences and/or sensitive uses;

xiii.

For Antenna Systems requiring public consultation, a map showing all properties located within the Preferred distance from the proposed Antenna System;

xiv.

Confirmation of legal ownership of the lands subject to the proposal, or a signed letter of authorization from the registered property owner of the land, their agent, or other person(s) having legal or equitable interest in the land; Confirmation that the Antenna System will be constructed and maintained to comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, as updated, which sets safe radiofrequency emission levels for these devices; and

xv.

xvi.

Any other documentation as identified by the Town following the site investigation meeting.

A determination on the completeness of an application or request for additional information will be provided within five working days of receipt of the proposal. The timelines for municipal (60 days) and public consultation (120 days) specified in Section 10 of this Policy, begin upon the Town determining the Proponent has submitted a complete application. Upon receipt of a complete proposal submission, the Town Staff will circulate the proposal for review and comment to: •

Affected municipal departments;

•

Any adjacent municipalities within a minimum distance of 500 meters of the proposed site; and

•

Town Council.

The Proponent will make available a copy of the proposal so that it can be viewed by the public at Town Hall during business hours and/or other locations as requested by Town Staff.

7.2

FEES

The Town shall not incur any expense resulting from a proposal. The Proponent shall be required to pay all applicable fee(s) to the Town. The Proponent is responsible for securing applicable applications or permissions from all relevant municipal departments and paying any applicable application fees or charges as required to the Town. Where a building permit is required for the installation of an Antenna System or its associated compound, the applicable building permit fee will be charged in accordance with the Town's Building By-Law fee structure.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 23 of 28

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

If the proposed Antenna System is not exempt from the public consultation process (or portions of it) as per the exclusions identified in Section 4, the Proponent will initiate the following public consultation process, including issuing notice, undertaking written consultation, hosting a public information session where required and reviewing the consultation results with the Town.

8.1

NOTICE RECIPIENTS

After the Proponent has submitted an Antenna Systems siting proposal, the Proponent will give notice to: 1. All owners of properties within a minimum of the Preferred Separation Distance; however, when the antenna system is proposed for a location outside of Settlement Areas, the Proponent will be required to give notice to property owners that are within a minimum of 300 metres of the proposed site, as measured from the base of the new Antenna System; 2. All tenants located on an affected property within the distances described above; 3. Any adjacent municipalities within a minimum of 500 metres of the proposed Antenna System, and to properties of the adjacent municipality within the Preferred Distancenotification radius determined in Section 8.1.1 (if requested by the adjacent municipality); 4. Town Council; 5. Affected Town Departments and Other Agencies; and 6. The Industry Canada regional office. The Town will compile a mailing list of addresses of the owners of properties within to receive notice the Preferred Distance of from the proposed Antenna System and circulate the notice on behalf of the Proponent. The Town will charge a fee to the Proponent for this service.

8.2

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

The notice will be sent by regular mail or hand delivered, a minimum of 20 days before the public information session (where a public information session is required), and include: 1. Information on the location, height, type, design and colour of the proposed Antenna System; including a letter size copy of the site plan submitted with the application; 2. The rationale, including height and location requirements, of the proposed Antenna System;

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 24 of 28

3. The name and contact information of a contact person for the Proponent; 4. The name and contact information for a contact person of Town Staff; 5. Confirmation that the Antenna System will respect Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 which sets safe radiofrequency emission levels for these devices; 6. The date, time and location of the public information session where required; and 7. A deadline date for receipt by the Proponent of public responses to the proposal. a. Where a public information session is required, the deadline date must be no more than five days before the date of the session. b. Where a public information session is not required, the deadline date must be at least 30 days after the notices are mailed. The notification shall be sent out in an envelope addressed to the “Occupant” and shall clearly show in bold type on the face of the envelope the statement: “NOTICE FOR RESIDENTS WITHIN [INSERT PREFERRED NOTIFICATION RADIUS DISTANCE AS PER SECTION 8.1.1] OF A NEW PROPOSED CELL TOWERANTENNA SYSTEM. INFORMATION IS ENCLOSED.” The Town may also require the Proponent, based on local conditions or the nature of the proposal, to provide such additional forms of notice as deemed necessary. Additional notification requirements will be identified by the Town during or following the site investigation meeting. Other forms of notification will include, but may not be limited to: •

A large format notice board sign or signs, posted on the site of the proposed Antenna System, that is clearly visible from any roadway abutting the site;

•

Publication of the notice in a local newspaper(s), particularly when the proposed Antenna System is greater than 30 metres in height; and/or,

•

Hand delivery of notices to specified buildings.

The Town will require confirmation from the Proponent that notice has taken place as per this Policy.

8.3

WRITTEN CONSULTATION

Following the delivery of the notification in accordance with 8.1 and 8.2, the Proponent will allow the public to submit written comments or concerns about the proposal. The Proponent will:

Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Italic

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 25 of 28

1. Provide the public at least 14 30 days to submit questions, comments or concerns about the proposal; 2. Respond to all questions, comments and concerns in a timely manner (no more than 30 7 days from the date of receipt); 3. Allow the party to reply to the Proponentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response (providing at least 21 days for public reply comments). 4. Keep a record of all correspondence that occurred during the written consultation process. This includes records of any agreements that may have been reached and/or any concerns that remain outstanding. 5. Provide a copy of all written correspondence to the Town and the regional Industry Canada office, together with a summary matrix of all comments received and a response to them.

8.4

PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION

The Town will host a public information session in the circumstances where local concurrence (or non-concurrence) to Industry Canada is being provided by Town Council. The type of public meeting to be conducted (open house, drop-in or town hall format) is up to the discretion of the Town. An appropriate date, time and location for the public information session will be determined in consultation with the Proponent, who will be required to be in attendance. The Proponent will make available at the public information session an appropriate visual display of the proposal, including a copy of the site plan submitted with the application and an aerial photograph of the proposed site. The Proponent will provide the Town with a package summarizing the results of the public information session containing at a minimum, the following: 1. List of attendees, including names, addresses and phone numbers (where provided voluntarily); 2. Copies of all letters and other written communications received; and 3. A letter of response from the Proponent outlining how all the concerns and issues raised by stakeholders and the public were addressed.

8.5

POST CONSULTATION REVIEW

The Town and the Proponent will communicate following completion of the public consultation process (and arrange a meeting at the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s request) to discuss the results and next steps in the process.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 26 of 28

STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE OR NON-CONCURRENCE

9.1

CONCURRENCE AND CONCURRENCE WITH CONDITIONS

The Town will provide a letter of concurrence to Industry Canada (copying the Proponent) where the proposal addresses, to the satisfaction of the Town, the requirements as set out within this Policy and the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s technical requirements, and will include conditions of concurrence, if required. The Town will issue the letter of concurrence within the timeframe established in Section 10.

9.2

NON-CONCURRENCE

The Town will provide a letter of non-concurrence to Industry Canada (copying the Proponent) if the proposal does not conform to Town requirements as set out within this Policy. The Town will also forward to Industry Canada any comments on outstanding issues, including those raised during the public consultation process. The Town will issue the letter of non-concurrence within the timeframe established in Section 10.

9.3

RESCINDING A CONCURRENCE

The Town may rescind its concurrence if following the issuance of a concurrence, it is determined by the Town that the proposal contains a significant misrepresentation or a failure to disclose all the pertinent information regarding the proposal, or the plans and conditions upon which the concurrence was issued in writing have not been complied with, and a resolution cannot be reached to correct the issue. In such cases, the Town will provide notification in writing to the Proponent and to Industry Canada and will include the reason(s) for the rescinding of its concurrence.

9.4

DURATION OF CONCURRENCE

A concurrence remains in effect for a maximum period of one three years from the date it was issued by the Town. If construction has not commenced been completed within this time period, the concurrence expires and a new submission and review process, including public consultation as applicable, is necessary prior to any construction occurring. Through a written agreement, the Proponent may be granted an extension in the duration of concurrence from the Town. This will be for a specified period of time as determined by the Town. A copy of this agreement must be provided to the local Industry Canada office. The Town must receive a written request for an extension a minimum of 30 days prior to the date of expiry. In addition, if construction has not commenced after two years from the date the concurrence was issued, the Town requests that the Proponent send a written notification of an intent to construct to Town Staff, the Town Council and any Designated Community Association once the work to erect the structure is about to start. This notification should be sent 60 days prior to any construction commencing. No further consultation or notification by the Proponent is required.

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

9.5

Page 27 of 28

TRANSFER OF CONCURRENCE

Once concurrence has been issued, that concurrence may be transferred from the original Proponent to another Proponent (the current Proponent) without the need for further consultation provided that: 1. All information gathered by the original Proponent in support of obtaining the concurrence from the Town is transferred to the current Proponent; 2. The structure for which concurrence was issued to the original Proponent is what the current Proponent builds; and 3. Construction of the structure is commenced within the Duration of Concurrence period.

10.

CONSULTATION PROCESS TIMEFRAME

Consultation with the Town is to be completed within 60 days of the proposal being deemed as complete by the Town as explained in Section 7 of this Policy. Where public consultation is required, consultation with the Town and public are to be completed within 120 days of the proposal being deemed as complete by the Town. The Town or Proponent may request an extension to the consultation process timeline. This extension must be mutually agreed on by both parties. In the event that the consultation process is not completed in 180 days, the Proponent will be responsible for receiving an extension from the Town or re-initiating the consultation process to the extent requested by the Town.

11.

LETTER OF UNDERTAKING

The Proponent may be required, if requested by the Town, to provide a letter of undertaking, which may include the following requirements: 1. The posting of a security for the construction of any proposed fencing, screening and landscaping; 2. A commitment to accommodate other communication providers on the Antenna System, where feasible, subject to the usual commercial terms and Industry Canada conditions of licence for mandatory roaming and Antenna tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit exclusive Site Arrangements (CPC-2-0-17); and 3. All conditions identified in the letter of concurrence.

12.

REDUNDANT ANTENNA SYSTEM

Municipalities can issue a request to network operators to clarify that a specific Antenna System is still required to support communication network activity. The network operator

Corporate Policy CP-08-13-11

Page 28 of 28

will respond within 30 days of receiving the request, and will provide any available information on the future status or planned decommissioning of the Antenna System. Where the network operators concur that an Antenna System is redundant, the network operator and Town will mutually agree on a timeframe to remove the system and all associated buildings and equipment from the site. Removal will occur no later than 2 years from when the Antenna System was deemed redundant.

13.

LEASE AGREEMENTS

A Lease Agreement shall be signed between the Proponent and the property owner(s) or host(s) for the location on which the antenna system will be sited. This will help ensure that the antenna system is sited in accordance with this Policy. The Lease Agreement will identify the terms and conditions for the siting of the Antenna System, including consideration for matters such as:  The term (in years) of the Lease Agreement and the conditions/clauses under which the Proponent or Property Owner/Host can terminate/renew the agreement;  The total rent that the Proponent will pay, the frequency of rental payments, first payment date (i.e. Rent Commencement Date), and the level at which the rent may be increased by the Property Owner/Host;  Identifying the portions of the property and/or rooftop that will be leased to the Proponent for the purposes/uses of constructing, maintaining and/or operating the antenna system;  Specifying siting and appearance requirements;  Outlining the decommissioning process;  The times at which the Proponent can access the identified leased area for construction/maintenance, in a way that does not interfere with the use of the area/site by the Property Owner/Host;  An indemnification clause that would require the Proponent to cover all costs, liabilities, damages, claims, lawsuits, or actions in connection with their activity on the property;  Stating that any increase in property taxes attributable to the antenna system installation will be borne solely by the Proponent;  Requirement for the Proponent to provide proof of appropriate insurance coverage; and  Written confirmation that the Proponent is meeting their compliance requirements under Safety Code 6, and be required to take whatever steps are necessary to remedy any situation of non-compliance.

DGSO-002-14 June 2014

Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

Aussi disponible en franĂ§ais

Contents 1.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Intent ....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Mandate................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Legislation............................................................................................................................1 1.4 Background ..........................................................................................................................1

Changes to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures ..........................................2 2.1 The Application of the Procedures ......................................................................................2 2.2 Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process ......................................................3 2.3 Time Limit for Construction ................................................................................................6 2.4 Exclusions ............................................................................................................................7 2.5 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act .........................................................................12

Other Comments/Amendments ..................................................................................................13

Implementation and Next Steps ..................................................................................................14

Obtaining Copies..........................................................................................................................15

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

Introduction

1.1

Intent

1.2 2.

1.3

DGSO-001-14

Through the release of this document, Industry Canada announces the decisions resulting from the consultation process undertaken in DGSO-001-14 – Consultation on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures (the “Consultation”) – and sets out changes to Industry Canada’s Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4 (CPC-2-0-03). Mandate The Minister of Industry, through the Department of Industry Act, the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, with due regard to the objectives of the Telecommunications Act, is responsible for spectrum management in Canada. Under this mandate, the Minister is responsible for developing national policies for radiocommunication antenna systems, including their supporting structures. Legislation

Under the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister may, taking into account all matters that the Minister considers relevant for ensuring the orderly development and efficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada, approve each site where antenna systems, including antenna towers, may be located.

Adherence to CPC-2-0-03 (the “Procedures”) is also a condition of all relevant authorizations and standards under the Radiocommunication Act. The installation or operation of an antenna system that is not in accordance with the Procedures may result in its alteration or removal and other sanctions against the operator in accordance with the Radiocommunication Act.

1.4

Background

On February 27, 2014, Industry Canada published the Consultation, which sought comments on changes to the Procedures. The Procedures apply to anyone who is planning to install or modify an antenna system, regardless of the type. This includes telecommunications carriers, businesses, governments, Crown agencies, operators of broadcasting undertakings and the public (including, for example, amateur radio operation and over-the-air TV reception). The Procedures also apply to those who install antenna towers or antenna systems on behalf of others or for leasing purposes.

Through the Consultation, Canadians shared their thoughts, comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Procedures. Respondents included: many citizens with an interest in the siting of antenna systems; municipalities and their national organization, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM); and the wireless industry and its national organization, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA). There were 148 respondents to the Consultation. All comments received in response to the consultation are available on Industry Canada’s website at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10804.html. 1

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

In making decisions on the amendments to the Procedures, Industry Canada has considered all relevant comments received in response to the Consultation, as well as the above-mentioned mandate and legislation.

Changes to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

Improvements to the Procedures were proposed to ensure that citizens and the municipalities that represent them are engaged early in the process. This was done by proposing changes to strengthen the requirements for the wireless industry to consult with local residents, increase transparency for municipalities, and improve communications throughout the tower siting process.

These improvements include proposed changes related to the: • • • • •

2.1 10.

application of the Procedures; default public consultation process; time limit for construction; criteria for installations that may be excluded from consultation; and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). The Application of the Procedures

In the Consultation, Industry Canada proposed that the term “telecommunications carriers” or “carriers” replace the terms “Personal Communications Services (PCS)” and “cellular” in order to reflect the range of operators and services that have evolved over the past 30 years. It also proposed to explicitly note that the Procedures apply to anyone who is planning to install or modify an antenna system, including those who install antenna systems on behalf of others or for leasing purposes (“third party tower owners”).

Summary of Comments 11.

Overall, respondents to the Consultation supported the proposed changes.

Discussion 12.

In response to the increased demand by Canadians to have better coverage, faster data rates and more advanced mobile applications, the types of operators providing services have evolved significantly and now provide a broader range of services. In addition, business models have evolved and there are companies that build on behalf of, or in order to lease antenna space to, an operator. Industry Canada notes that the Procedures already apply to these various parties (referred to in the Procedures as “proponents”), and considers that the proposed changes add clarity to the Procedures.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

Decision 13.

Industry Canada will update Section 1.2 of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, to read as follows:

The requirements of this document apply to anyone (referred to in this document as the proponent) who is planning to install or modify an antenna system*, regardless of the type. This includes telecommunications carriers**, businesses, governments, Crown agencies, operators of broadcasting undertakings and the public (including for amateur radio operation and over-the-air TV reception). Anyone who proposes, uses or owns an antenna system must follow these procedures. The requirements also apply to those who install towers or antenna systems on behalf of others or for leasing purposes (“third party tower owners”). As well, parts of this process contain obligations that apply to existing antenna system owners and operators. * For the purposes of this document, an “antenna system” is normally composed of an antenna and some sort of supporting structure, normally a tower. Most antennas have their own integral mast so that they can be fastened directly to a building or a tower. Thus, where this document refers to an “antenna”, the term includes the integral mast. ** For the purpose of this document, a “telecommunications carrier” means a person who owns or operates a transmission facility used by that person or another person to provide telecommunications services to the public for compensation.

2.2 14.

Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process In the Consultation, Industry Canada proposed to require that public notifications be clearly marked so as not to be interpreted as “junk mail” and that these notifications be sent by regular mail or be hand delivered. Additionally, Industry Canada proposed to clarify how to measure the height of an antenna system. The changes were proposed in regard to the Industry Canada Default Public Consultation Process. Where municipalities have a protocol that addresses public notification, the Procedures require that proponents follow that particular local process.

Summary of Comments 15.

Respondents were generally supportive of the improved delivery and marking of the public notification package. Other comments included concerns and suggestions related to: developing a standard template for envelope markings (City of Vaughan); implementing signage requirements at the site of a proposed tower notifying the public of the proposal (Town of Oakville and others); addressing anticipated changes to, and adequacy of, Canada Post home delivery (citizens and Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS)); using electronic notification via the Internet (CRINS); increasing the notification distance beyond three times the tower height (various municipalities and members of the public);

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

setting a minimum notification distance 1 (FCM, municipalities and members of the public); and measuring the notification distance from the property line (City of Toronto). 16.

Bragg Communications Inc. (operating as Eastlink) submitted that several municipalities in its service area do not allow it to mail public information itself, and requested an amendment to address this situation.

17.

Comments were generally supportive of clarifying how the height of an antenna system is measured. Several respondents noted that Industry Canada’s proposed clarification was inconsistent in the consultation paper. TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) was opposed to changing the wording from “antenna-supporting structures” to “antenna systems” in relation to the 30-metre height requirement and local newspaper notifications, stating this change would lead to interpretation issues.

Discussion 18.

Industry Canada considers that local residents and municipal governments should be at the centre of the antenna tower siting process. To do this, citizens must be informed of an upcoming consultation so that they can actively participate. Industry Canada is of the view that clear marking of notifications to citizens is necessary to prevent the notifications from being viewed as junk mail.

19.

To address Eastlink’s comments on municipalities not allowing mail-outs by proponents, the Procedures provide that municipalities may develop their own, reasonable requirements regarding notice. These requirements may include details on how the notice is delivered. Where a proponent believes a requirement is unreasonable, it may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance.

20.

Industry Canada also considers that clearly defining how to measure the height of an antenna system, as proposed in the Consultation, will better inform citizens, municipalities and proponents. Industry Canada agrees with the respondents that the definition should be consistent throughout the Procedures. In the Procedures, the term “antenna system” encompasses both the supporting structure and the antenna. As antennas may add significant height to a supporting structure in relation to the structure itself, Industry Canada considers that the use of the term “antenna system” is more inclusive when determining overall height and, therefore, appropriate when setting public notification requirements.

21.

In February 2013, the FCM and CWTA announced the release of an Antenna System Siting Protocol Template. The two national organizations worked together in partnership in order to establish a template to provide municipalities with a tool to develop customized protocols for the siting of antenna systems within their municipalities. Under the FCM/CWTA Protocol Template, municipalities may determine a prescribed distance that relates to, among other things, public notification. The template also notes Industry Canada’s default of the three-times-the-height

Various minimum notification distances were proposed. FCM provided examples from existing municipal protocols, e.g., six times the height of the proposed tower, a minimum of 100 metres and a minimum of 120 metres. Other respondents recommended 10 times the height of the tower, 500 metres from a school or daycare and 1 kilometre from residential areas.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

factor and that municipal protocols have adopted a range of notification distances. In its comments, the FCM recommended that the Procedures be revised to include a minimum public notification distance. Industry Canada notes that it will continue to support individual municipalities in establishing public consultation requirements for antenna systems appropriate for their communities, including reasonable minimum public notification distances. Where a proponent believes a requirement is unreasonable, it may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance. 22.

With respect to the other suggestions received that were not proposed in the Consultation, Industry Canada considers that comments such as electronic notification, changes to Canada Postâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home delivery program and on-site signage are matters that proponents and land-use authorities can consider where necessary.

Decision 23.

Industry Canada will update Section 4.2 of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, to read as follows:

Public Notification 1. Proponents must ensure that the local public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada are notified of the proposed antenna system. As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package (see Appendix 1) to the local public (including nearby residences, community gathering areas, public institutions, schools, etc.), neighbouring land-use authorities, businesses, and property owners, etc. located within a radius of three times the tower height*. The radius is measured from the outside perimeter of the supporting structure. For the purpose of this requirement, the outside perimeter begins at the furthest point of the supporting mechanism, be it the outermost guy line, building edge, face of the self-supporting tower, etc. Public notification of an upcoming consultation must be clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail. The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed antenna system. 2. It is the proponentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment. 3. In addition to the minimum notification distance noted above, in areas of seasonal residence, the proponent, in consultation with the land-use authority, is responsible for determining the best manner to notify such residents to ensure their engagement. 4. In addition to the public notification requirements noted above, proponents of an antenna system proposed to be 30 metres or more in height must place a notice in a local community newspaper circulating in the proposed area.** Height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base, including foundation, to the tallest point of the antenna system. Depending on the particular installation, the tallest point may be an antenna, lightning rod, aviation obstruction lighting or some other appurtenance. Any attempt to artificially reduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc.) will not be included in the 5

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

calculation or measurement of the height of the antenna system. *

Proponents are advised that municipalities may set reasonable public notification distances appropriate for their communities when establishing their own protocols.

** The notice must be synchronized with the distribution of the public notification package. It must be legible and placed in the public notice section of the newspaper. The notice must include: a description of the proposed installation; its location and street address; proponent contact information and mailing address; and an invitation to provide public comments to the proponent within 30 days of the notice. In areas without a local newspaper, other effective means of public notification must be implemented. Proponents may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance.

2.3 24.

Time Limit for Construction In the Consultation, Industry Canada proposed that construction of an antenna system must be completed within three years of the conclusion of the consultation process.

Summary of Comments 25.

Generally, land-use respondents, including the FCM, supported a three-year time limit while the City of Vaughan questioned how it would be enforced.

26.

The City of Markham, CRINS, and Bell Mobility (Bell) submitted that municipalities should have the flexibility to adjust the requirement, including suggestions to decrease or increase the time limit. Other respondents included recommendations to begin the three-year time limit at the start of construction (Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers)), after concurrence or conclusion of an impasse (TELUS), or after all permits have been received (Eastlink), as opposed to beginning the time limit at the conclusion of the consultation process. MTS Allstream proposed that construction would only need to begin within three years, and that extensions should be permitted.

27.

The City of Markham submitted that a time limit should be added to the Procedures for stakeholders to file a request with Industry Canada to resolve an impasse.

Discussion 28.

Industry Canada notes that there have been situations in the past in which the local public has not been aware of the proposed installation of a new antenna system, e.g., where a new subdivision has been constructed after the conclusion of the consultation process. Industry Canada considers that tying the construction limit to the conclusion of the consultation process as opposed to the start of construction creates a more defined timeframe for the completion of the entire project and minimizes the risk that citizens will not be aware of an upcoming installation. Using this timeframe also minimizes the efforts spent by citizens, municipalities and other stakeholders on speculative proposals. Therefore, Industry Canada does not consider it appropriate to begin the three-year time limit at the start of construction.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

29.

Industry Canada notes that there are many complexities in installing a tower and, therefore, does not support a reduction of the three-year time limit. However, it acknowledges there are circumstances where all stakeholders may wish to extend the time limit. For example, in underserved areas, all stakeholders may still wish to bring service to an area, even after three years. In these cases, Industry Canada would accept an extension for a specified time period agreed to by the relevant land-use authority and confirmed in writing.

30.

With respect to the City of Markham’s suggested time limit for the filing of a written request to resolve an impasse, Industry Canada notes that it already has a formal Dispute Resolution Process intended to bring about timely resolution where the parties have reached an impasse. Within this process, parties may provide any relevant information, including evidence demonstrating the impact of any time delays. Alternately, impasses are often resolved informally through dialogue without the requirement for Industry Canada involvement. Before it is resolved, the proponent cannot proceed with its proposal. Accordingly, Industry Canada is of the view that specifying a limit for the filing of a written request to resolve an impasse is not necessary.

31.

Industry Canada also notes that proponents who construct their antenna system after the three-year limit would not be acting in accordance with the requirements of the Procedures and would be in contravention of their condition of authorization, which could cause them to lose their authorization, and/or incur other sanctions and prosecutions under the Radiocommunication Act.

Decision 32.

Industry Canada will update CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Section 4.4), to read as follows:

Whether the proponent followed a land-use authority’s consultation process or Industry Canada’s default public consultation process, construction of an antenna system must be completed within three years of the conclusion of consultation. After three years, consultations will no longer be deemed valid except in the case where a proponent secures the agreement of the relevant land-use authority to an extension for a specified time period in writing. A copy of the agreement must be provided to the local Industry Canada office.

2.4 33.

Exclusions In the Consultation, Industry Canada proposed a number of changes to the exclusions section of the Procedures, including a new requirement for consultation on commercial tower installations less than 15 metres in height.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

Summary of Comments 34.

In general, the FCM, the municipalities and the public supported the removal of the 15 metre exclusion for commercial installations. The FCM and the City of Markham submitted that the Procedures be revised to require consultation for modifications to antenna systems originally less than 15 metres in height, that were initially installed without consultation, but result in an antenna system exceeding 15 metres. The City of Markham, however, submitted that only municipal consultation should be required, rather than public consultation, noting the administrative and consultative burden on municipalities.

35.

Some municipalities and members of the public also suggested increasing the requirements to notify or consult. The FCM submitted that municipalities should be notified, at their option, of building and structure-mounted antennas, even if excluded from consultation. The Town of Oakville submitted that municipal consultation should be required on all installations less than 15 metres in height. Members of the public, including Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) and the City of Vaughan recommended requiring consultation for all installations, including non-tower structures. The City of Markham suggested that municipal consultation should be required on new antenna systems less than 15 metres in height, allowing the municipality to decide if public consultation is required based on local circumstances. TELUS submitted that the removal of the 15 metre exclusion would not apply to third party tower owners.

36.

Except for MTS Allstream, the telecommunications carriers disagreed with the proposal. In general, they submitted that the requirement does not treat all proponents in a similar manner, impairs the ability to bring new technologies at the pace the public demands, and is not in the interest of the public and municipalities, for a variety of reasons, including inadvertently discouraging the development of small antenna systems and increasing the administrative burden and costs.

37.

TELUS proposed that notification for installations less than 15 metres in height should only apply to those located in residential areas. Eastlink recommended adopting the FCM/CWTA template protocol provisions with respect to these installations 2.

38.

Rogers submitted that it should be clarified that a municipality has the option of excluding certain types of antenna systems from all or part of its consultation process.

39.

Both Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) and the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) submitted that, due to the nature of their service and types of installations, their antenna systems warrant exclusion from consultation. Similarly, the Broadcastersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) submitted that an exemption should be allowed for towers less than 15 metres in height used by broadcasting undertakings for auxiliary facilities, i.e., towers used by broadcasters for transmissions of signals other than the direct broadcast of signals to listeners or viewers.

As per the FCM/CWTA template, where a municipality utilizes all or part of the FCM/CWTA template, proponents who are CWTA members have agreed to notify the municipality of all antenna systems within their boundaries.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

40.

DGSO-001-14

Respondents also commented on specific details of the exclusions, noting that: a. While new amateur radio installations less than 15 metres in height are excluded from consultation under this section, they are still expected to abide by the general requirements to ensure that the installation is appropriate for the lot size and location (FCM); b. The exclusion for replacement of an existing tower should only apply if the replacement is more or less equivalent to, or even the same as, the original design and location (FCM and City of Markham); c. An increase in a height of any amount should require consultation if the tower was previously excluded from consultation due to a height of less than 15 metres (FCM and City of Markham); d. The 25% increase could be achieved through one increase of 25% or through separate phases totalling, but not exceeding, 25% (FCM); e. Any significant additions or modifications should constitute an unreasonable application of the exclusion, and should require public notification and consultation (FCM and various municipalities); f. Temporary antenna systems installed at a height of less than 15 metres to provide capacity relief on an interim basis should be excluded from consultation (Bell); and g. Different thresholds for consultation should be added, such as an increase in radio frequency output of more than 25%, a power increase of more than 5%, or a height increase of more than 10% (C4ST).

Discussion 41.

Industry Canada is well aware of the concerns of Canadians about the proliferation of towers and considers that Canadians deserve to have a say as to where towers are built in their communities. Consultation is an important element to ensure that local residents and municipalities are at the centre of this process. Therefore, the Procedures include requirements to consider the sharing of infrastructure and consultation with the municipality/land-use authority.

42.

Careful consideration is given when developing exclusions and Industry Canada assesses criteria such as the likelihood and extent of local community concerns, its local experience with antenna siting issues, and the needs of, and administrative burden on, the various stakeholders, including the municipalities. Further, consideration is given to the diversity of stakeholders, including communications companies, Emergency Services (police, fire, and ambulance), government organizations, businesses and individuals.

43.

The submissions indicate that there is heightened public concern related to new commercial installations (proposals by telecommunications carriers, broadcasting undertakings or third party tower owners) and that these installations typically have a greater impact. Although CWTA members have agreed to consult on “excluded” antenna system proposals where required by the municipalities, Industry Canada notes that not all commercial operators are members of the CWTA and not all municipalities have incorporated elements of the FCM/CWTA protocol template into their own local municipal protocol. Accordingly, Industry Canada considers that it is in the community’s interest that telecommunications carriers, broadcasting undertakings or third-party tower owners consult with the public on all new tower proposals, regardless of height, without exception. Therefore, in all cases, commercial operators must notify and consult with the local public when proposing a new antenna tower either by following Industry Canada’s Default 9

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

Public Consultation process or, where one exists, the municipality’s public consultation process. Industry Canada notes that municipalities can still, through their own protocols, determine what a reasonable public consultation would be in light of their local circumstances. Further, municipalities may still exclude other types of installations from public consultation. 44.

In contrast, requiring consultation for temporary antenna systems used for special events and emergencies, as well as for all replacement or non-commercial antenna systems, and for those that result in a minimal height increase, would create unnecessary administrative and consultative burdens for the public and municipalities.

45.

In addition, Industry Canada notes that it has maintained the requirement that all proponents must consider local circumstance when applying the exclusion criteria. For example, when considering exclusion from consultation for a new antenna system, an amateur radio operator must consider things such as proximity to neighbours, tree cover and antenna and lot size. Industry Canada considers that proponents can benefit from local knowledge by discussing their proposals that are excluded from consultation, whether tower, or non-tower based, with the local municipality. Industry Canada notes that municipalities also have the ability to include reasonable requirements in their own protocols to meet their local needs and that these may include the requirement to notify the municipality of antenna installations that are excluded from consultation.

46.

Industry Canada considers that Hydro One, CN, and the TCC’s request for a blanket or partial exclusion based on their unique circumstances is not consistent with the intent of the Consultation. However, Industry Canada suggests to these parties that municipalities/land-use authorities are also encouraged to develop their own protocols and can include different requirements, as appropriate for their communities, e.g., streamlining notification procedures.

47.

Industry Canada has considered other detailed comments and added clarifications to the Procedures as appropriate. Industry Canada considers that an exemption for temporary installations in order to meet network capacity demands is not consistent with the intent of the Consultation. Industry Canada also considers that its thresholds based on proposed height continue to be appropriate, as supported by various stakeholders, and does not consider it necessary to adopt alternative thresholds as proposed by C4ST and certain individuals.

Decision 48.

Industry Canada will update Section 6 of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, to read as follows:

All proponents must satisfy the General Requirements outlined in Section 7 regardless of whether an exclusion applies to their proposal. All proponents must also consult the land-use authority and the public unless a proposal is specifically excluded. Individual circumstances vary with each antenna system installation and modification, and the exclusion criteria below should be applied in consideration of local circumstances. Consequently, it may be prudent for the proponent to consult even though the proposal meets an exclusion noted below. Therefore, when applying the criteria for exclusion, proponents should consider such things as: •

the antenna system's physical dimensions, including the antenna, mast, and tower, compared 10

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

to the local surroundings; the location of the proposed antenna system on the property and its proximity to neighbouring residents; • the likelihood of an area being a community-sensitive location; and • Transport Canada’s marking and lighting requirements for the proposed structure. •

The following proposals are excluded from land-use authority and public consultation requirements: •

New Antenna Systems: where the height is less than 15 metres above ground level. This exclusion does not apply to antenna systems proposed by telecommunications carriers, broadcasting undertakings or third party tower owners;

•

Existing Antenna Systems: where modifications are made, antennas added or the tower replaced*, including to facilitate sharing, provided that the total cumulative height increase is no greater than 25% of the height of the initial antenna system installation.** No increase in height may occur within one year of completion of the initial construction. This exclusion does not apply to antenna systems using purpose built antenna supporting structures with a height of less than 15 metres above ground level operated by telecommunications carriers, broadcasting undertakings or third party tower owners;

•

Non-Tower Structures: antennas on buildings, water towers, lamp posts, etc. may be excluded from consultation provided that the height above ground of the non-tower structure, exclusive of appurtenances, is not increased by more than 25%*** and

•

Temporary Antenna Systems: used for special events or emergency operations and must be removed within three months of the start of the emergency or special event.

No consultation is required prior to performing maintenance on an existing antenna system. Proponents who are not certain if their proposals are excluded, or if consultation would still be prudent, are advised to contact the land-use authority and/or Industry Canada for guidance. Height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base, including the foundation, to the tallest point of the antenna system. Depending on the particular installation, the tallest point may be an antenna, lightning rod, aviation obstruction lighting or some other appurtenance. Any attempt to artificially reduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc.) will not be included in the calculation or measurement of the height of the antenna system. * The exclusion for the replacement of existing antenna systems applies to replacements that are similar to the original design and location.

** Initial antenna system installation refers to the system as it was first consulted on, or installed. *** Telecommunication carriers, operators of broadcasting undertakings and third party tower owners may benefit from local knowledge by contacting the land-use authority when planning an antenna system that meets this exclusion criterion.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

2.5 49.

DGSO-001-14

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act In the Consultation, Industry Canada proposed to amend the Procedures to reflect the new version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which came into law in 2012 (CEAA 2012).

Summary of Comments 50.

The majority of respondents either supported the update or had no comments regarding the proposed update. One respondent was of the view that the requirement should only be to notify Industry Canada as opposed to requiring a full application and review or, alternatively, that Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review be capped at 30 days.

Discussion 51.

Industry Canada requires that the installation and modification of antenna systems be done in a manner that complies with appropriate environmental legislation. CEAA 2012 requires that before a federal authority makes any decision that would allow a project to proceed, it must determine whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This requirement may include working with other federal authorities to determine the environmental effects of a proposed antenna system and could be a time-consuming process.

52.

Accordingly, Industry Canada considers that it would not be able to meet its requirements if it were restricted to notification only and/or a 30-day time limit.

Decision 53.

Industry Canada will update Section 7.4 of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, to read as follows:

Industry Canada requires that the installation and modification of antenna systems be done in a manner that complies with appropriate environmental legislation. This includes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), where the antenna system is incidental to a physical activity or project designated under CEAA 2012, or is located on federal lands. An antenna system may not proceed where it is incidental to a designated project (as described in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities), or is otherwise expressly designated by the Minister of the Environment without satisfying certain requirements applicable to designated projects. Therefore, a proponent of this type of project must contact Industry Canada for direction on how to proceed. Any proposed antenna system on federal land may not proceed without a determination of environmental effects by Industry Canada. In order to assist the Department in making such a determination, proponents must submit a project description to Industry Canada, considering and addressing those elements of the environment described in CEAA 2012, as well as any determination of environmental effects that may have been made by the authority responsible for managing the federal land. Industry Canada may also require further information before it 12

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

can complete its assessment. Industry Canada will inform the proponent of the results of its determination and may impose conditions related to mitigating any adverse effects after making its determination and/or may need to refer the matter to the Governor in Council under CEAA 2012. In addition, notices under Industry Canada’s default public consultation process require written confirmation of the project’s status under CEAA 2012 (e.g., whether it is incidental to a designated project or, if not, whether it is on federal lands). In addition to CEAA requirements, proponents are responsible to ensure that antenna systems are installed and operated in a manner that respects the local environment and that complies with other statutory requirements, such as those under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Species at Risk Act, as applicable. For projects north of the 60th parallel, environmental assessment requirements may arise from federal statutes other than the aforementioned Acts or from Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements. Industry Canada requires that installation or modification of antennas or antenna supporting structures be done in accordance with these requirements, as appropriate.

3. 54.

Other Comments/Amendments Industry Canada also received additional suggestions regarding various aspects of the siting procedures. The vast majority of these comments were from C4ST and citizens, many using the template supplied on C4ST’s website.

Summary of Comments 55.

Respondents indicated a concern with regard to public health, commenting that the Procedures do not adequately protect Canadians from electromagnetic radiation because they allow towers to be located in residential areas. Some respondents, public and municipal, asked for stricter guidelines for the placement of towers located near residential neighbourhoods, schools and daycares.

56.

The FCM recommended that pre-consultation with the municipality should be excluded from the 120-day consultation period.

57.

A number of other comments were submitted by various parties such as, but not limited to, the requirements for structural drawings, Safety Code 6 validation reports, tower sharing and peer reviews of technical information.

Discussion 58.

Health Canada has broad responsibility for the protection of the health of Canadians. Its guidelines, commonly known as Safety Code 6, are written and maintained for the purpose of protecting Canadians from unsafe levels of radio frequency exposure. Industry Canada requires all wireless installations to comply with Safety Code 6 at all times to protect the general public. 13

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

Industry Canada notes that Health Canada is proposing revisions to Safety Code 6; if the codeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines are modified, it is Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention to apply the revised guidelines under Section 7.1 of the Procedures in the same manner that the current requirements are applied today. Comments regarding the suitability of Safety Code 6 are outside the scope of this Consultation. 59.

Industry Canada agrees that the initial contact with the municipality/land-use authority is important in furthering discussion on appropriate sites and/or design. It notes that the intent under the Procedures is, and continues to be, that the 120-day consultation period begins after the initial contact (usually starting with the formal contact in writing).

60.

Comments submitted relating to the requirements for structural drawings, Safety Code 6 validation reports, tower sharing and peer reviews of technical information are outside the scope of this Consultation. Although imposing such requirements in the Procedures is outside the scope of this Consultation, Industry Canada notes that land-use authorities may develop protocols that include requesting a wide scope of relevant information.

61.

Industry Canada will also make several minor amendments to the Procedures including harmonizing defined terms and fixing typographical and grammatical errors.

Decision 62.

Industry Canada will update Section 4 of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, to read as follows:

Proponents must always contact the applicable land-use authorities to determine the local consultation requirements and to discuss local preferences regarding antenna system siting and/or design, unless their proposal falls within the exclusion criteria outlined in Section 6. If the land-use authority has designated an official to deal with antenna systems, then proponents are to engage the authority through that person. If not, proponents must submit their plans directly to the council, elected local official or executive. The 120-day consultation period commences only once proponents have formally submitted in writing all plans required by the land-use authority, and does not include preliminary discussions with land-use authority representatives.

4. 63.

Implementation and Next Steps These changes are reflected in CPC-2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System, Issue 5, and become effective July 15, 2014 for all new proposals and in relation to all ongoing obligations. Proposals where construction or consultation has already commenced may continue under the provisions of CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, for the purpose of satisfying any requirements in relation to consultations.

Decision on Amendments to Industry Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

DGSO-001-14

Obtaining Copies

64.

Copies of this notice, the documents referred to herein and revised Frequency Asked Questions are available electronically on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website at www.ic.gc.ca/spectrum.

65.

Official versions of Canada Gazette notices can be viewed at www.gazette.gc.ca.

June 26, 2014

Item D.4 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF O INNIS SFIL STA AFF REP PORT STAFF REPORT R NO O:

DS SR-156-14

DATE:

Se eptember 17 7, 2014

TO:

Ma ayor, Deputty Mayor an nd Members s of Counciil

FROM:

Tim Cane, Ma anager of L and Use Pla anning

SUBJEC CT:

Me emorandum m of Unders standing with LSRCA a and NVCA

RECOMM MENDATION: R-156-14 be e received by b Council; That DSR That the e Chief Adm ministrative Officer sig gn the Mem morandum o of Understa anding with h the Lake Simcoe Regiion Conserrvation Autthority (LS SRCA), as attached, s subject to final review and a minor editing; and That the e Chief Adm ministrative Officer sig gn the Mem morandum o of Understa anding with h the Nottawa asaga Valley y Conserva ation Authority (NVCA)), as attach hed, subjectt to final re eview and minor editing. 1.0

PURPOSE P

The purrpose of this Staff Re eport is to provide a brief overvview and rrationale forr the Memoran ndum of Understandin U ng’s (MOU’s s) with the e LSRCA ((Attachment 1) and N NVCA (Attachm ment 2). 2.0

BACKGROU B UND/DISCUS SSION

Ontario’s s land use planning p system is comp plex and the e Town musst implement and conform to provincia al and county y legislation such as the e Planning A Act, Provincial Policy Sttatement, Grrowth Plan for the Greaterr Golden Ho orseshoe, La ake Simcoe Protection P Plan, and C County of Sim mcoe P Furthe ermore, the Town is en ncompassed d by the wattersheds of the LSRCA A and Official Plan. NVCA, which w under the authoritty of the provincial Consservation Au uthorities Acct have the a ability to regula ate develop pment and activities as s they gen nerally affecct wetlands, shoreliness and watercou urses (i.e. within w the Regulatory R Area). A As ssuch, as de evelopment applicationss are processe ed within th he regulated d areas, a considerab le amount of co-opera ation is req quired between the Town and each respective Conservation Au uthority (CA). While the e Town alrea ady has a strong workin ng partnersh hip with both h the LSRCA A and the NVCA, the gene eral purpose e of the MOU’s is to formalize tthis partnerrship and to o streamline e the circulatio on procedure es for all app plications un nder the Pla anning Act. Furthermore e, the MOU’’s will define th he role of the Town and d each CA in implemen nting provinccial policies as they rela ate to public he ealth and saffety and env vironmental protection. p …/

Staff Report DSR-156-14 Memorandum of Understanding with LSRCA and NVCA

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2

3.0

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

There are no direct financial costs from approving the recommendations of this report. All costs in processing planning applications are billed to applicants on a cost-recovery basis. 4.0

CONCLUSION

Entering into a MOU with both the LSRCA and NVCA will result in continued and enhanced cooperation between the Town and each CA. Consistently executing the procedures of the MOU will promote effective communication and collaboration, while facilitating cost-effective and proactive land use planning. The MOUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will help support the goals of Inspiring Innisfil 2020 for promoting and protecting the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River watersheds for their ecological, heritage and tourism benefits, and will be reviewed on an on-going basis to evaluate their effectiveness

PREPARED BY: Paul Pentikainen, M.Pl, MCIP, RPP Policy Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Town and LSRCA 2. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Town and NVCA

Attachment 1 to Staff Report DSR-156-14

LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (LSRCA) and the WATERSHED MUNICIPALITIES (TOWN OF INNISFIL) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PROCEDURES TO CIRCULATE APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PLANNING ACT And TO DEFINE THE ROLES OF THE LSRCA AND MUNICIPALITY IN ONTARIO’S LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM

Basis The Regulations under the Planning Act require that municipalities must provide notice of a public meeting or public hearing to the local conservation authority for most planning applications. All notices for applications under the Act such as Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws including amendments, minor variances, plans of subdivision, and consents must be circulated to the Secretary-Treasurer of the LSRCA. While the Regulations under the Act require that the conservation authorities receive notice of most applications, there is no regulatory requirement for a municipality to circulate site plans applications under Section 41. This MOU, among other matters, establishes the circulation procedures for all applications to the LSRCA including site plans. In addition, the land use planning system in this region is highly complex. This complexity is based on the need to implement and conform to various provincial plans including the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, and Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act is also required. As a result, there is a need to clearly define the role of the LSRCA and the Town in this planning process as it relates to environmental protection and the implementation of these Plans. It is also necessary to define the LSRCA’s role as it relates to providing the necessary technical assistance to the approval authority. Purpose In general, the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the LSRCA and Town is to streamline the circulation procedures for all applications under the Planning Act and to define our respective roles in the planning process. Specifically, this MOU will clarify the roles of the LSRCA and Town in the planning process as it relates to public health and safety and environmental protection by:  Reinforcing the positive relationship between the LSRCA and Town;  Creating efficiencies by reducing duplication of service but maintaining thoroughness of application review;  Clarifying roles and responsibilities based on legislation and practice;  Establishing protocols and application processing responsibilities for both parties;  Providing the Town with increased decision making autonomy.

Principles This Memorandum of Understanding is based upon the following principles:    

Continued cooperation between the LSRCA and Town; Effective communication and collaboration; Cost effective proactive planning over cost intensive reactive planning; User-pay philosophy to help offset the costs of the planning evaluation process.

Jurisdiction This Memorandum of Understanding applies to those lands within the Lake Simcoe watershed boundary within the Town of Innisfil. Roles Town 1. The Town will provide the LSRCA with notice of a public meeting for the following applications:  Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and amendments  Zoning By-Laws and amendments  Draft plans of subdivision and condominium 2. The Town will circulate site plan applications under the Planning Act (including the LSRCA’s base review fee) to the LSRCA in a manner as follows:  If the proposed development, site alteration, or associated infrastructure will be located in an area subject to Ontario Regulation 179/06;  If the application is associated with a plan of condominium. 3. The Town will circulate minor variance applications (including the LSRCA’s review fee) to the LSRCA in a manner as follows:  If the subject property is located on the shoreline of Lake Simcoe. 4. The Town will circulate consent applications (including the LSRCA’s review fee) to the LSRCA in a manner as follows:  If the proposal involves the creation of a new lot in an area subject to Ontario Regulation 179/06 (OR 179/06).

5. For the applicable site plan, minor variance, and consent applications, the Town will collect and attach the LSRCA’s base review fee (cheque payable to the LSRCA). The LSRCA will contact the developer or owner directly should additional fees be required to complete the review. 6. For all applications to be circulated to the LSRCA, the Town will provide any associated plans or reports such as environmental impact studies and storm water management reports. In general, hard copies of the reports shall be provided to the LSRCA. Also, the Town will provide any other required information to assist with the review upon request and where reasonable. 7. At the discretion of the municipality, the Town may circulate other site plan, minor variance, or consent applications where a technical review by the LSRCA is warranted or preferred to assist the municipality in its planning consideration of environmental matters. 8. In certain extenuating circumstances, the Town may require a peer review by an external consultant for studies typically reviewed by the LSRCA such as natural heritage evaluations. Prior to any peer review, the Town will consult with the LSRCA. The selection of a peer review consultant will be a cooperative process between the LSRCA and Town with the purpose of selecting a peer review consultant agreeable to both parties. The cost of such peer review will be paid by the applicant. LSRCA 1. The LSRCA will provide the necessary information to the Town in order to help implement this MOU including the approved Fees Policy and any updated Ontario Regulation 179/06 mapping. 2. The LSRCA will provide written comment on the applications circulated by the Town in time for the scheduled public meeting or public hearing. Where possible, the LSRCA will provide written comments in time for the preparation of the planning staff report. In general, comments will be provided from a planning policy perspective and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act. 3. The LSRCA, as required under Subsection 3(6) of the Planning Act, will review and provide written comment on the circulated applications in the context of the following:    

Provincial Policy Statement Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Greenbelt Plan Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

4. For greater clarity, the LSRCA will review the circulated applications from the following perspectives:        

Natural hazard lands (e.g. flooding, erosion, steep slopes) Lake Simcoe shoreline (e.g. natural hazards and vegetative buffers) Natural heritage (e.g. significant woodlands, significant valley lands) Water quality and quantity (e.g. storm water management) including consideration of Town engineering design standards Source water protection (e.g. significant groundwater recharge areas) Fish Habitat protection Sub-watershed Plan recommendations Alternative development standards (e.g. LID; LEAP funding)

5. To further assist the municipality, the LSRCA will provide advice to the Town on planning matters where other legislation may be applicable including:    

Fisheries Act Environmental Assessment Act Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act

6. Both the Town and LSRCA advocate the “planning-first” principle related to land use planning and permitting. As such, the LSRCA will ensure that any issues that would affect the developability of a site will be addressed through the application under the Planning Act first, prior to the processing of any permit. In these instances, the permit will implement the results and findings of the approved application process through the Planning Act. 7. Where necessary, the LSRCA and Town will work together on matters before the Ontario Municipal Board or Environmental Tribunal. Where appropriate, the LSRCA and Town will work closely together to ensure an efficient use of human and financial resources. 8. Where appropriate, the LSRCA will actively participate in pre-application consultation with developers and landowners. To help ensure a consistent review and a coordinated message, it is preferred that the LSRCA and Town (together with the County) participate in pre-application consultation at the same time with the proponents. The Town and LSRCA will work together to scope the complete application requirements in order to avoid incomplete applications. It is recommended that shared meetings between the Town, County, and LSRCA be held for those applications where there are common interests.

Monitoring and Cancellation This Memorandum of Understanding will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to evaluate its effectiveness. This MOU may be amended by mutual agreement from time to time in order to reflect any changing policies or programs at the provincial, watershed, or municipal level. At any time, the Town or the LSRCA (upon 30 days notice) may terminate this Memorandum of Understanding via written notice. Rather than termination, collective amendment of the MOU is preferred.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Signatory Parties

I hereby agree to implement the terms and provisions contained in this Memorandum of Understanding:

John Skorobohacz Chief Administrative Officer Town of Innisfil

Date

Mike Walters Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Date

Attachment 2 to Staff Report DSR-156-14 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and the WATERSHED MUNICIPALITIES (TOWN OF INNISFIL) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PROCEDURES TO CIRCULATE APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PLANNING ACT And TO DEFINE THE ROLES OF THE NVCA AND MUNICIPALITY IN ONTARIO’S LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM (October 2013) Basis The Regulations under the Planning Act require that municipalities must provide notice of a public meeting or public hearing to the local conservation authority for most planning applications. All notices for applications under the Act such as Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws including amendments, minor variances, plans of subdivision, and consents must be circulated to the Secretary-Treasurer of the NVCA. While the Regulations under the Act require that the conservation authorities receive notice of most applications, there is no regulatory requirement for a municipality to circulate site plans applications under Section 41. This MOU, among other matters, establishes the circulation procedures for all applications to the NVCA including site plans. In addition, the land use planning system in this region is highly complex. This complexity is based on the need to implement and conform to various provincial plans including the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan. . Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act is also required. As a result, there is a need to clearly define the role of the NVCA and the Town in this planning process as it relates to environmental protection and the implementation of these Plans. It is also necessary to define the NVCA’s role as it relates to providing the necessary technical assistance to the approval authority. Purpose In general, the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NVCA and Town of Innisfil (Town) is to streamline the circulation procedures for all applications under the Planning Act and to define our respective roles in the planning process. Specifically, this MOU will clarify the roles of the NVCA and Town in the planning process as it relates to public health and safety and environmental protection by:  Reinforcing the positive relationship between the NVCA and Town;  Creating efficiencies by reducing duplication of service but maintaining thoroughness of application review;  Clarifying roles and responsibilities based on legislation and practice;  Establishing protocols and application processing responsibilities for both parties;

 Providing the Town with increased decision making autonomy. Principles This Memorandum of Understanding is based upon the following principles:    

Continued cooperation between the NVCA and Town; Effective communication and collaboration; Cost effective proactive planning over cost intensive reactive planning; User-pay philosophy to help offset the costs of the planning evaluation process.

Jurisdiction This Memorandum of Understanding applies to those lands within the NVCA watershed boundary within the Town of Innisfil. Roles Town 1. The Town will provide the NVCA with notice of a public meeting for the following applications:  Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and amendments  Zoning By-Laws and amendments  Draft plans of subdivision and condominium 2. The Town will circulate site plan applications under the Planning Act (including the NVCA’s review fee) to the NVCA in a manner as follows:  If the proposed development, site alteration, or associated infrastructure will be located in an area subject to Ontario Regulation 172/06;  If the application is associated with a plan of condominium;  If the application has a development size of 5 hectares or greater or a development that has a reasonable probability of causing downstream water quality or quantity issues. 3. The Town will circulate minor variance applications (including the NVCA’s review fee) to the NVCA in a manner as follows:  If the subject property is within an area subject to Ontario Regulation 172/06. 4. The Town will circulate consent applications (including the NVCA’s review fee) to the NVCA in a manner as follows:

 If the proposal involves the creation of a new lot in an area subject to Ontario Regulation 172/06 (OR 172/06). 5. The NVCA will contact the developer or owner directly should additional fees be required to complete the review. 6. For all applications to be circulated to the NVCA, the Town will provide any associated plans or reports such as environmental impact studies and storm water management reports. In general, hard copies of the reports shall be provided to the NVCA. Also, the Town will provide any other required information to assist with the review upon request and where reasonable. 7. At the discretion of the municipality, the Town may circulate other site plan, minor variance, or consent applications where a technical review by the NVCA is warranted or preferred to assist the municipality in its planning consideration of environmental matters. 8. In certain extenuating circumstances, the Town may require a peer review by an external consultant for studies typically reviewed by the NVCA such as natural heritage evaluations. Prior to any peer review, the Town will consult with the NVCA. The selection of a peer review consultant will be a cooperative process between the NVCA and Town with the purpose of selecting a peer review consultant agreeable to both parties. The cost of such peer review will be paid by the applicant. NVCA 9. The NVCA will provide the necessary information to the Town in order to help implement this MOU including the approved Fees Policy and any updated Ontario Regulation 172/06 mapping. 10. The NVCA will provide written comment on the applications circulated by the Town in time for the scheduled public meeting or public hearing. Where possible, the NVCA will provide written comments in time for the preparation of the planning staff report. In general, comments will be provided from a planning policy perspective and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 172/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act. 11. The NVCA, as required under Subsection 3(6) of the Planning Act, will review and provide written comment on the circulated applications in the context of the following:  Provincial Policy Statement  Greenbelt Plan  Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

12. For greater clarity, the NVCA will review the circulated applications from the following perspectives:  Natural hazard lands (e.g. flooding, erosion, steep slopes, unstable soils)  Natural heritage (e.g. significant woodlands, significant valley lands)  Water quality and quantity (e.g. storm water management) including consideration of Town engineering design standards and NVCA guidelines  Source water protection (e.g. significant groundwater recharge areas)  Fish Habitat protection  Sub-watershed Plan recommendations  Alternative development standards (e.g. LID; Best Management practices support funding) 13. To further assist the municipality, the NVCA will provide advice to the Town on planning matters where other legislation may be applicable including:    

Fisheries Act Environmental Assessment Act Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act

14. Both the Town and NVCA advocate the “planning-first” principle related to land use planning and permitting. As such, the NVCA will ensure that any issues that would affect the developability of a site will be addressed through the application under the Planning Act first, prior to the processing of any permit. In these instances, the permit will implement the results and findings of the approved application process through the Planning Act. 15. Where necessary, the NVCA and Town will work together on matters before the Ontario Municipal Board or Environmental Tribunal. Where appropriate, the NVCA and Town will work closely together to ensure an efficient use of human and financial resources. 16. Where appropriate, the NVCA will actively participate in pre-application consultation with developers and landowners. To help ensure a consistent review and a coordinated message, it is preferred that the NVCA and Town (together with the County) participate in pre-application consultation at the same time with the proponents. The Town and NVCA will work together to scope the complete application requirements in order to avoid incomplete applications. It is recommended that shared meetings between the Town, County, and NVCA be held for those applications where there are common interests.

Monitoring and Cancellation

This Memorandum of Understanding will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to evaluate its effectiveness. This MOU may be amended by mutual agreement from time to time in order to reflect any changing policies or programs at the provincial, watershed, or municipal level. At any time, the Town or the NVCA (upon 30 days notice) may terminate this Memorandum of Understanding via written notice. Rather than termination, collective amendment of the MOU is preferred.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Signatory Parties

I hereby agree to implement the terms and provisions contained in this Memorandum of Understanding:

John Skorobohacz Chief Administrative Officer Town of Innisfil

Date

Wayne R. Wilson Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Conservation Authority

Date

Item D.5 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-161-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Request to extend Draft Plan Approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision I-T-0703 (Alonzi)

CROSS REF.:

PDS-024-10, DSR-106-10, DSR-113-10, DSR-217-12, DSR-168-13

RECOMMENDATION: That Report DSR-161-14 be received; and, That the Town of Innisfil advise the County of Simcoe that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0703 (Alonzi) dated November 22, 2010 for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 22, 2015 as outlined in staff report DSR-161-14. BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Mitchinson Planning & Development Consultants Inc. to request that the County of Simcoe extend the Draft Plan Approval of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0703. The present expiry date is November 22, 2014. A Key Map showing the location of the property is Attachment 1 to this Report. This is the second request for extension of Draft Plan Approval for this development. The Draft Plan and Conditions were originally adopted by Council on October 6, 2010 (Staff Report DSR113-10), and subsequently Draft Approved by the County November 22, 2010. A copy of the letter from the County approving the extension of the Draft Plan to November 22, 2014, and the November 22, 2010 Draft Approval Conditions and Draft Plan is Attachment 2. The letter from the applicant requesting an extension is Attachment 3. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: The Applicant has requested a one (1) year Draft Plan extension to satisfy outstanding conditions. It is the practice of the Town to grant extensions of no more than one (1) year for the purpose of land budgets and to encourage developers to register as soon as possible. The Draft Plan of Subdivision was zoned on December 12, 2012 by By-law No. 166-12, and street names were approved April 20, 2011. A Pre-servicing Agreement will be approved

â&#x20AC;Ś/

Staff Report DSR-161-14 Alonzi Subdivision â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft Plan Conditions Extension

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2

shortly, as well as the engineering plans. However the Subdivision Agreement is not yet executed and it is unlikely the plan will be final approved and registered by November of this year. Town Staff recommend that a one (1) year extension be granted for this Draft Approved Subdivision, which is consistent with Town practices. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to not granting the extension would see the Draft Plan Approval lapse. A new Draft Plan of Subdivision application would be required and nullify any applications and work completed to date. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Town has received a Planning Application Fee to recover the cost of the draft plan extension request such that there is no net cost to the Town. CONCLUSION: An extension of the Draft Plan Approval for one (1) year is requested by Town Staff. PREPARED BY: Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons.), MCIP, RPP Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., RPP Manager of Land Use Planning Attachments: 1. 2. 3.

Key Map County Extension Letter, Draft Approval Conditions and Draft Plan Application letter

Alonzi Property (I-T-0703) - Key Map

VE DRI

S JAN BOU

LIE LES

ARD LEV

Subject Lands

EE STR N O S BEN

WEBS E TRE

O TER B

S S ON BEN

ARD U L EV

B FIL

D OA SWAN

IS INN

R ACH

ST R E ET

Attachment 2 to Staff Report DSR-161-14

Attachment 3 to Staff Report DSR-161-14

I T C H I N S O N

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS INC. ______________________________________________________________________________

August 20, 2014

Hand Delivered and Via Email

Mr. Tim Cane, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, Ontario L9S 1A1

Dear Tim: Re.:

Request for Extension to Draft Plan Approval – Pratt Alonzi Subdivision Alcona, Town of Innisfil, File No. I-T-0703

We are writing to request an extension to Draft Plan Approval for the Pratt Alonzi subdivision in the community of Alcona. The County of Simcoe issued Draft Plan Approval on November 22, 2010. Draft Approval will lapse on November 22, 2014. As you know, significant progress has been made toward final approval and registration of the subdivision including Town approved engineering plans and an approved Pre-Servicing Agreement. However, due to inclement weather and construction requirements, on site works have been delayed. We are also continuing to work with Staff to finalize the Subdivision Agreement. As such, we are concerned the subdivision may not be finally approved and registered by the November 22, 2014 lapsing date. Therefore, we respectfully request a one (1) year Draft Approval extension to November 22, 2015. Given on our positive progress and momentum, we are confident the subdivision will be registered well before that date. Please find enclosed the Town’s $600.00 extension fee. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require anything further regarding this submission. Thank you.

Yours truly, Nicola Mitchinson NICOLA MITCHINSON, MCIP, RPP PRINCIPAL

Encl. c.

Dave Parks, County of Simcoe Cleve Mortelliti, Pratt Development

________________________________________________________________________________________ 57 HIGHLAND AVENUE ◆ BARRIE ◆ ONTARIO ◆ L4M 1N2 (705)739-7175 ◆ MOBILE (705)790-9171 ◆ FAX (705)739-8118 nicola.mitchinson@sympatico.ca

Item D.6 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-162-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Request to extend Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-88008 (Innisfil Executive Estates)

CROSS REF.:

DSR-070-10, DSR-225-11, DSR-006-13, DSR-128-13, DSR-131-13

RECOMMENDATION: That Report DSR-162-14 be received; and, That the Town of Innisfil advise the County of Simcoe that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-88008 (Innisfil Executive Estates) dated November 5, 2013, for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 6, 2015 as outlined in staff report DSR-162-14. BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Mitchinson Planning & Development Consultants Inc. to request that the County of Simcoe extend the Draft Plan Approval of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-88008. The present expiry date is November 6, 2014. The subject lands are located north of Victoria Street, east of Nelson Crescent, in the settlement area of Stroud. A Key Map showing the location of the property is Attachment 1 to this Report. The original Draft Plan of Subdivision (formerly known as ‘Robertson’) was applied for in 1988 and Draft Approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on January 9, 1989. The Draft Plan was subsequently redline revised in 2006, 2012 and 2013, increasing the number of lots from 30 to 38, removing the park block and consolidating the stormwater management blocks. A copy of the letter from the County approving the extension of the Draft Plan to November 6, 2014, and the November 5, 2013 Draft Approval Conditions and Draft Plan is Attachment 2. The letter from the applicant requesting an extension is Attachment 3. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: The Applicant has requested a one (1) year Draft Plan extension to satisfy outstanding conditions. It is the practice of the Town to grant extensions of no more than one (1) year for the purpose of land budgets and to encourage developers to register as soon as possible.

…/

Staff Report DSR-162-14 Innisbrook Executive Estates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft Plan Conditions Extension

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2

The subdivision is currently zoned and a stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment has been completed and approved by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. A Draft M-Plan has been prepared, and detailed engineering drawings and associated reports including noise and vibration, geotechnical, utilities, stormwater management/erosion control and tree preservation have been provided to the Town. A model home has also been constructed on site. Engineering plans and a Pre-servicing Agreement have been approved by the Town, however the Subdivision Agreement is not yet executed, and final approval and registration of the plan will not likely occur by the expiry date. Town Staff recommend that a one (1) year extension be granted for this Draft Approved Subdivision, which is consistent with Town practices. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to not granting the extension would see the Draft Plan Approval lapse. A new Draft Plan of Subdivision application would be required and nullify any applications and work completed to date. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Town has received a Planning Application Fee to recover the cost of the draft plan extension request such that there is no net cost to the Town. CONCLUSION: An extension of the Draft Plan Approval for one (1) year is requested by Town Staff. PREPARED BY: Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons.), MCIP, RPP Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., RPP Manager of Land Use Planning Attachments: 1. 2. 3.

Key Map County Extension Letter, Draft Approval Conditions and Draft Plan Application Letter

Item D.7 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-163-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Request to lift the Holding (‘H’) provision – Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (43T98005)

RECOMMENDATION: That Report DSR-163-14 be received; That Council approve the Application by Belpark Construction Ltd. to lift the Holding (‘H’) provision from lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil, Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (43T-98005); and, That By-law No. 096-14 be adopted to give effect to the recommendation. BACKGROUND: Belpark Construction Ltd. has applied to lift the Holding (‘H’) provision on lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M-394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil. Specifically the subject lands consist of 88 single-detached residential lots and park within the Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision. The subject lands are located within the settlement area boundary of Cookstown, south of Victoria Street East and east of Heritage Road. A Key Map showing the area where the Hold provision is proposed to be removed from the Belpark Construction Ltd. Subdivision (the boundaries of the subdivision) is Attachment 1 to this Report. A reduced copy of the Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft M-Plan is Attachment 2. The Belpark Construction Ltd. subdivision was originally Draft Approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in September of 2002. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 068-02 was also passed by the OMB on the same date with site specific exceptions and a holding (H) provision with specific conditions required to be met before the H is lifted. The conditions required to lift the Hold are described in the Analysis/Consideration section. Lifting of the Hold will allow for building permits to be issued for 88 homes (Lots 1 to 88) within the subdivision once the subdivision is registered. …/

Staff Report DSR-163-14 Request to Lift Hold – Belpark Construction Ltd. – 43T-98005

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2

ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: The Draft Plan Conditions state that the Holding (‘H’) symbol can be removed from the subject lands once the following matters are addressed: 1.) A Cost Sharing Agreement (CSA) has been entered into by the Owner of the lands; 2.) The Trustee for the CSA shall confirm that the applicable terms and conditions of the CSA have been satisfied by the Owner. The above conditions have been met. There are additional phasing policies in the Draft Plan Conditions that are no longer applicable to the lifting of the ‘H’ because of the provision of full servicing to the development since the September 24, 2002 OMB decision, as per the Development Charges Credit Agreement (By-law No. 093-11). The zone categories of the lots proposed to have the ‘H’ lifted are “Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-21(H)) Zone”, “Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-22(H)) Zone”, and “Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-23(H)) Zone”. A copy of the proposed By-law to lift the Holding (‘H’) provision (By-law No. 096-14) is Attachment 3. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could deny or defer approval of the application to lift the Holding provision. This is not recommended as the applicant has already met the conditions required to lift the Hold. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: As all costs incurred by the Town are recovered from the Applicant resulting in no net financial impact to the Municipality. CONCLUSION: The necessary requirements to lift the Holding provision have been met and that there are sufficient controls in the executed agreements and current zoning provisions to ensure orderly and proper development. It is recommended that Council approve the lifting of the Holding (‘H’) provision on lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M-394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil, also known as the Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, and that By-law No. 096-14 be approved to give effect to the recommendation. PREPARED BY: Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons.), MCIP, RPP Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., RPP Manager of Land Use Planning Attachments: 1. Key Map 2. Belpark Draft M-Plan 3. Proposed Lift H By-law 096-14 and Schedule ‘A’

Belpark Construction Ltd. Draft Plan of Subdivision - 43T-98005

Key Map ton S

Ave. age

L i ne

St.

C oo k H e r it

15 t h

Albert

il Ham

ria S Victo

t. E.

SUBJECT LANDS

Rd.

Kidd

. 's Ln

e Clov

rhill

. Cres

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. 096-14 A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by removing the Holding (H) provision from the Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-21(H)) Zone, Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-22(H)) Zone, and Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-23(H)) Zone, for the lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M-394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil. WHEREAS the zone symbol (H) was affixed as provided for under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in case PL970943 for lands described as Blocks 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, Registered Plan 51M-394, and Block F and Part Blocks B, C and H Registered Plan M-94, in the Town of Innisfil, to follow the Zone Symbols R121, R1-22 and R1-23 to restrict the use of the lands until such time as the following conditions were satisfied, being: 1.) A Cost Sharing Agreement (CSA) has been entered into by the Owner of the lands; 2.) The Trustee for the CSA shall confirm that the applicable terms and conditions of the CSA have been satisfied by the Owner. AND WHEREAS the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and/or sufficient controls are in place to ensure orderly and proper development; and, AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, to enact such amendments; and, AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil has given notice of intent to remove the Holding (H); and, AND WHEREAS authority for passing this amending by-law can be found under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts as follows: 1.

Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto forms part of this By-law;

Map No. 62 of Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, is further amended by removing the letter (H) following the Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-21(H)) Zone, Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-22(H)) Zone and Residential 1 Exception Hold (R1-23(H)) Zone as shown in heavy outline on Schedule ‘A’ of this By-law;

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed by Council as per Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended.

PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF September, 2014.

Barbara Baguley,

Karen Fraser,

MAYOR

ACTING CLERK

FILE: 43T-98005

SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW NO. 096-14 PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014 Beplark Construction Ltd. R1

FD R1

R1 CS

St. ilton m a H

R1-20(H)

Albert

R1-20(H)

i ne th L

or Vict

R1-20(H)

St.

Ave. Cook

R1 R1

R1(H)

ia S

t. E.

R1-23 R1-23 R1-23

age Herit

R1-23

Rd.

R1-23 R1-23 R1-23

R1-23

R1-21(H)

R1-22(H)

R1-23

R1-21(H)

R1-23

n. R1

R1-23

R1-21(H)

R1-23

's L Kidd

R1-23

C t. Flay

R1-22(H)

R1-23

OS R1

R1-23

R1 R1 R1 R1

R1-23

R1 R1

erhi Clov

ll C r

es.

R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

R1 R1

AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION HOLD ZONE (R1-21(H))" TO "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION ZONE (R1-21)" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION HOLD ZONE (R1-22(H))" TO "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION ZONE (R1-22)" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION HOLD ZONE (R1-23(H))" TO "RESIDENTIAL 1 EXCEPTION ZONE (R1-23)"

Item D.8 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-164-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning End Fields Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (“H”) Provision

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with 1315076 Ontario Inc. for the End Fields subdivision upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-164-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant in the amount of twenty (20) residential units for the End Fields subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges. That Council deems the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in By-law No. 084-13 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting. BACKGROUND: 1315076 Ontario Inc. (“Developer”) owns the lands referred to as End Fields (“Development”) located west of Neilly Road and south of Shore Acres Drive in Gilford. These lands were draft plan approved on November 12, 2013.

…/

Staff Report DSR-164-14 End Fields Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4

Staff has been working collaboratively with the Developer on the review of the engineering design drawings and the fulfillment of the draft plan conditions. Execution of a subdivision agreement with the Town is one of these conditions. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 084-13 was passed by Council on August 14th, 2013 to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 084-13 contains a holding provision to restrict building permit issuance until certain conditions are met. These conditions are described in the Analysis/Consideration section. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: Subdivision Agreement The Developer is seeking approval of the Subdivision Agreement as the Development is proceeding to registration. The Developer has submitted all of the required reports as indicated in the approved draft plan conditions and is in the process of finalizing the “Issued for Final Approval” engineering drawings for this Development at the time this report was submitted to Council. Legal Services will prepare the Subdivision Agreement for approval by the Mayor and Clerk based on the template agreement. A few of those conditions are highlighted below:   

  

Developer to enter into the Town’s approved precedent Subdivision Agreement; Developer shall submit cash working deposit of $75,000; Developer shall provide the Town’s standard securities, being: o 100% of uncompleted works; o 15% maintenance security for completed works; o 10% Contingency; o 10% Engineering security, and o $1,000.00 security per Firebreak lot; Developer shall comply with the Town’s standard insurance requirements; Developer shall satisfy all Draft Plan Approved Conditions; and, Developer shall prepare engineering drawings to the Town’s satisfaction.

Receiving Council approval at this point in the process will improve the Town’s customer service and assist the Developer with an aggressive timeline to achieve registration of the plan of subdivision (“Plan”). Once the Plan has been registered, the builder will be seeking building permits for the homes within the Development. Servicing Capacity Town Policy No. CP.03-07, Planning Approvals and Servicing Allocation Capacity Commitments, requires that all capacity allocations for water be approved by Council Resolution, and that plant capacity may be allocated for new development on a priority basis at the time of payment of Development Charges in accordance with the Act.

Staff Report DSR-164-14 End Fields Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4

At all times the granting of service allocation and the acceptance of a development charge payment is conditional on the continued availability of service capacity and the ability of the Town to provide same. Holding (“H”) Provision Section 3 of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 84-13 states that the Holding (“H”) symbol shall not be removed from the subject lands until the following matters are addressed: 1) Subdivision Agreement entered into between Developer and Town 2) Water allocation granted by the Town It is anticipated Condition 1 will be met in the next few months. Condition 2 is met by virtue of this staff report. Staff are working with the Developer to provide a more time-efficient, customer-service based process for addressing the removal of Holding (H) symbols for this Development. It is proposed that a By-law to lift the Holding (H) symbol be presented to Council with a recommendation deeming the H be lifted as of the date the conditions are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official (CBO) or designate. This would allow permits to be issued the same day as the conditions in the By-law are fulfilled, thus eliminating delays in building permit issuance for the developer. The By-law would then be formally adopted at a subsequent Council meeting. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could defer this report to a later date for consideration after Legal and Development Engineering Services have completed the final Subdivision Agreement with the Developer. Council could deny or defer the recommendation to deem the ‘H’ lifted by the CBO or designate until all conditions are fulfilled, or could request an alternative wording to the recommendation. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Developer is required to pay all Town costs associated with the works including the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement and lifting the holding (“H”) provision. CONCLUSION: The Developer has been working to satisfy the requirements of the Draft Plan Conditions, including the condition that a subdivision agreement be executed with the Town. Staff is recommending that execution of the Subdivision Agreement be approved to satisfy this Draft Plan Condition and allow the Developer to obtain clearance to proceed to registration. Staff is recommending Council authorize water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant in the amount of twenty (20) residential units in accordance with Corporate Policy No. C.P.03.07, including payment of development charges.

Staff Report DSR-164-14 End Fields Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 4

Staff is recommending that Council deem the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in Bylaw No. 084-13 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

PREPARED BY: Sean Fahey, Development Project Manager

Steven Montgomery, Senior Planner

APPROVED BY: Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Key Map 2. End Fields Draft M-Plan 3. Proposed Lift H Bylaw XXX-XX and Schedule ‘A’

Report DSR–164–14 Attachment 1

End Field Subdivision Key Map

Subject Land

Report DSR-164-14 Attachment 2

Report DSR-164-14 Attachment 3

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. XXX-XX A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by removing the Holding (H) provision from the Residential Estate Exception Hold (RE-6(H)) Zone for the lands described as Part of Lot 23, Concession 15, in the Town of Innisfil. WHEREAS the zone symbol (H) was affixed as provided for under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, to follow the Zone Symbol RE-6 to restrict the use of the lands until such time as the following conditions were satisfied, being: 1.) A Subdivision Agreement has been entered into between the Developer and the Town of Innisfil; 2.) Water allocation for the subject lands has been granted by the Town of Innisfil. AND WHEREAS the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and/or sufficient controls are in place to ensure orderly and proper development; and, AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, to enact such amendments; and, AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil has given notice of intent to remove the Holding (H); and, AND WHEREAS authority for passing this amending by-law can be found under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts as follows: 1.

Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto forms part of this By-law;

Map No. 24 of Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, is further amended by removing the letter (H) following the Residential Estate Exception Hold (RE-6(H)) Zone as shown in heavy outline on Schedule ‘A’ of this By-law;

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed by Council as per Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended.

PASSED THIS X DAY OF XX, 20XX.

Barbara Baguley,

Karen Fraser,

Mayor

Acting Clerk

FILE: I-T-1201, D14-86

SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW NO. 098-14 PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014 End Fields Subdivision R1

r. R1

R1 R1

Nei l

R1 R1 R1

R1 R1

lar Pop R1

EP-13

Dr.

R1 R1

RE-6(H)

yL Lind

S ho

c re re A

R1 R1

ly R

R1 R1

. s Dr

R1 R1 R1

rr D n Ke Gle

R1 R1

rto Eve

R1 R1

RE-6(H)

CT R1

d Woo

R1 R1 R1

rd R

CT R1

Rd.

R1 R1

. R1

R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

CT-4

R1 AG

Rd Nesbitt

field

Gilfo

AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL ESTATE EXCEPTION HOLD (RE-6(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL ESTATE EXCEPTION (RE-6) ZONE"

Item D.9 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-165-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

SUBJECT:

Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity, Single Source Procurement

RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with 1820839 Ontario Inc. for the Innisfil Executive Estates subdivision as outlined in DSR-165-14; dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Stroud Municipal Water System in the amount of thirty eight (38) residential units for the Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision at a cost of $1,500 per residential unit due at building permit issuance; and That Council approves the single source procurement award for the Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) to 1820839 Ontario Inc. BACKGROUND: 1820839 Ontario Inc., the ”Developer” owns the lands referred to as the Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision (“Development”) located east of Yonge Street and north of Victoria Street in Stroud.

…/

Staff Report DSR-165-14 Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4

Staff has been working collaboratively with the Developer on the review of the engineering design drawings and the fulfillment of the draft plan conditions. Execution of a subdivision agreement with the Town is one of these conditions. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: Subdivision Agreement The Developer is seeking approval of the Subdivision Agreement as the Development is proceeding toward registration. The Developer has submitted all of the required reports as indicated in the approved draft plan conditions and has submitted an approved set of Underground Servicing engineering drawings. The Developer is in the process of finalizing the “Issued for Final approval” engineering drawings for this Development at the time this report was submitted to Council. Legal Services will prepare the Subdivision Agreement for approval by the Mayor and Clerk based on the template agreement. A few of those conditions are highlighted below:   

 

Developer to enter into the Town’s approved precedent Subdivision Agreement Developer shall submit cash working deposit of $75,000.00; The Developer shall provide the Town’s standard securities, being: o 100% of uncompleted works; o 15% maintenance security for completed works; o 10% Contingency; o 10% Engineering security, and o $1000.00 per Firebreak Lot; The Developer shall comply with the Town’s standard insurance requirements; The Developer shall satisfy all Draft Plan Approved Conditions; and Developer shall prepare engineering drawings to the Town’s satisfaction

In addition the Developer shall provide 5% cash in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Draft Plan Condition Item 8. All money received shall be allocated for capital improvement projects in the settlement of Stroud, with particular focus on the Meadows of Stroud Park. Receiving Council approval at this point in the process will improve the Town’s customer service and will assist the Developer with an aggressive timeline to achieve registration of the plan of subdivision (“Plan”). Once the Plan has been registered and the Underground Certificate issued, the builder will be seeking building permits for the homes within the Development.

Staff Report DSR-165-14 Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4

Single Source Procurement Condition 15 of the of the Draft Plan Conditions states “The Developer shall agree in Subdivision Agreement to share in the costs of constructing a paved parking lane in front of existing school located on Sunnybrae Avenue. In the event that the School Board does participate in the cost sharing, the developer agrees to pay the municipality 50% of construction costs up to a maximum payment of $26,175.00.”

the the not the

In a collaborative approach the Developer has agreed to design and construct the paved parking lane as part of the larger servicing works for the subdivision. This approach allows the works to be completed this construction season and recognizing a project savings due to the economies of scale and project delivery as the project will be administered by the Developer at no cost to the Town. The subdivision agreement will include that the Developer shall design and construct the Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) and the Town’s cost for the construction shall be 50% of the actual costs not to exceed $26,175. Servicing Capacity The current Development Charge Background Study currently does not include the projects associated with the connection of Stroud to the Lakeshore Water System and hence water related development charges are not applicable to this subdivision. The Stroud Water Charge currently identified in the DC Background Study is the future Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant capacity charge if the infrastructure was in place for connection. The Developers have agreed to pay a water connection fee of $1,500 per residential unit at time of building permit issuance for connection to the Stroud Municipal Water System. The cost was determined per each residential unit portion of the 2011 Iron Removal Project for the Stroud Municipal Water System. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could defer this report to a later date for consideration after Legal and Development Engineering Services have completed the final Subdivision Agreement with the Developer. Council could direct staff to manage the Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) project inhouse rather than through the developer and design and tender the project through town resources. Staff anticipates the expenditures associated with this approach would result in significantly higher costs for this project.

Staff Report DSR-165-14 Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 4

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Developer is required to pay all Town costs associated with the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement. Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) is included in the 2014 capital budget for $26,175 and funded from the ARS Reserve Fund. CONCLUSION: The Developer has been working to satisfy the requirements of the Draft Plan Conditions, including the condition that a subdivision agreement be executed with the Town. Staff is recommending that execution of the Subdivision Agreement be approved to satisfy this Draft Plan Condition and allow the Developer to obtain clearance to proceed to registration. Staff is recommending approval of the single source procurement award for the Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane (RDS-189) to 1820839 Ontario Inc. Staff is recommending Council authorize water servicing capacity to be allocated from the Stroud Water Distribution System in the amount of thirty eight (38) residential units in accordance with the Developer agreeing to pay a water connection fee of $1,500 per residential unit at time of building permit issuance for connection to the Stroud Municipal Water System. PREPARED BY: Sean Fahey, Development Project Manager APPROVED BY: Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

Attachments: 1. Key Map â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Subdivision 2. Key Map â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane 3. Draft M-Plan

Report DSR-165-14 Attachment 1

Innisfil Executive Estates Subdivision Key Map Subject Land

Report DSR-165-14 Attachment 2

Sunnybrae Paved Parking Lane Key Map

Subject Land

Report DSR-165-14 Attachment 3

Item D.10 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-166-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning Alonzi Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (“H”) Provision

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with Crisdawn Construction Inc. for the Alonzi subdivision upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-166-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of one hundred and fifty two (152) residential units for the Alonzi subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges; and That Council deems the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in By-law No. 166-12 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting. BACKGROUND: Crisdawn Construction Inc. (”Developer”) is the agent for the registered owner of the lands known as Alonzi (“Development”) located east of Webster Boulevard, west of Ferguson street and north of Innisfil Beach Road in Alcona. These lands were draft plan approved on November 22, 2010.

…/

Staff Report DSR-166-14 Alonzi Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4

Staff has been working collaboratively with the Developer on the review of the engineering design drawings and the fulfillment of the draft plan conditions. Execution of a subdivision agreement with the Town is one of these conditions. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 166-12 was passed by Council on December 12th, 2012 to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 166-12 contains a holding provision to restrict building permit issuance until certain conditions are met. These conditions are described in the Analysis/Consideration section. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: Subdivision Agreement The Developer is seeking approval of the Subdivision Agreement as the Development is proceeding to registration. The Developer has submitted all of the required reports as indicated in the approved draft plan conditions and has submitted an approved set of Underground Servicing engineering drawings. The Developer is in the process of finalizing the “Issued for Final Approval” engineering drawings for this Development at the time this report was submitted to Council. Legal Services will prepare the Subdivision Agreement for approval by the Mayor and Clerk based on the template agreement. A few of those conditions are highlighted below:   

  

Receiving Council approval at this point in the process will improve the Town’s customer service and assist the Developer with an aggressive timeline to achieve registration of the plan of subdivision (“Plan”). Once the Plan has been registered and the Underground Certificate issued, the builder will be seeking building permits for the homes within the Development. Servicing Capacity Town Policy No. CP.03-07, Planning Approvals and Servicing Allocation Capacity Commitments, requires that all capacity allocations for water and wastewater be approved by Council Resolution, and that plant capacity may be allocated for new development on a priority basis at the time of payment of Development Charges in accordance with the Act.

Staff Report DSR-166-14 Alonzi Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4

At all times the granting of service allocation and the acceptance of a development charge payment is conditional on the continued availability of service capacity and the ability of the Town to provide same. Holding (“H”) Provision Section 5 of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 166-12 states that the Holding (“H”) symbol shall not be removed from the subject lands until the following matters are addressed: 1) Subdivision Agreement entered into between Developer and Town 2) Certificate of Substantial Completion of the Underground Works issued It is anticipated Condition 1 and 2 will be met in the next few months. Staff are working with the Developer to provide a more time-efficient, customer-service based process for addressing the removal of Holding (H) symbols for this Development. It is proposed that a By-law to lift the Holding (H) symbol be presented to Council with a recommendation deeming the H be lifted as of the date the conditions are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official (CBO) or designate. This would allow permits to be issued the same day as the conditions in the By-law are fulfilled, thus eliminating delays in building permit issuance for the developer. The By-law would then be formally adopted at a subsequent Council meeting. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could defer this report to a later date for consideration after Legal and Development Engineering Services have completed the final Subdivision Agreement with the Developer. Council could deny or defer the recommendation to deem the ‘H’ lifted by the CBO or designate until all conditions are fulfilled, or could request an alternative wording to the recommendation. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Developer is required to pay all Town costs associated with the works including the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement and lifting the holding (“H”) provision. CONCLUSION: The Developer has been working to satisfy the requirements of the Draft Plan Conditions, including the condition that a subdivision agreement be executed with the Town. Staff is recommending that execution of the Subdivision Agreement be approved to satisfy this Draft Plan Condition and allow the Developer to obtain clearance to proceed to registration. Staff is recommending Council authorize water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of one hundred and fifty two (152) residential units for the Alonzi subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges.

Staff Report DSR-166-14 Alonzi Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 4

Staff is recommending that Council deem the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in By-law No. 166-12 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

PREPARED BY: Sean Fahey, Development Project Manager

Steven Montgomery, Senior Planner

APPROVED BY: Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Key Map 2. Alonzi Draft M-Plan 3. Proposed Lift H Bylaw XXX-XX and Schedule ‘A’

Report DSR-166-14 Attachment 1

Alonzi Subdivision Key Map

N Subject Land

Report DSR-166-14 Attachment 2

Report DSR-166-14 Attachment 3

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. XXX-XX A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by removing the Holding (H) provision from the Residential 2 Hold (R2(H)) Zone, Residential 3 Hold (R3(H)) Zone, Residential Townhouse Hold (RT(H)) Zone, Residential Apartment Exception Hold (RA-5(H)) Zone, and Mixed Use 1 (Alcona) Hold (MU1(H)) Zone for the lands described as Part of the South Half of Lot 22, Concession 8, in the Town of Innisfil. WHEREAS the zone symbol (H) was affixed as provided for under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, to follow the Zone Symbols R2, R3, RT, RA-5 and MU1 to restrict the use of the lands until such time as the following conditions were satisfied, being: 1.) Certificate of Substantial Completion of the Underground Works issued; 2.) Subdivision Agreement entered into with the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil. AND WHEREAS the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and/or sufficient controls are in place to ensure orderly and proper development; and, AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, to enact such amendments; and, AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil has given notice of intent to remove the Holding (H); and, AND WHEREAS authority for passing this amending by-law can be found under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts as follows: 1.

Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto forms part of this By-law;

Map No. 38 of Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, is further amended by removing the letter (H) following the Residential 2 Hold (R2(H)) Zone, Residential 3 Hold (R3(H)) Zone, Residential Townhouse Hold (RT(H)) Zone, Residential Apartment Exception Hold (RA-5(H)) Zone, and Mixed Use 1 (Alcona) Hold (MU1(H)) Zone as shown in heavy outline on Schedule ‘A’ of this By-law;

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed by Council as per Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended.

PASSED THIS XX DAY OF X, 20XX.

Barbara Baguley,

Karen Fraser

Mayor

Acting Clerk

FILE: D14-71, I-T-0703

SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW NO. 099-14 PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014 Alonzi Subdivision EP

AG EP

Les

lie D

Jans

AG AG

B lv d

AG AG AG

R2(H)

r i o l e Cr e s .

R1 OS

AG OS

R2(H) AG

Sp ro ul e

R2 EP

RA-5(H)

St.

RT RT

ra And

de L

MU1

ac il B e nisf

MU1

d. R3

Osb

. R3

Rd.

Cor

t. RT

St.

St .

R3 R3(H)

on d

Sw a n

MU1

Sw a n

Hi l l

Ct gart Tag t. ay S R3 al l ow

RT MU1

R3(H)

ay kin W

d St

RT(H) RT

r Blvd

MU1

on C H ur

R3(H)

. n St

R an

RT RT

OS R3(H)

te Webs

St.

so Ben

son S

Nevils

F e r gu

RT(H)

Lo ers Batt

S son

o swo Inni

R2 R2 R2

MU1-1

B en

St .

AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 2 HOLD (R2(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL 2 (R2) ZONE" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 3 HOLD (R3(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) ZONE" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE HOLD (RT(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE (RT) ZONE" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT EXCEPTION HOLD (RA-5(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT EXCEPTION (RA-5) ZONE" AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "MIXED USE 1 (ALCONA) HOLD (MU1(H)) ZONE" TO "MIXED USE 1 (ALCONA) (MU1) ZONE"

Item D.11 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-167-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning Previn Court 2 – Phase 2A - Subdivision Agreement, Servicing Capacity & Request to Lift Holding (‘H’) Provision

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with SanDiego Homes Inc. for Previn Court 2 Phase 2A – Ralston Loop upon satisfaction of the terms outlined in DSR-167-14, dated September 17, 2014, all accounts being in good standing, and all securities being posted with the Town; and That Legal Services be authorized to prepare the agreement including minor amendments as to the final form of the agreement and schedules based on the approved template; and That Development Engineering Services be authorized to implement and administer said agreement; and That Council authorizes water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of thirty-five (35) residential units for the Previn Court 2 Phase 2A subdivision, in accordance with Corporate Policy No. CP.03.07, including payment of development charges; and That Council deems the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in By-law No. 058-03 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting; and That Council authorizes the deletion of reference to the Phase 2A lands from the original Subdivision Agreement with 301099 Ontario Limited, operating as Previn Court Homes. BACKGROUND: The lands were draft plan approved on May 5, 2003 with further redlined revisions on June 29, 2006 (“Development”). The Town entered into a Subdivision Agreement in 2006 with 301099 Ontario Limited, operating as Previn Court Homes, with respect to Previn Court 2 - Phases 1 & …/

Staff Report DSR-167-14 Previn Court 2 Phase 2A Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4

2 (“2006 Agreement”). SanDiego Homes Inc. purchased the Phase 2A lands which are part of Phase 2, located west of Angus Street and south of Quarry Drive in Alcona. A new subdivision agreement will be entered into with the SanDiego Homes (“Developer”) for Phase 2A and the 2006 Agreement will require deletion of reference to the Phase 2A lands. Staff has been working collaboratively with the Developer on the review of the engineering design drawings and the fulfillment of the draft plan conditions, including execution of a subdivision agreement with the Town. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 058-03 was passed by the Council on June 25, 2003. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 058-03 contains a holding provision to restrict building permit issuance until certain conditions are met. These conditions are described in the Analysis/Consideration section. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: Subdivision Agreement The Developer is seeking approval of the Subdivision Agreement as the Development is proceeding to registration. The Developer has submitted all of the required reports as indicated in the approved draft plan conditions and has submitted an approved set of Underground Servicing engineering drawings. The Developer is in the process of finalizing the “Issued for Final Approval” engineering drawings for this Development at the time this report was submitted to Council. Legal Services will prepare the Subdivision Agreement for approval by the Mayor and Clerk based on the template agreement. A few of those conditions are highlighted below:   

  

Staff Report DSR-167-14 Previn Court 2 Phase 2A Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4

Deletion of Phase 2A from Previous Subdivision In July of 2006, The Corporation of Town of Innisfil and 301099 Ontario Limited (Previn Court Homes) entered into a Subdivision Agreement for the lands known as Previn Court 2 Phases 1 & 2. Since the execution of this agreement, SanDiego Homes Inc. has purchased the lands known as Previn Court 2 Phase 2A. Therefore, Staff recommends that Phase 2A be deleted from the previous Subdivision Agreement and that Council authorizes the Town to enter into a new subdivision agreement for these lands. Servicing Capacity Town Policy No. CP.03-07, Planning Approvals and Servicing Allocation Capacity Commitments, requires that all capacity allocations for water and wastewater be approved by Council Resolution, and that plant capacity may be allocated for new development on a priority basis at the time of payment of Development Charges in accordance with the Act. At all times the granting of service allocation and the acceptance of a development charge payment is conditional on the continued availability of service capacity and the ability of the Town to provide same. Holding (‘H’) Provision Zoning By-law Amendment No. 058-03 states that the Holding (“H”) symbol shall not be removed from the subject lands until the following matters are addressed: 1) Subdivision Agreement entered into between Developer and Town It is anticipated Condition 1 will be met in the next few months. Staff is working with the Developer to provide a more time-efficient, customer-service based process for addressing the removal of Holding (H) symbol for lands described as Previn Court 2 Phase 2A. It is proposed that a By-law to lift the Holding (H) symbol be presented to Council with a recommendation deeming the H be lifted as of the date the condition is satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official (CBO) or designate. This would allow permits to be issued the same day as the conditions in the By-law are fulfilled, thus eliminating delays in building permit issuance for the developer. The By-law would then be formally adopted at a subsequent Council meeting. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council could defer this report to a later date for consideration after Legal and Development Engineering Services have completed the final Subdivision Agreement with the Developer. Council could deny or defer the recommendation to deem the ‘H’ lifted by the CBO or designate until all conditions are fulfilled or could request an alternative wording to the recommendation.

Staff Report DSR-167-14 Previn Court 2 Phase 2A Subdivision Agreement

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 4

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Developer is required to pay all Town costs associated with the works including the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement and lifting the holding (“H”) provision. CONCLUSION: The Developer has been working to satisfy the requirements of the Draft Plan Conditions, including the condition that a subdivision agreement be executed with the Town. Staff is recommending that the Phase 2A lands be deleted from the 2006 Agreement and a new Subdivision Agreement be entered into with the Developer to allow the Developer to obtain clearance to proceed to registration. Staff is recommending Council authorize water and wastewater servicing capacity to be allocated from the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the amount of thirtyfive (35) residential units in accordance with Corporate Policy No. C.P.03.07, including payment of development charges. Staff is recommending that Council deem the Holding (‘H’) provision on the subject lands in Bylaw No. 058-03 lifted as of the date the conditions for same are satisfied as determined by the Chief Building Official or designate, and that staff are directed to provide the appropriate amending by-law to Council for formal adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

PREPARED BY: Magdalena Tabisz Senior Engineering Technologist

Steven Montgomery, Senior Planner

APPROVED BY: Carolyn J. Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. Key Map 2. Draft M-Plan 3. Proposed Lift H Bylaw XXX-XX and Schedule ‘A’

Report DSR-167-14 Attachment 1

Previn Court 2 Phase 2A Ralston Loop Key Map

Subject Land

Report DSR-167-14 Attachment 2

Report DSR-167-14 Attachment 3

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. XXX-XX A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to amend Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, by removing the Holding (H) provision from the Residential 2 Hold (R2(H)) Zone for the lands described as Part of Block 40, Registered Plan 51M-852, in the Town of Innisfil. WHEREAS the zone symbol (H) was affixed as provided for under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, to follow the Zone Symbol R2 to restrict the use of the lands until such time as the following conditions were satisfied, being: 1.) A Subdivision Agreement has been executed for the specific phase. AND WHEREAS the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and/or sufficient controls are in place to ensure orderly and proper development; and, AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, to enact such amendments; and, AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil has given notice of intent to remove the Holding (H); and, AND WHEREAS authority for passing this amending by-law can be found under Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts as follows: 1.

Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto forms part of this By-law;

Map No. 24 of Zoning By-law No. 080-13, as amended, is further amended by removing the letter (H) following the Residential 2 Hold (R2(H)) Zone as shown in heavy outline on Schedule ‘A’ of this By-law;

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed by Council as per Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended.

PASSED THIS X DAY OF X, 20XX.

Barbara Baguley,

Karen Fraser,

Mayor

Acting Clerk

FILE: I-T-0003

SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW NO. 100-14 PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014 Previn Court Phase 2 Stage 2A R2

Muriel St.

R2 R2 R2 R2

t ley S Wes

R2 R2

R2-8

R2(H)

R2 R2(H) R2

. y Dr uarr R2

R2(H)

R2 R2

t us S

Ang

R2 R2

R2 OS

R2 R2

R2(H) R2 R2 R2

R2(H)

R2 R2(H)

R2(H)

R2 R2

R2(H)

R2(H) R2(H)

R2(H)

R2(H) R2(H)

R2(H)

R2(H) R2(H)

R2(H)

R2(H) R2(H)

R2(H)

EP AG

AREA TO BE REZONED FROM "RESIDENTIAL 2 HOLD (R2(H)) ZONE" TO "RESIDENTIAL 2 (R2) ZONE"

Item D.12 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-169-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Don Eastwood, Director of Development

SUBJECT:

Town–wide Community Improvement Plan

RECOMMENDATION: That Staff Report DSR-169-14 regarding the Town-wide Community Improvement Plan, be received for Council’s information. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of October 16, 2013, Council adopted resolution CR 237-17.13 as follows That Staff Report DSR-178-13 regarding the County of Simcoe Economic Development Funding be received: and, That staff be authorized to apply for funding under this initiative in an effort to support the creation of a Town-wide Community Improvement Plan (CIP) which would incorporate the CIP efforts currently being pursued in conjunction with the HCD initiative in Cookstown: and, That staff be directed to pursue funding sources that could offset the funding required from the County to complete the initiative. In January 2014 the Town of Innisfil was advised that the County had approved funding of $100,000 under the County of Simcoe Economic Development Funding Program to be used for the Town-wide CIP project. The Town Issued a request for proposals (RFP) from qualified consultants to undertake the background studies and draft by-law which is required under Section 28 of the Planning Act before Council can adopt a Community Improvement Plan. In May 2013, the Town retained Meridian Planning Consultants (in association with TCI Management Consultants) to prepare a Town-wide Community Improvement Plan. The consultants have begun the process which involves a three-phase work program. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: The attached graphic illustrates the three-phase work program that the consultants will facilitate which meets the requirements of the Planning Act, and which will provide Council with the …/

Staff Report DSR-169-14 Town Wide Community Improvement Plan

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 3

requisite information to consider the adoption of a new Town-wide Community Improvement Plan in early in 2015.

The Consultant has already undertaken a review of background studies and development patterns within the Town as part of Phase One. A public survey has been designed to elicit feedback from residents, property owners and businesses about what sorts of opportunities and challenges that the CIP might be able to address. The survey is live on the Town website under the “Business” section and can be completed on line or printed and returned to Town Hall, there is a submission deadline of September 30, 2014. A copy of the survey is attached to this report as Attachment One. An information brochure has also been posted to the website and is attached to this report as Attachment Two. A stakeholder workshop with a cross-section of invited business operators, property owners, developers and their representatives has been scheduled for September 17th, 2014 in the early afternoon to facilitate feedback to the consultants. A public Open House is also scheduled for the afternoon of September 17th from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. at Town Hall to answer resident’s questions about the process to develop the CIP and the possible elements of the plan. This input will be used by the consultant to draft a preliminary report for Council’s consideration which will be presented early in the term of the new Council as part of Phase Two of the work program. Additional public input and a statutory public meetings will be scheduled in Phase Two and Three in 2015 to consider the recommendations of the draft report and recommendations on the boundaries of the CIP financial incentive areas, the range of financial tools and incentives, and the fiscal impacts of the plan on the town’s operating budget. A final recommendation and by-law will come forward for Council’s review and adoption at the end of Phase Three in the spring of 2015. The Town-wide CIP will include and complement the existing CIP that was adopted by Council in early 2014, but the Town-wide Plan will extend to address additional commercial and industrial areas of the Town.

Staff Report DSR-169-14 Town Wide Community Improvement Plan

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 3

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: This report is being provided for information only. The new Council will have the option to consider the recommendation of the draft report emerging from Phase One of the work program and either continue with the evaluation and recommendation of a CIP or to suspend the process. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: There are no financial implications for the adoption of this information report. The consultant’s fees for the background studies and public consultation related to the Townwide CIP project are being offset by a grant from the County of Simcoe. Any potential financial incentives that may be adopted by Council as part of the Town-wide Community Improvement Plan will have to be identified and assessed as part of the 2015 Operating Budget that will be finally approved by the new Council. For Council’s information, the financial allocation for the Cookstown CIP was funded through the 2014 Operating and Capital Budget for $35,000 initially, with an additional $50,000 that was allocated to the CIP from year-end surplus. These funds could be included in the allocation for a Town-wide CIP subject to Council’s approval. CONCLUSION: Staff will be reporting back to Council with the results of the background research and the input received from stakeholder and public consultation with a draft “directions” report in due course.

PREPARED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Donald G. Eastwood B.E.S. M.A. Director of Development Attachments: 1. 2.

CIP Survey CIP Information Brochure

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Part A: Introduction and Instructions The Town of Innisfil has initiated a Town-wide Community Improvement Plan (CIP) project, which will lead to the development of a comprehensive, strategic, and flexible framework for improving public and private properties throughout the Town. Specifically, Townwide CIP is intended to help: • •

•

Attract and assist new business investment throughout Innisfil; Revitalize, restore, and improve existing commercial and industrial properties throughout Innisfil; and Accelerate the Town’s unique investment attraction potential.

This project will build upon the exciting work completed in 2010 during the development of the community strategic plan known as ‘Inspiring Inisfil 2020’, which defines the Town’s goals for the future. Through the CIP project, there is an opportunity to align the Townwide CIP with broader community and economic goals, as set out in Innisfil 2020. As part of Phase One of the CIP project, the Town and its consulting team is completing an assessment of local strengths, needs, and opportunities for improvement. We are looking for local input as part of this important task. To assist with this assessment, and to provide your thoughts with respect to the areas that are most in need of improvement and assistance, we are asking members of the public and community stakeholders to complete the following Community Survey. It should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete the questions below. Please provide your answers to the questions in the space provided.

Please complete and submit your response by Friday September 26, 2014 to: Mail: 2101 Innisfil Beach Road, Innisfil, Ontario, L9S 1A1 Email: ecdo@innisfil.ca (Please write “Town-wide CIP” in the subject line) Please remember to save document prior to submitting.

Should you have any questions about this survey, or the Town-wide CIP project in general, please contact Don Eastwood at 705-436-3740 Ext. 1501.

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Part B: Local Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Areas There are a number of commercial and industrial areas throughout the Town of Innisfil. Since this is a Town-wide CIP project, the local assessment will focus on each of these areas to determine how community improvement tools can be applied. Where you are familiar with any of the following commercial and employment/industrial areas, please provide a response. For your reference, a map of each the areas of focus is provided on page 15.

ALCONA For commercial areas/properties in Alcona, please respond to the following in the table below: a) What are the most important commercial areas/properties in Alcona? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority). COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

COOKSTOWN (note: the proposed new town-wide CIP would include and possibly expand the range of incentives in the current Cookstown CIP adopted by Council in 2014) For commercial areas/properties in Cookstown, please respond to the following in the table below: a) What are the most important commercial areas/properties in Cookstown? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority). COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

LEFROY-BELLE EWART For commercial areas/properties in Lefroy-Belle Ewart, please respond to the following in the table below: a) What are the most important commercial areas/properties in Lefroy-Belle Ewart? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority).

COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

STROUD For commercial areas/properties in Stroud, please respond to the following in the table below: a) What are the most important commercial areas/properties in Stroud? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority). COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

CHURCHILL, FENNELL’S CORNERS, AND/OR GILFORD For commercial areas/properties in Churchill, Fennell’s Corners, and Gilford, please respond to the following in the table below: a) Where are the most important commercial areas/properties in Churchill, Fennell’s Corners, and/or Gilford? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority).

COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

OTHER COMMERCIAL AREAS Please respond to the following in the table below: a) Are there any other important commercial areas/properties in Innisfil that have not been identified above? b) What are the best features and assets of these commercial areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these commercial areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these commercial areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority).

COMMERCIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

INNISFIL HEIGHTS For industrial/employment areas/properties in Innisfil Heights, please respond to the following in the table below: a) Where are the most important industrial/employment areas/properties in Innisfil Heights? b) What are the best features and assets of Innisfil Heights? What currently works here? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in Innisfil Heights? What currently does not work here? What are you not proud of? How could Innisfil Heights be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate Innisfil Heights in terms of its priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority). INDUSTRIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

OTHER INDUSTRIAL AREAS Please respond to the following in the table below: a) Are there any other important industrial/employment areas/properties in Innisfil that have not been identified above? b) What are the best features and assets of these industrial/employment areas/properties? What currently works in these places? What are you proud of? c) What are some of the needs and issues in these industrial/employment areas/properties? What currently does not work in these places? What are you not proud of? How could these areas be improved? d) In terms of providing assistance in the form of financial incentives and/or municipal support to properties, please rate these industrial/employment areas/properties in terms of their priority (i.e., high priority, medium priority, or low priority). INDUSTRIAL AREA/ PROPERTY

STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

NEEDS AND ISSUES

PRIORITY RATING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Part C: Challenges to Improvement 1.

What are some of the biggest challenges and constraints to the improvement of local businesses and properties? What are some of the biggest hurdles facing business and property owners when it comes to improving, upgrading, redeveloping private property?

The following is a list of some of the types of financial incentive programs that could be made available to business and property owners through a CIP. Which of these tools would be most helpful to local business and property owners to assist in overcoming the challenges, constraints, and hurdles to property improvement? Please rank as follows: 1 = most helpful 2 = somewhat helpful

3 = not helpful at all

PROGRAM RANKING TYPE a) Tax Assistance Program - rebates property tax increases that are a result of major development and redevelopment projects. b) Development Charge and Planning and Building Fees Rebate Program – rebates development charge, planning application, and building permit fees associated with building improvements, development/redevelopment. c) Façade/Signage Improvement Grant Program – provides grants for exterior improvements to a building’s front, rear, or side façade, and improvements to signage. d) Building Rehabilitation/Redevelopment Grant Program – provides grants for interior and exterior building improvements addressing design, safety, risk management, restoration.

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

PROGRAM TYPE e) Heritage Restoration Grant Program – provides grants for the restoration of heritage features of designated or listed heritage buildings. f) Upper Floor Residential Conversion/Rehabilitation Grant Program – provides grants for the rehabilitation of existing upper floor residential units or the conversion of existing commercial building space to residential units. g) Energy Efficiency Retrofit Grant Program – provides grants for retrofits that improve the overall energy efficiency of buildings. h) Landscape Improvement Grant Program – provides grants for improvements to landscaping on private property (could include parking areas). i) Environmental Study Grant and Brownfield Tax Assistance Programs – provides grants for studies to determine extent of contamination and tax relief for remediation/redevelopment of contaminated sites. j) Design Study/Drawings Grant Program – provides grants for the preparation of professional design studies/drawings/plans. k) Business Plan/Feasibility Study Grant Program – provides grants for the preparation of professional feasibility studies/business plans for business ideas and opportunities. l) Other Financial Programs (please describe)

RANKING

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Are there any additional municipal policies, initiatives, or programs that could assist property and business owners with improvements to private property?

Are there any additional municipal policies, initiatives, or programs that should be implemented with respect to publicallyowned property, which would contribute to local community improvement?

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Part D: Additional Comments 1.

Please provide any additional comments you may have about local community improvement, or the CIP project in general, in the space below.

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

Part E: Respondent Information (Optional) Part E of the survey is optional â&#x20AC;&#x201C; you may or may not provide this information, which is being collected under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and may therefore be disclosed to persons who make a request to the Town. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Name: Email: Phone: Address: Are you the owner of a property/properties or a business/businesses in one of Innisfilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commercial or employment/industrial areas? Yes

If yes to Q.5, please provide the following information about your properties or businesses: Property/ Business

Property/ Business

Full Time:

Part Time:

Address Current Use Name of businesses (if applicable) Length of time business has been operating in Innisfil Number of employees at peak time during the year (if applicable)

PLEASE SAVE DOCUMENT PRIOR TO EMAILING. Your input is important to us! Thank you for taking the time to complete this important Community Survey.

Innisfil Town-wide CIP Project

Community Survey

WHAT IS

THE PROCESS? The diagram below illustrates the Three-Phase Work Program for the Innisfil Town-wide CIP project, which meets the requirements of the Planning Act. It is anticipated that the Program will lead to the adoption of a Community Improvement Plan in early 2015.

The Town of Innisfil has initiated a Town-wide Community Improvement Plan project. On May 23, 2014, the Town of Innisfil retained Meridian Planning Consultants (in association with TCI Management Consultants) to prepare a Town-wide Community Improvement Plan (CIP).

How can I participate? There will be opportunities for public involvement in all three phases of the project. For Phase One (currently on-going), you will have the opportunity to help identify specific community needs and opportunities that should be addressed by the Town-wide CIP. You can provide input and ideas by:  

Completing an on-line survey by Friday, September 26, 2014 on the Town’s website at www.innisfil.ca Participating in an upcoming public open house and workshop this September

Additional information about the public open house (date and location) will be available on the Town-wide CIP Project website soon at: www.innisfil.ca. For those unable to attend, information and presentations from the open houses and workshops will be provided on this website. Written submissions, questions and comments can be submitted to the Town at ecdo@innisfil.ca at any time. For more information about the Town-wide Community Improvement Plan project, feel free to contact Don Eastwood, Director of Development 705-436-3710 or ecdo@innisfil.ca.

The project will result in a comprehensive, strategic, and flexible framework for local improvements to public and private properties throughout the Town. Specifically, the Town-wide CIP is intended to help:   

Attract and assist new business investment in Innisfil Revitalize, restore, and improve existing commercial and industrial properties throughout Innisfil Accelerate the Town’s unique investment attraction potential

Attract Invest Revitalize Assist Restore Accelerate

Improve

WHAT IS A

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN? A Community Improvement Plan (often called a ‘CIP’) is a municipal planning tool permitted by the Ontario Planning Act. Through a CIP, municipalities in Ontario can:

Key Elements of a CIP:

• Facilitate and coordinate transition in a community • Stimulate employment growth • Assist businesses and property owners with repair, rehabilitation, and redevelopment projects • Raise awareness to local needs and priorities The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has prepared a Community Improvement Planning Handbook (2008), which provides more information on community improvement planning: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1297.aspx

Why is it a Town-wide Project? In the past, CIPs have typically been prepared for a precise geographic area of a municipality, such as a downtown, Business Improvement Area, industrial area, a heritage conservation district, or an area with a large number of brownfields. Today, leading edge municipalities are taking a more innovative approach by preparing Town-wide CIPs. This approach looks more comprehensively and strategically at implementing Planning Act tools throughout the entire Town. Town-wide CIPs are strongly aligned with broader economic development goals. In 2010, Innisfil developed a community strategic plan known as ‘Inspiring Innisfil 2020’, which defines the Town’s goals for the future. Through this project there is an opportunity to align the Town-wide CIP with broader community and economic goals, as set out in ‘Inspiring Innisfil 2020’.

The Town-wide CIP will be strategic. It will augment the vision and actions set out in ‘Inspiring Innisfil 2020’ by:  Providing a foundation that

will help lead desirable growth  Preparing and positioning

the Town for new opportunities  Supporting new business

How Can a CIP Help Business and Property Owners? Having a CIP in place allows the Town to assist business and property owners with improvements to private properties. Financial assistance may be available through incentive-based programs set out by the CIP, including: 

advantages and priorities

Rebates



Tax assistance



Building façade and signage improvements



Project feasibility studies



Energy efficiency retrofits



Improvements to landscaping and parking areas



Space conversion for residential and commercial uses



Accessibility enhancements



Adaptive reuse of commercial and industrial buildings



Provision of affordable housing

Structural improvements to buildings (e.g., Building Code upgrades)

Brownfield environmental assessment, remediation, and redevelopment

community and identity  Focusing on community



Incentive based programs could assist with a wide range of maintenance, rehabilitation, development or redevelopment projects, such as:

and employment opportunities  Promoting a unified

Grant and Loan Programs

Item D.13 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-171-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Request to extend Draft Plan Approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision I-T-0603 (Alcona Downs 2)

CROSS REF.:

PDS-117-07, DSR-046-10, DSR-110-13, DSR-052-14

RECOMMENDATION: That Report DSR-171-14 be received; and, That the County of Simcoe be advised that the Town has no objection to the Extension of Draft Plan Approval to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0603 (Alcona Downs 2), dated May 6, 2011 and redlined July 17, 2013, for a period of one (1) year from the previous extension of the approval date until November 6, 2015, as outlined in staff report DSR-171-14. BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Alcona Downs Development Inc. to request that the County of Simcoe extend the Draft Plan Approval of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision I-T-0603 (Alcona Downs 2). The present expiry date is November 6, 2014. The subject lands are located south of Innisfil Beach Road and west of Webster Boulevard, in the settlement area of Alcona on lands legally described as Concession 7, Part of the North Half of Lots 21 and 22 in the Town of Innisfil. The Plan was draft approved May 6, 2011 and redlined July 17, 2013 by the County of Simcoe. A Key Map showing the location of the property is Attachment 1 to this Report. A letter from the County approving the extension of the Draft Plan to November 6, 2014, and a copy of the redlined draft approved plan and conditions, is Attachment 2. The letter from the applicant requesting an extension is Attachment 3. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: The Applicant has requested a Draft Plan extension to satisfy outstanding conditions. It is the practice of the Town to grant extensions of no more than one (1) year for the purpose of land budgets and to encourage developers to register as soon as possible. Alcona Downs 2 is divided into three (3) phases. The first phase of Alcona Downs 2, consisting of 20 single-detached lots, was registered as Plan 51M-1007 last year. There are an additional

â&#x20AC;Ś/

Staff Report DSR-171-14 Alcona Downs 2 – Draft Plan Conditions Extension

September 17, 2014

Page 2 of 2

79 single-detached lots in the balance of Alcona Downs 2. The Subdivision Agreement for the balance of Alcona Downs 2 was presented to Council on March 19, 2014. Alcona Downs 2 Phase 2 will be registered shortly and consists of 26 single-detached lots. The Holding (‘H’) provision was lifted in August of 2014 (Staff Report DSR-136-14) for Alcona Downs 2 Phase 2. The final phase is Alcona Downs 2 Phase 3, consisting of the remaining 53 lots. Servicing is currently being constructed for Alcona Downs 2 Phase 3, and a Pre-servicing Agreement has been entered into with the Town. Staff anticipate that the remainder of Alcona Downs 2 may not be final approved and registered before the November 6, 2014 expiry date. Town Staff recommend that a one (1) year extension be granted for this Draft Approved Subdivision, which is consistent with Town practices. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to not granting the extension may result in the expiry of the Draft Plan Approval. A new Draft Plan of Subdivision application would be required, which would nullify any applications as well as the significant work completed to date. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The Town has received a Planning Application Fee to recover the cost of the draft plan extension request such that there is no net cost to the Town. CONCLUSION: An extension of the Draft Plan Approval for one (1) year is requested by Town Staff. PREPARED BY: Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons.), MCIP, RPP Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., RPP Manager of Land Use Planning Attachments: 1. Key Map 2. Draft Approved Plan and Conditions 3. Application Letter

Key Map - Alcona Downs Phase II (I-T-0603)

R ond

t. St

r ie S

rand Lau

Dale Rd.

St.

ll C

Low

St.

Butler St.

Subject Lands

Cor

lv Jans B

Sw a n

Cres.

Hunter St.

. R d. e Ln ach e B l sfi Inni

Gina S

rad A nd

Os b

s on

art C

. T agg

Da w

St.

M it c

r Blvd

n kin W

Hi l l

t. son S

St.

2 0 Sr d

te Webs

Nevils

S son Ben

on S

F er gu

Bens

tm o Wes

u nt

Ave

t. Prince C

20 Srd

Rom

Emerald C

i n a C t.

n in c e

res

s re

t S t.

S t.

F ores

Mill

W i ls o n S t .

H Fox

t ill S

. 7t h

Li n e

Attachment 2 to Staff Report DSR-171-14

Attachment 3 to Staff Report DSR-171-14

Item D.14 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-172-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

CROSS REFERENCE:

DSR-048-14, DSR 128-14

RECOMMENDATION: That Staff Report DSR-172-14 be received; and That Council adopt By-Law No. 080-14 to amend the Town’s Zoning By-Law with provisions for the siting of medical marihuana production facilities in ‘Industrial General’ and ‘Industrial Business Park’ zones within the Town. 1.0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this information and recommendation report is:  

To outline and provide rationale for adopting the proposed zoning provisions for medical marihuana production facilities (Attachment 1); and To summarize and respond to written correspondence and comments received at the Public Meeting on September 3, 2014 (Attachment’s 2 and 3).

In response to the new federal Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), these provisions will help achieve a high level of land use compatibility by directing the siting of medical marihuana production facilities to industrial land within Innisfil. 2.0

BACKGROUND

The Federal Government of Canada has introduced new legislation (the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations - MMPR) that is changing the way marihuana for medical purposes is accessed and produced throughout the country. These new regulations have been in effect since April 1, 2014 and only permit federally licensed commercial production facilities to distribute marihuana for medical purposes. This is a shift from away from personal-use production that was permitted under the previous federal regulations (Marihuana Medical Access Regulations – MMAR). While the MMPR requires that all medical marihuana must be purchased from commercially licensed facilities, a decision from a Federal Court judge has allowed those who currently have a personal marihuana production license, to continue their own production.

…/

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 7

Furthermore, under the previous federal regulations, applicants were not required to disclose their intent to produce marihuana to local authorities. This resulted in the production of medical marihuana within private residential dwellings that were often ill-equipped for such activities, and in locations unknown to local authorities. Local authorities therefore lacked the ability to ensure that local laws and requirements were being complied with. Overall, the previous medical marihuana regulations presented numerous risks to public health, safety and security. The MMPR will be administered entirely by the Federal Government and will be enforced by Health Canada inspectors. In addition to compliance with the MMPR, licensed producers must also comply with all other applicable federal, provincial and local regulations including municipal by-laws such as Zoning, Building Code and Fire Code requirements. There is also a requirement for prospective applicants to notify local authorities of their intent to apply to Health Canada for a production license. Although Health Canada indicates that a municipality cannot prohibit the issuance of a license, the Minister of Health has stated that “municipal laws and zoning by-laws will need to be respected” in the license application process. As such, this provides municipalities with the opportunity and authority to communicate any concerns directly to the license applicant/Health Canada and to ensure that all local by-laws are complied with. The Town’s existing land use policies and provisions do not specifically address or contemplate commercial medical marihuana facilities since they would have previously been an illegal activity under federal law. The MMPR provide strict and detailed requirements for the operations of medical marihuana production facilities (e.g. enhanced site security, substance handling, sanitation, etc.); however, except for the prohibition of medical marihuana production in a residential dwelling, the land use impacts and compatibility issues associated with these facilities are not specifically addressed in the MMPR. It is therefore important that the Town establish provisions to appropriately regulate the siting of medical marihuana production facilities in the Town. 3.0

PROPOSED ZONING PROVISIONS

At the March 19th Council Meeting (based on the rationale contained in DSR-048-14), Staff received preliminary direction to consider provisions to “restrict the siting of potential medical marihuana production facilities to appropriate non-agricultural zones within the Town.” As such, the zoning provisions (Attachment 1) will only permit medical marihuana production on land zoned ‘Industrial General’ and ‘Industrial Business Park’ in the Town of Innisfil, subject to other minimum zoning requirements. Comments and written correspondence received at the Public Meeting were also considered in developing the final provisions. The provisions for medical marihuana facilities in other municipalities were also assessed. Permitting medical marihuana production facilities in industrial areas is the approach that the majority of municipalities have taken (e.g. Town of New Tecumseth, Town of Caledon, and City of Barrie). Overall, research undertaken by Staff indicates that medical marihuana production facilities should be considered as an industrial use and can be most appropriately sited within the Town’s industrial zones (primarily located within the Innisfil Heights business park). While some municipalities (e.g. Township of Clearview and Municipality of Chatham-Kent) have also permitted these facilities within agricultural areas, rationale has been provided for why medical marihuana facilities would not be an appropriate use within agricultural areas. This rationale is summarized as follows:

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities      

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 7

The production of medical marihuana must take place entirely indoors in a controlled commercial laboratory environment and does not require or benefit from any association with the use of high quality agricultural land; Since Health Canada is only granting 3-year leases for these facilities, if a facility is constructed in an agricultural area and the license is not issued or renewed, this will have the further effect of degrading prime agricultural land; Medical marihuana is produced through a pharmaceutical manufacturing process and is similar to other uses already permitted in the Town’s industrial zones; Medical marihuana facilities may generate higher volumes of traffic and locations in industrial areas closer to major road and highway networks are more appropriate; Industrial areas can provide a greater level of safety and security for medical marihuana facilities than a location in a more remote agricultural area; and Medical marihuana facilities require substantial water and electricity resources to operate and should be located in areas where full or partial municipal servicing is available.

In addition to restricting medical marihuana facilities to industrial zones, the zoning provisions propose a minimum separation distance of 70 metres from the building to the property line of community sensitive land uses such as schools, residences and community centres. This is based on the interpretation that these facilities are a Class 1 industrial facility under the Ministry of Environment’s D-6 Guidelines, and have low potential for noise and odour emissions. A 70 metre separation distance is consistent with what is identified for all industrial uses in the Town’s Official Plan and is a measure to help ensure that medical marihuana production facilities are sited with minimal land use impact. Based on this rationale, the proposed amendments to the Town of Innisfil’s Zoning By-Law, with zoning provisions for medical marihuana production facilities are summarized as follows:     



4.0

Only permitted on land zoned ‘Industrial General’ and ‘Industrial Business Park’; The building shall be located at least 70 metres away from a residential zone or community service zone or from the property line of any school, park, community centre or day nursery; No outdoor signage or advertising shall be permitted, to ensure that nothing on the outside of the building will distinguish it as a medical marihuana facility; Site Plan approval is required and the Town may require sustainable design features that reduce servicing impacts such as the use of recycled water; Access to municipal water and sewage servicing is preferred, but development on private servicing may be permitted subject to justification that there is sufficient water available for daily usage and that septic discharge from the facility can be safely treated; and A definition of ‘medical marihuana production facility’ will be added to the Town’s Zoning By-Law and the current definition of ‘agricultural use’ will be amended to clarify that a medical marihuana facility does not meet the definition of an agricultural use. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

A Public Meeting was held on September 3, 2014 and Staff received comments from Council and residents regarding the proposed zoning provisions for medical marihuana facilities. Staff considered all comments that were considered to the end of the business day on September 10 (Attachment 3). Overall, Staff feel that the comments and concerns are being addressed through both Health Canada’s licensing requirements and the Town’s proposed zoning

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 7

provisions. The following table provides a summary of the comments/concerns as well as a Staff response and justification for the proposed zoning provisions: Comments/Concerns

Response

Provisions will only permit facilities in Town’s industrial zones (‘Industrial General’ and ‘Industrial Business Park’). The rationale for why the facilities should be permitted as an industrial use is summarized in this report. Some individuals in the community have a true The federal government is forecasting need for medical marihuana substantial growth in the usage of medical marihuana. The provisions will help address this growing demand by identifying areas in the Town where the facilities can be sited. Noise concerns Since medical marihuana must be produced entirely indoors in a commercial laboratory, the facilities will emit a low level of noise. Air quality/odour concerns Health Canada requires that the facilities be equipped with an air filtration system that prevents the escape of smells and any noxious emissions. Approvals from the Ministry of Environment will also be required for the control of air quality and any odour emissions. Traffic concerns Medical marihuana must be delivered directly from the facility to the legally authorized individual. This may generate a higher level of vehicle traffic that is best accommodated in industrial zones that are along major road and highway networks. Impact of water servicing requirements on To ensure the facilities do not impact the surrounding private wells quality and quantity of water in surrounding wells, the provisions state that access to full or partial municipal water and sewage servicing (as available in industrial zones) is preferred, and will be mandatory where available. Development on private servicing will only be permitted subject to justification in accordance with Ministry of Environment standards. Impact on property values Medical marihuana facilities are similar to the uses that are already permitted in the Town’s industrial zones. Properly sited facilities will minimize any potential impacts on property values. In addition, Health Canada does not permit any signage on the outside of the building that would distinguish its use as a medical marihuana production facility. Security concerns Health Canada requires that the facilities have security features such as surveillance cameras, intrusion detection systems and fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the Support for facilities in industrial areas

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

Re-consider whether facilities permitted in agricultural areas

should

Separation distance from homes and schools should be increased

Facilities will result in increased crime

Concerns opposing an application that has been submitted to Health Canada for a facility in Cookstown

September 17, 2014 Page 5 of 7

site. Siting the facilities in industrial areas provides an additional level of passive security and greater accessibility for fire and police services. Permitting the facilities in agricultural areas would be inconsistent with local and provincial policies that aim to protect farmland. The production of medical marihuana occurs entirely indoors and does not require or benefit from the use of agricultural land. Staff feel that medical marihuana is produced through a pharmaceutical manufacturing process and is therefore not an agricultural use. The proposed separation distance of 70 metres from the building to the property line of sensitive land uses is based on Ministry of Environment guidelines and is consistent with the separation distance in the Town’s Official Plan for all industrial uses. Because Health Canada’s licensing requirements already help minimize the land use impacts of the facilities (e.g. by controlling odour), some municipalities do not establish any separation distance. While some municipalities have established a separation distance greater than 70 metres, this has resulted in challenges to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The new federal regulations have made the personal production of medical marihuana in residences to be illegal. While individuals are now required to purchase the drug directly from federally licensed commercial distribution facilities, customers will not be able to access the site as medical marihuana must be shipped directly to the individual. Municipalities and local authorities will now be aware of where medical marihuana is being produced and can regulate and enforce local by-laws. In addition to other Health Canada security and licensing requirements, this will substantially help in preventing crime from occurring in association with these facilities. The Town has not received a planning application for the establishment of a facility in Cookstown - Health Canada has received this application for a license. If Health Canada issues a license for a facility that is located in a permitted zone in the Town’s Zoning By-Law, the applicant must still obtain a building permit and site plan approval. If the Town’s Zoning By-Law does not permit the facility or site plan approval is not granted, a building permit

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

Public consultation

5.0

September 17, 2014 Page 6 of 7

cannot be issued and the Town will express any concerns to Health Canada. However, since Health Canada has federal authority to issue licenses for medical marihuana facilities, the Town is limited in the extent to which it can prevent their establishment. Staff exceeded the minimum public notice requirements of the Planning Act for a Townwide Zoning By-Law Amendment (i.e. Notice was posted in the Innisfil Examiner on five separate weeks and circulated to the required agencies together with website town electronic sign postings). Applications for medical marihuana facilities are issued by Health Canada through a process that does not require public consultation. However, the applicant must provide notice to the Town when they have submitted their application to Health Canada. When the Town receives any Notices such as this in the future, the Town will forward notice to property owners within 120 metres of the proposed site containing the facility. Public notice will also occur as part of the Town’s site plan application process.

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES

Council can adopt the zoning provisions as proposed, or can refer the matter back to Staff to conduct further research or to make any additional modifications. 6.0

CONCLUSION

The proposed zoning provisions for medical marihuana production facilities are based on these facilities being considered an industrial use within Innisfil. As such, the provisions will restrict the siting of medical marihuana production facilities to land zoned ‘Industrial General’ and ‘Industrial Business Park’. This reflects objectives of protecting farmland from incompatible land uses as identified in Town and provincial planning policies and the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 community vision. In order to be permitted in industrial zones, the medical marihuana facility will require Site Plan approval and must also be a minimum of 70 metres from the property line of sensitive land uses such as residences, schools and parks. The proposed provisions will help direct medical marihuana production facilities to the more preferred areas within Innisfil, helping ensure they have minimal land use impact. Proactive approval of the provisions sooner, rather than later, will allow the Town to direct medical marihuana production facilities to better suited sites within the Town, if an application to Health Canada is received.

PREPARED BY: Paul Pentikainen, M.Pl, MCIP, RPP Policy Planner

Staff Report DSR-172-14 Final Zoning Provisions for Medical Marihuana Facilities

September 17, 2014 Page 7 of 7

REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: Tim Cane, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Manager of Land Use Planning

Attachments: 1. By-Law No. 080-14 –Zoning By-Law Amendment - Provisions for Medical Marihuana Production Facilities 2. Public Meeting Minutes – September 3, 2014 3. Copies of Written Correspondence Received

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. 080-14 A By-law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to Amend the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 080-13 with Provisions for Medical Marihuana Production Facilities WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil deems it desirable to amend the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 080-13 with provisions for medical marihuana production facilities; AND WHEREAS the authority to pass this By-law is provided pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts the following amendments to the Town of Innisfil Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 080-13: (1)

A new definition, ‘Medical Marihuana Production Facility’, be inserted after subsection 2.128, reading as follows: “2.129 Medical Marihuana Production Facility means a building used for growing, producing, processing, testing, destroying, storing or distribution of medical marihuana or cannabis authorized by a license issued by the federal Minister of Health, pursuant to Section 25 of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, as amended, or any subsequent legislation which may be enacted in substitution thereof. For purposes of clarification, no part of this operation, whether accessory or not, may be located outdoors. In the interpretation of this definition, cannabis means the substance set out in Item I of Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, as amended; and marihuana means the substance referred to as “Cannabis” in sub-item I(2) of Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, as amended.” All definitions following 2.129 shall be renumbered accordingly.

(2)

The following sentence is hereby added to the end of the current definition of ‘Agricultural Use’ (2.6): “For purposes of clarification, a medical marihuana production facility does not meet this definition of an agricultural use.”

(3)

The following provisions for ‘Medical Marihuana Production Facilities’ will be hereby inserted as a new sub-section after 3.27: "3.28 MEDICAL MARIHUANA PRODUCTION FACILITIES Notwithstanding any other provisions in this by-law to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply to permit medical marihuana production facilities in the permitted zones specified in this by-law within the Town of Innisfil:

a) A medical marihuana production facility shall comply with all provisions of the zone that it is located within. b) A medical marihuana production facility will be prohibited on a lot within a residential zone and on any lot containing a dwelling. c) A medical marihuana production facility shall be located at least 70 metres away from a lot in a Residential Zone or Community Service Zone and from any lot containing a school, park, community centre, or day nursery. d) No outdoor signage or advertising shall be permitted. e) Parking spaces and loading spaces must be provided in accordance with the Loading Provisions and Parking Provisions specified in this by-law. A medical marihuana production facility will be interpreted as an ‘other industrial use’ for the purposes of calculating the required number of parking spaces and loading spaces. f)

Site Plan approval, in accordance with the Town of Innisfil Site Plan By-law, as amended, will be required prior to permitting any development and the use of a lot for the purposes of a medical marihuana production facility. Through the Site Plan approval process, the Town may require sustainable design features that reduce environmental and servicing impacts such as the use of recycled water and low impact development measures.

g) Access to municipal water supply is preferred and mandatory where available, however in the case of a private water supply, the Town will require justification that there is sufficient water for daily usage (Ministry of Environment water taking permit may be required) and adequate fire suppression. h) Access to municipal sanitary sewer is preferred and mandatory where available, however in the case of a private septic system or other on-site disposal system, the Town will require confirmation that discharge from the facilities can be safely treated in a private septic system or alternative. If discharge or treatment of product requires off-site handling, the owner(s) will provide documentation of agreement(s) with approved waste handlers.” All sub-sections following 3.28 shall be renumbered accordingly. (4)

In ‘Table 6.1 – Permitted Uses’ of Section 6 (‘Industrial Zones’), a “Medical Marihuana Production Facility” will be hereby inserted as a permitted use under the ‘Principal Use’ heading in the following zones: “IG (Industrial General Zone) and IBP (Industrial Business Park)”

PASSED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. _____________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor _____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 1 of 6

B. Baguley D. Davidson D. Lougheed R. Simpson K. Simpson R. Boynton B. Loughead L. Dollin

Regrets: Councillor:

M. Baier

Chief Administrative Officer: Deputy CAO/Town Solicitor: Deputy CAO/Town Engineer: Acting Clerk: Manager of Land Use Planning: Policy Planner: Communications Coordinators: Assistant Clerk:

J. Skorobohacz J. Reynar A. Campbell K. Fraser T. Cane P. Pentikainen A. Munro K. Creamer

CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST [None declared]

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW NO. 080-13 FOR – TOWN WIDE PROVISIONS FOR MARIHUANA FACILITIES

3a.

3b.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 6

3c.

STATEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE TOWN The Clerk stated that the following correspondence was received to date:

(3C.1)

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) dated July 31, 2014 advising they have no objections.

(3C.2)

Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) dated August 12, 2014 asking not to amend the agricultural definition to exclude medical marihuana.

(3C.3)

(3C.4)

3d.

(3C.5)

Arne Sorensen dated September 2, 2014 advising he opposes the proposed amendment to zoning By-law 080-13 for a licensed medical marihuana production facility at 3745 Hwy. 89.

(3C.6)

Sarah Currie dated August 29, 2014 advising she does not support the proposed medical marihuana facility in Cookstown at 3745 Hwy. 89.

(3C.7)

Dianne Bravo dated September 2, 2014 expressing her comments and concerns regarding the proposed medical marihuana facility in Cookstown.

(3C.8)

Marco D. Colabella dated August 28, 2014 advising he opposes the proposed location of the medical marihuana facility in Cookstown.

Councillor D. Lougheed arrived at the meeting.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 6

Mr. Pentikainen will summarize information relating to context, land use considerations, examples of Municipal provisions and the proposed zoning provisions for Innisfil. Medical marihuana productions facilities are licensed by Federal Government/Health Canada. They are used to produce, process, test, destroy, store, and distribute medical marihuana. All of this must take place entirely indoors. A high level of security that includes surveillance cameras and physical barriers such as fencing is required. The facilities must also be equipped with an air filtration system that prevents the escape of smells and odours. Health Canada has also said that “municipal laws and zoning bylaws will need to be respected” in the license application process. This provides the Town with the opportunity to develop zoning provisions that appropriately site medical marihuana facilities within Innisfil. Previous Legislation states that access to marihuana for medical reasons and its production is federally regulated under both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Although marihuana remains illegal in Canada, in 2001, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations were implemented. This allowed individuals to access marihuana for medical reasons with a prescription from a doctor. Under these old regulations, users were able to produce medical marihuana in their own homes. In 2001, there were fewer than 100 people able to access marihuana for medical reasons. This number has increased to nearly 40,000 people today and is forecast by Health Canada to increase to 450,000 people over the next 10 years. As the number of people accessing and growing medical marihuana has increased significantly, so to have the public health, safety and security risks of unlicensed facilities. Police and fire departments have been unaware of where medical marihuana is being produced, and municipalities were very limited in their ability to ensure that local by-laws were being complied with. The Federal Government developed new regulations in 2013 called the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. These regulations took effect on April 1 of this year, to make the personal production of medical marihuana in homes illegal, and to require users to purchase it from federally licensed commercial distribution facilities. The federal government is forecasting that as a result of this commercialization, Canada’s medical marihuana industry will be worth over 1 billion dollars in 10 years. Health Canada has received over 1000 applications, but thus far only 13 facilities have been issued a license. This new legislation however was appealed prior to it taking full effect, and a Federal Court judge granted an injunction for medical marijuana users that already have a personal production license. This allows them to continue growing their own medical marijuana until a federal court decision is made. Health Canada is still processing applications and it is important that the Town has provisions in place to appropriately site these facilities. The new Federal regulations contain strict security requirements for medical marihuana facilities and prohibit medical marihuana from being produced inside of residential dwellings. However, the federal regulations do not contain any further measures to address other land use considerations such as potential traffic, noise and infrastructure requirements. The regulations do not recommend where they should be located and this has led municipalities across Canada to consider two key questions: whether they should be permitted in agricultural and/or industrial zones, and whether there should be a minimum separation distance from sensitive land uses such as homes, schools and parks. The draft provisions propose that medical marihuana facilities be permitted in the Town’s industrial zones, and specifically on land zoned Industrial Business Park and Industrial

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 4 of 6

General. This will have the effect of directing these facilities to the Innisfil Heights industrial business park along Highway 400 at IBR, and to parcels of land designated IG along major roads in the Town such as along Highway 89 near Cookstown. A definition of medical marihuana production facility is also being proposed for the Town’s Zoning By-Law. In addition to being located in an industrial zone, there are other minimum zoning requirements that a proposed medical marihuana production facility must meet. The building must be at least 70m from a residential or community service zone or any school, park, community centre or day nursery. This separation distance of 70m is based on the Ministry of Environment’s D-6 Guidelines for Compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses, and the interpretation that medical marihuana facilities are a type 1 industrial use with low potential for noise and odour emissions. This is also consistent with the separation distance that is identified for all industrial uses in the Town’s Official Plan. No outdoor signage will be permitted, which also matches the requirements of the federal regulations. This is to ensure that nothing on the outside of the building will distinguish it as a medical marihuana facility. Access to municipal water and sewage servicing is preferred, but development on private servicing may be permitted subject to proof that there is adequate servicing. Mr. Pentikainen outlined the rationale for the industrial use and noted Health Canada will only be granting a 3-year production license to successful applicants. If large-scale commercial production facilities are constructed in agricultural areas and the 3-year licenses are not issued or renewed, this will have the further effect of degrading prime agricultural land and preventing its use for traditional farming practices. Mr. Pentikainen concluded that the overall aims of the provisions are to site federally licensed medical marihuana production facilities in industrial zones, which is where they will have minimal land use impact. Similar uses are already permitted in the Town’s industrial zones and this will help protect agricultural land from incompatible land uses. This importance of protecting and conserving farmland is reflected in both Town and provincial planning policies as well as in the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 community vision. 3e.

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 5 of 6

Arne Sorensen, 3703 15th Line, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 provided a summary of his written concerns and is opposed to the proposal of medical marihuana production facilities. Concerned about the value of properties, water, security, air quality and increased crime. Donna Cox, 4 Heritage Road, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 advised she is a concerned mother and worried about what message is being sent to children if this proposal is adopted. Sarah Currie, 4040 15th Line Cookstown, L0L 1L0 expressed concerns related to the article in the Innisfil Journal dated August 5, 2014 that told readers a medical marihuana production facility was being proposed for Cookstown. Ms. Currie presented a petition of those in opposition of this proposal and expressed concerned about the air quality, security and disturbance in the area. Greg Cox, 4 Heritage Road, Cookstown, L0L 1L0 understands the use and reasons for medical marihuana however is concerned about a facility in Cookstown near residential and school areas. This is a good opportunity however who is really funding such a facility and who are we inviting into our community and concerned about property values and security.  Mr. Cane clarified that an application has been submitted to Health Canada not the Town of Innisfil. 3f.

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson inquired if the Town could set provisions that these facilities only be considered on sanitary services. Could this matter be taken to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)? 

Public Meeting Minutes September 3, 2014 Page 6 of 6

distance property line to property line and what is the difference from the egg farm which is an entire indoor operation on agricultural land to a medical marihuana facility? 

Deputy Mayor D. Davidson enquired what impact would this have if approved for the Cookstown area on the Volunteer Fire Department. 

Mr. Cane and Fire Chief Pegg advised that any alarms/false alarms are dealt with in the same manner as all alarm calls and billed accordingly.

ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:02 P.M. APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CR-xxx.xx.14 SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.

____________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

______________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

Attachment 3 to Staff Report DSR-172-14

Ontario AgriCentre 100 Stone Road West, Suite 206, Guelph, Ontario N1G 5L3 Tel: (519) 821-8883 ● Fax: (519) 821-8810 ● www.ofa.on.ca

August 12, 2014

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is the largest general farm organization in Ontario, representing 37,000 farm families across the province. We are a dynamic, farmer-led organization based in Guelph. The OFA works to represent and champion the interests of Ontario farmers through government relations, farm policy recommendations, lobby efforts, community representation, media relations and more. OFA is the leading advocate for Ontario’s farmers. Our board of directors and staff work on behalf of Ontario farmers researching issues, examining policy and addressing farmers concerns. The issue I would like to comment on is the zoning of this new type of agricultural enterprise, medical marihuana to “industrial general” and “industrial business park”. We at the OFA firmly believe that this type of business does belong in agricultural zoning. Growing a crop whether it is in a field or a building is still “growing a crop”. Medical marihuana is grown indoors in a controlled environment. Let’s consider other crops grown in a similar fashion such as fruits, vegetables, herbs, mushrooms and even livestock such as hogs and chickens that are grown in controlled environments such as greenhouses and modern barns. Grain is grown, dried and stored for shipment at a later time as well. These operations use and have access to a safe water. Drip irrigation is another tool that is used to control the volume of water and nutrients being feed to plants. Water can be recycled and monitored for optimum efficiency. For comparison, a single greenhouse cucumber plant uses 4-5 litres of water daily. A Dairy cow can consume between 80-160

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture enables prosperous and sustainable farms.

litres of water daily depending on weather. The volume of electricity to operate circulating fans and lights 24/7 can be compared to hog, chicken and large grain elevators. I believe the electrical infrastructure already exists to service any expansion or new businesses in rural areas of Innisfil. As well, many farms now have emergency generators on site in case of a power failure. Medical marihuana production is growing, drying, packaging and shipping an agricultural crop. I would urge council to not amend the agricultural definition to exclude medical marihuana. Municipalities that permit medical marihuana production in agricultural areas include Clearview, Chatham-Kent, Township of West Lincoln, Port Colborne, and the City of Hamilton. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Policy Advisor for the Provincial Policy Statement, John Turvey has told me that they view medical marihuana production as a permitted use in agricultural areas.

Websterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dictionary definitions. Agriculture: the science or practice of producing crops or livestock Crop: a yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s or a seasonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s produce of any cultivated plant

I have heard arguments that medical marihuana is a controlled substance so it should be treated differently. I would respectfully point to the brewing industry as it is heavily regulated as well, yet we allow micro breweries, wineries and cideries to establish their businesses on agricultural zoned lands. Some have voiced concerns about fire safety and security. Growing medical marihuana in a controlled environment with all the modern safety components such as sprinkler systems and alarms would be included in the building code for any new or renovated building regardless of location. Rural fire departments are prepared for emergencies in buildings with far less safety components. Security is a requirement for a license from

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture enables prosperous and sustainable farms.

Health Canada. But, I would ask you to consider this. Many farms have security protocols to protect not only livestock and plants from disease, but also from unwanted visitors or worse intruders intending to do damage. Protocols can include video surveillance, swipe cards, gates, fencing, signage and foot dips. I believe that Industrial parks do not offer any additional security. In fact, having a 70 meter buffer from sensitive land uses would require some additional property. Plus, many rural properties already provide natural buffers from neighbours such as hedge rows, wetlands and forests. This also reduces the potential nuisance complaints about odour or noise. Commercial production of medical marihuana will reduce risks to the public due to the security standards Health Canada has imposed. Police and Fire departments will have knowledge of the production sites. Thus eliminating the safety risks associated with illegal operations or patients growing their own supply. The dried product will be shipped securely eliminating any retail store front and customer vehicle traffic to the location as per the regulations from Health Canada. I would respectfully point out to council and staff, that your neighbouring municipality of Clearview views this type of enterprise as agriculture and has allowed it in agriculture zoning areas. As of this time, I am not aware of any issues arising from permitting it in agriculture zoning areas. I spoke with Michael Wynia the Planner for Clearview recently and there has been zero issues reported. In fact, there is another operation very close to starting production. Agriculture is an ever-changing industry. Farmers are innovative and provide not only food, but fiber, fuel and medicine. Innisfil has many progressive farmers who may consider producing medical marihuana to increase diversity on their own farms. Commercial production of medical marihuana is part of our agricultural industry. Growing, drying, packaging and shipping are normal farm practices. No matter the crop.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture enables prosperous and sustainable farms.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments on behalf of my farm members.

Leah Emms Ontario Federation of Agriculture Member Service Representative for Peel, Simcoe and York 705-722-5511 Leah.Emms@ofa.on.ca

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture enables prosperous and sustainable farms.

August 25, 2014

Mr. Paul Pentikainen Policy Planner Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON L9S 1A1

Dear Mr. Pentikainen: TOWN-WIDE PROVISIONS LICENSED MEDICAL MARIHUANA PRODUCTION FACILITIES TOWN OF INNISFIL Thank you for circulating notice of the Public Meeting for the above-noted Zoning By-law Amendment to this office. The application will restrict the siting of medical marihuana production facilities to land that is zoned “Industrial General – IG” and “Industrial Business Park – IBP” in the Town. Any potential facilities must also meet other proposed provisions such as being located a minimum of 70 metres away from schools, residences and parks. Planning staff have no objection to the proposed Amendment. Should you require additional information or clarification, please contact this office. Yours truly,

Holly Spacek, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

3C.5 Item# _________________ Sept. 3/14

PM Date: ______________

Mr. Arne Sorensen

Sept 2,2014 Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, Ontario L9S 1A1 Subject: Proposed Licensed Medical Marijuana Production Facility on Highway 89 Dear Council: I am here to oppose the proposed amendment to zoning by-law 080-13 for a licensed medical marijuana production facility at 3745 Highway 89. I would like to discuss the matter of the following concerns with this proposal: value of property, pollution, water table, and security. My concerns are this facility will be situated in my backyard. George Ragogna of AlternaMedz Canada Inc. says to our local paper The Innisfil Journal on August 7, 2014, "There are no residential homes in the immediate area". My property is situated 30 meters from the proposed site. I understand the original building has existed for many years on this site, however potential expansion and nature of the product, in this case, marijuana will not increase the value of my property, if anything, may decrease the value. With respect to pollution, marijuana is known to have a pungent smell . Health Canada calls for zero emissions, meaning the pungent smell will need to be contained within the building. What guarantee as a neighbor do I have this company will adhere to Government Rules? Will there be regular inspections and monitoring of air quality, will air filtration systems be utilized? Not only air quality but my concern is also water quality. Will there be water filtration systems in place to protect the local river that runs through my property? In the past, owners of this property did not take care of it and many times I found debris floating in the river. What measures do they guarantee the waste by-product will be contained and not contaminate my water table. George Ragogna also noted to the The Innisfil Journal and I quote "security is a major part of the business and something the federal government looks at". Why? Because this product is high commodity on the illegal market, whether it is ~edicinal or not It could increase the crime rate in this area, and could affe~C\E ~V \En. Insurance of my property. SEP 02 201~

lrlr--=

Town o f Inn is f il C le rk' s Se rvi c e s

l1J!

In conclusion, I reiterate my opposition to the proposed amendment to zoning bylaw 080-13 for a proposed licensed medical marijuana production facility for reasons of the decreased value of my property, local air pollution, contamination of my water table and security measures that could lead to increase crime and insurance rates on my home as a result My question to you is: Would you like this next to your backyard? Thank you.

J!.e,-<;<

Arne Sorensen

3C.6 Item# _________________ Sept. 3/14

PM Date: ______________

3C.7 Item# _________________ Sept. 3/14

PM Date: ______________

DIANNE BRAVO 3822 15TH LINE, RR3, COOKSTOWN, ONTARIO, L0L 1L0 Tel: 416.668.2078 ~ email: iamdbravo@gmail.com Sept 2, 2014 Attention: Town of Innisfil Council, Re: Marijuana Facility Zoning Amendment I was made aware through neighbours of the zoning amendment to allow a marijuana facility to operate at the abandoned building located on 15 Line, in close proximity to the Ontario Stockyards. Such an amendment would only be triggered by a site approval plan application, hence I suspect this is already in hand and will be pushed through momentarily. I received more notice about the roads being resurfaced than about this facility â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a deplorable but true fact. My main issue is water, water supply and wastewater disposal and what this means to the residential lots located less than 1 km away.

1. Water Supply The amended zoning bylaw states that municipal water supply access is preferred but private water supply will be considered. Currently, our neighbour located two doors west of us has to transport water during the summer months and we ourselves experience water pressure issues in the summer though, thankfully, we manage without having to ship water in but we have a deeper well. That being said, even with a deeper well we are experiencing water supply issues. The facility will operate a hydroponic marijuana growing procedure as it is the most effective indoor method that yields the most crops. A 26,000 sq ft facility full of marijuana being sprayed 5-10 minutes, 6 times a day results in 30-60 minutes of continual water flow every day across an area of 26,000 sq ft, not to mention the water required for washrooms, kitchen and overall cleaning of the facility (hydroponic operational details found easily online). Granted, a small footprint of the building will be used for office space, washrooms etc.. but it is in the operators best interest to maximize the amount of space towards yielding crops.

The only logical choice is to have the facility access the municipal line, which was recently installed for the new subdivisions in town by developers. The facility owner should shoulder the cost of piping his building to the main line as this would be one of the many costs of doing business. Having the facility draw this exuberant amount of water on a 24 hour schedule (hydroponic machinery run on timers) from the groundwater will affect our well water quantity. I suspect a township interfering with water supply to their own residents would draw media and legal attention. 2. Wastewater Disposal The amended zoning bylaw states that municipal sanitary sewer access is preferred but private septic system will be considered. There are three operations here a) sanitary sewer b) septic system and c) waste hauler. Sanitary is none existent, a septic system is not feasible due to the many reasons listed below, hence the only option is to have the facility owner haul all of the wastewater off site using an MOE certified waste hauler. Again, this is just one of the many costs of doing business. Reasons not to have a septic system include: -The abundance of fertilizer that will be discharged into the wastewater will not be properly removed as the large amount of organic compounds in the fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorous etc..) affects the anaerobic bacterial environment located in the leach fields to remove the impurities naturally. -The danger of phosphates that stay in the soluble mobilized form in anaerobic conditions, being released into the nearby river that runs adjacent to the very lot the facility will be located. This will cause eutrophication where prolific algal growth will suffocate the fish due to the large amount of phosphorus that would be discharged and the fact that the anaerobic bacterial environment would not work as effectively (above point) -The altered pH water levels that are common in hydroponic operations, as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tapâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; water is too alkaline, that would then be discharged into the septic system, thereby also affecting the anaerobic bacterial environment located in the leach fields to remove the impurities naturally. -The lack of proper space and soil needed to create a leach field large enough to accommodate the level of discharge and filtration required from such a facility. For example, under good soil conditions, 4,500 sq ft is required for a leach field for a typical bedroom home (approximately 3,000 sq ft), hence for a 26,000 sq ft operation, 38,700 sq ft of suitable soil is required. Under bad soil conditions, 9,000 sq ft is required, hence 77,400 sq ft of suitable soil is required for such a facility (26,000 sq ft / 3,000 sq ft = 8.6). Looking at an aerial view of the site through

google maps shows a site of compacted soil, primarily used as parking area and not suitable for a leach field.

3. Distance to Residential Lots The amended bylaw states that such a facility must be located at least 70 meters away from a residential lot. If measuring lot to lot, the closest home is but the width of the street as it is located directly across the street from the facility, definitely less than 70 meters. Measuring from the driveway of that house to the next driveway located east is approximately 325 meters (using the scale on google maps) and measuring from that same driveway west, shows another driveway approximately 625 meters away â&#x20AC;&#x201C; my driveway. These three residential lots are less than 1 km away from the lot of the proposed marijuana facility. Surely, a 1 km buffer from residential lots to the lot in question is not asking too much in a rural setting.

Considering the above issues, along with security, air quality and fire hazards, topics that have not been discussed in this letter, it is clear to see why residents are opposed to such a facility and urge council to make the right and logical decision. Concerned resident of 3822 15th Line, the third closest house to the proposed facility, Dianne Bravo

3C.8 Item# _________________ Sept. 3/14

PM Date: ______________

MARCO D. COLABELLA 3822 15th Line, RR3 ~ Cookstown, Ontario ~ L0L 1L0 Tel. 647.295.2078 ~ email: marcodcolabella@gmail.com

August 28, 2014 Attention: Town of Innisfil Council Re: Proposed Medical Marijuana facility – Cookstown

To whom it may concern; It has been brought to my attention that Innisfil council is considering amending the zoning bylaw to allow for a medical marijuana facility. I am a home owner, land owner and the THIRD nearest to the proposed location of the facility. I am opposed to this proposal and urge Council to deny it. Concerns: 

The safety of our water table: o o o



The security and safety of ourselves and our neighbors: o



What measures are to be in place to protect our well water during the growing of the product and the disposal of any waste involved in it? Where will the waste water be deposited? Where will they get the water required to run such an operation? Our water table (well water) cannot afford such a draw as our neighbors to the west of us have to truck in water for the summer when the well drops in levels.

As noted by Colorado's decision to make recreational marijuana use legal, it has resulted in large amounts of private type security to be placed due to the large amount of drugs contained in the facility that is open to theft.

Ragogna of Alternamedz Canada confirmed that security was an issue, quoted in saying:  "Rogogna does not want to publicize the exact location for security reasons"  The location site was not published but everyone knows where it is just by word of mouth  "Security is a major part of the business….there will be a large perimeter fence surrounding the building".  Fire hazard to the community o Enormous amount of energy must be used to grow plants indoors, ie. sun lamps etc., which can cause an electrical issue and/or fire hazard to the community. (albeit illegal operations typically get caught by police services due to the amount of hydro electricity being used to grow the plants)



The air quality threat: o o o



Although recently fire hydrants have been added to the 15 line on the south side of the proposed facility, the town is also only staffed by voluntary on call fire staff with a fire response time that is below that of a full time department.

Health Canada regulations require a zero emissions, therefore the pungent odour 'should' be contained to the building, but will this mean they will filter it out through the appropriate scrubbing system to make it safe for the residents nearby Humidity causes mold in indoor operations, even if this facility is a temporary operation, how will the facility be affected by the after effects? Will it be monitored for mould? “Grow houses” that are a constant scurge in the real estate market have to be either gutted or torn down and rebuilt when operations are discovered.

The Ontario Stock yards: o

Most of Ontario Cattle travel through the Stock yard, providing the cattle for consumption and dairy uses. Is there a threat of contamination of their drinking water or feed?

Respectfully these can, and are all valid concerns that require further investigation, research and planning as required by all regulators prior to any educated decision being made.

Sincerely,

Marco D. Colabella Village of Cookstown

DIANNE BRAVO 3822 15TH LINE, RR3, COOKSTOWN, ONTARIO, L0L 1L0 Tel: 416.668.2078 ~ email: iamdbravo@gmail.com Sept 8, 2014 Attention: Town of Innisfil Council, Re: Marijuana Facility Zoning Amendment Public Meeting I had the opportunity to attend the public meeting that took place September 3, 2014 and was able to speak to the planner on this file, directly following the meeting, about my concerns. Firstly, I wish to thank Council for listening to the town’s concerns as issues that were brought up in our letters (mine and my husband Marco Colabella) were asked by council members. It’s reassuring to know that our political representation is properly performing the challenging juggling act between facts presented in planning documents (official plans, applications, zoning bylaws etc..) and socially driven community issues that cannot be captured in numbers or statistics. I was able to discuss the three issues (brought up in my initial letter) with the planner in more detail drawing on points made throughout the meeting, including confirming that an application was made to Health Canada for the site in question. It was also brought to my attention that technically, Health Canada can approve the facility location anywhere but instead has taken the courteous approach of working with the municipality/town. I can appreciate the slippery slope the town is tasked to tread on but upon further research, believe the town has viable options in its corner.

1. Distance to residential lot I understand a 70 m buffer is the MOE guideline and that potentially increasing this buffer further may trigger the application going to the OMB, which tends not to favour the communities but more so the developers/applicants as the focus in on facts and numbers. I was told that other towns with increased buffers, such as Caledon with a 150 m buffer, have been appealed to the OMB. I suggest following Chatham-Kent’s approach with a 70 m buffer but an increased buffer in rural areas (i.e. 100m). I also understand that this buffer can be measured in three ways, lot-to-lot, use-to-use and lotto-use and that the planning department has opted for a hybrid use-to-lot (from the facility to

the lot of the residential zone) approach. If I understood correctly, the lot-to-lot measurement is an MOE guideline. Why did the planning department choose the MOE guideline of 70 m but did not carry through with the MOE guideline of lot-to-lot? I propose a 70 m buffer to start, a 100 m buffer in rural areas and a lot-to-lot measurement of this buffer. Should this be appealed to the OMB, at least the facts being presented are from Provincial guidelines, the same level of government as the OMB. Another option is to keep the 70 m buffer in general and a lot-to-lot measurement. Either of these options would prevent the proposed site from being used and may make it difficult for the OMB to disagree with the town as they would then be disagreeing with the guidelines developed by their own level of government. Additionally, disagreeing with the town and their own guidelines could show them favouring the applicant. I also propose that the planning staff research the currently operating marijuana facilities to see how close the nearest residential lot is. Should there be no other currently operating marijuana facility located directly across the street from a house, then why is it socially acceptable to propose this in Cookstown.

2. Water supply I was please to hear the planner confirm that the facility would hook-up to the municipal line available and not draw the substantial volume of water needed for the facility from a well. He advised the feasibility of such a hook-up has been checked and that there is capacity on the municipal line. I understand amending the zoning bylaw to state that municipal access be mandatory would push this application and future applications into agricultural land, which the town is trying to avoid. I propose amending the bylaw to read g) â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Access to municipal water supply is mandatory if available, however in the case that municipal water supply is not available, a private water supply would require justification that there is sufficient water for daily usage....â&#x20AC;?

3. Wastewater Disposal Discharging wastewater into a sanitary sewer is not an option as one does not exist. This was confirmed by the planner I spoke with but this was the one topic the planner was not able to provide further insight on. A septic system should not be an option due to the reasons listed in my previous letter that hinder proper filtration and therefore removal of impurities. Additionally, would the soil not be

saturated given the large volume of water that would continuously be flowing into the leach field, thereby hindering the process of removing impurities? I noticed there was a sewers bylaw proposed earlier this year. Some common contaminants that would be found in the facilities wastewater (and was found in the appendices of the bylaw) would be BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), phosphorus, (TSS) total suspended solids and metals, like copper. A sewer bylaw has limits on such contaminants as the treatment plant, which mechanically removes impurities cannot handle substantial concentrations of contaminants. If the mechanical removal process cannot handle these concentrations than how can nature handle it given it is a slower process that can only handle a certain volume of water with a certain concentration of contaminants at a time. I suspect this is why septic systems are commonly used for residential dwellings discharging smaller volumes of water and with smaller concentrations of contaminants and even then, they can get clogged and not work properly. The most logical option, for both the town and facility operator, is to have the facility install a wastewater treatment system onsite that reclaims or recycles the now â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cleanedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; water to then be reused towards watering the plants. This presents a cost benefit to the operator as they would be paying for less water in the long run, a main resource they require to produce their product. A septic system for the washroom and kitchen facility should be viable as this would mimic that of a residential dwelling but the wastewater discharged through product operation needs to be handled separately. I propose amending the bylaw to read h) â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Access to municipal sanitary sewer is mandatory if available, however in the case of a private on-site disposal system, private septic system must be considered last and the Town will require confirmation that discharge from the facility can be safely treated in a private on-site disposal alternative to a private septic system first. This way, the facility is not being denied the use of a private septic system but being asked to perform their due diligence to convince the town why any other private on-site disposal alternative would not work. Lastly, the town needs to exercise its legal right in section 13 of the bylaw (Authority of Designated Sewer Officer to Investigate) and closely sample and monitor the wastewater being discharged from this facility.

I am still opposed to the facility simply based on the fact that a residential home is located directly across the street. Surely, are there no other sites in rural Innisfil that the town can suggest as an alternative? Still a concerned resident of 3822 15th Line, the third closest house to the proposed facility, Dianne Bravo

SARAH CURRIE 4040, 15TH Line, R.R. #3 Cookstown, Ontario L0L 1L0

TELEPHONE (705) 458-4358 FAX NO : (705) 458-8654 Email:bgcurrie@sympatico.ca

Dated:September 9th, 2014

THE TOWN OF INNISFIL, 2101 INNISFIL BEACH ROAD INNISFIL, ONTARIO L9S 1A1 ATTENTION: THE CLERK’S DEPARTMENT Dear SIRS/MADAM Re: The “LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRODUCTION FACILITY” in Cookstown at 3745 Hwy 89, close to the Burger Pit restaurant. Further to my letter of August 29th, I wish to reconfirm that we do recognize that medical marijuana serves a valuable purpose for some Canadians who are not well and can only find relief from this, so long as they do not get addicted to this substance and the taxpayers have the burden of rehab costs. However, until the long-terms social, financial and mental effects are known of how marijuana facilities impact rural areas and communities and data can be provided to support these effects, I do not support this facility. Close to 200 people who signed the Petition which was submitted at the meeting on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014, and the list is growing do not support a facility in Cookstown, Ontario, more so because of the location too close to residential area, school, new development and in such a high traffic area being a focal point for everyone driving into our community. 1

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT THE LAST MEETING: LACK OF COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION: NO PUBLIC MEETINGS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE WERE HELD BEFORE THE INNISFIL JOURNAL RELEASED GENERAL INFORMATION ON AUGUST 7TH, 2014: As stated before if there was a meeting, 90 percent of the people in Cookstown whom we approached, were not aware of any meeting or announcement prior to the Innisfil Journal of August 7th, 2014. Most of them had not even read the article in the paper until I showed them the Journal. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: In the last election, we were promised that there would be transparency, however, we have not seen much of that yet. “Strong, open communication with residents in all communities”, when will this be in affect, after another election? Our elected officials don’t hear the cry of the people who elected them; rather they take into consideration the suggestions of everyone else as they see tax dollars to enhance more spending. Remember, it is the taxpayers who have put you where you are and expect you to represent us, and not fight us or ignore our concerns. We are told of what is happening in the community and really we have no choice in whatever decisions are made as they are made before the taxpayers are made aware. Where is our democratic right as residents of Cookstown. LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE: NOT ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE FOR MEETING. Time has to be taken to study the pros and cons of this and put to the residents at least in the neighboring vicinity and see what their views are and take into consideration their suggestions. I do appreciate time given to the taxpayers to submit any further concerns by September 10th, 2014. THIS DECISION IS VERY SERIOUS: We have had more letters in our mailboxes about the road resurfacing than this plant, which will affect us for a long time. As a matter of fact, we had nothing given to us even though we live on the same street where the proposed site backs.

DISTANCE: A distance of 70 meters away from residence is too little and we are seeking at least 100 meters from boundary to boundary i.e. lot to lot. These were the guidelines set out by the MOE. My question to Mayor Barb Baguley and Council is: why were these guidelines that were set out by MOE changed by the planning department? There are two houses within 30 meters in question. The Innisfil Journal of August 7th, 2014, has quoted Mr. Ragogna saying â&#x20AC;&#x153;There are no residential homes in the immediate areaâ&#x20AC;?. I guess Mr. Ragogna did not look the whole property over BEFORE HE MADE THAT STATEMENT, or may be he did not go behind the building to see what was around. There is also a house on Highway 89, on the north side. If you have to put a Marijuana Grow Op., and would like to have one in our Township, and need an Industrialized part of Innisfil, we urge you to consider a location on Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach Road far away from any residential or agricultural areas. I believe Councillor Lynn Dolin mentioned something to that effect, although it was not very clear what she meant. You could have all the security you want, as there are a lot of businesses in the area. The police, fire rails, the alarm personnel would not be disrupting anyone and no one would be bothered by the noise as a result of the three organizations. VALUE OF OUR PROPERTIES, OUR WELLS, THE WATER TABLE, DRAINAGE, POLICING, SECURITY, CRIME, HIKING OF INSURANCE RATES OR EVEN CANCELLING OUR POLICIES: Were will the water go i.e. drainage, will it go into the river or go into our water table? What about our wells and our septic system? Has anyone given it a thought as to what possible crime and break-ins that this could bring into Cookstown? We all know that when people want to break in, they are really not afraid of lights, alarms and security. When there was a chase on Highway 400 couple of years ago, they came into Mr. Sorensen's property and tried to steal his truck as a run-away vehicle. He had a joy of fixing his truck that was damaged at his cost. When Don Coffeys were there they had all the lighting and alarm system and yet there were break-ins on a regular basis. The one that comes to my mind is the thieves backed into the wall, smashed it to gain access, then loaded the truck and took off before the police could get there.

LEGACY: WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO HAND DOWN TO OUR CHILDREN/GRAND CHILDREN OR MAY BE EVEN GREAT GRAND CHILDREN: On the one hand as Mr. Gregory Cox stated our children in the schools and at home are taught the dangers of drinking and drugs, while our Elected Officials are endorsing a Marijuana Grow Operation in our town, which is supposed to be a Heritage Town?? Will this add to our town? Does this fit in with the term “Heritage Town? We visited the two sites one in Stayner as well as the other in Cash Town Corners and the people were not given an opportunity to voice an opinion. I am attaching some photographs for your information. Council told me that they talked with the council in Cash Town Corners and were told that there was no objection by the public and there was no smell whatsoever. We talked to the two neighbors, who were not very close, as shown in the photographs, they told us they were not given an opportunity to say Yes or No. They made several calls to the Mayor and Council and no one returned their calls. With regards to the NO SMELL, yes, there is no smell. However, we find out that the place is not yet in operation and is awaiting the license, no wonder “NO SMELL”. TRANSPARENCY?? As for the location in Stayner, we talked with the people around the place and they did confirm that there was a pungent smell, as well as there was the disturbance of the alarm, fire rails, police etc. These people were also not given the option to say Yes or No. I am absolutely surprised that it was stated several times by both Mayor Barb Baguley and Mr. Tim Crane, that there was no “specific planning application” made and there was no specific location in question. Yet, four of the Council members, Mr. Paul Pentikainen, the news media and Mr. Ragogna knew where the location in question was as well as there was an application of some sort made. It was only after I said I was told personally that there was application made, that Mayor Barb Baguley asked Mr. Tim Crane and he said, yes and then no. TRANSPARENCY???? Both Mr. Sorensen and I were also told by Kim Creamer that we did not 4

need to be at the meeting before 6.30p.m. Had we not come before, we would not have known the outline and information that both Mr. Crane and Mr. Pentikainen gave and we would have again been unaware of what was said. TRANSPARENCY???? When good people do nothing, evil will prevail. The Word says that “When the righteous rule, the people are blessed” also “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. Mayor Barb Baguley, Councillor Lynn Dollin and members of the Innisfil Council, I ask you on behalf of the people of Cookstown to see that the people of Cookstown are blessed and don’t die from lack of knowledge. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to put forth my suggestions as well as those that I have talked with. Yours truly

Sarah Currie

Item E.1 Council Agenda Sept 17/14 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW NO. 071-14 A By-Law of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil to establish and maintain a By-Law concerning the procurement of goods, services and construction. RECITALS: A. All municipalities and local boards shall adopt and maintain policies concerning the procurement of goods and services, pursuant to Section 270 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. B. The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil (“Town”) is committed to ensuring that its procurement decisions are open, fair and transparent. C. Purchases made by the Town should reflect the best value for the taxpayer, protect the Town’s financial interest and encourage competitive bidding. D. Effective planning, monitoring and control of public sector procurement are essential for maintaining public trust and confidence. E. The Town must be prepared to manage extraordinary circumstances from time to time, which may require immediate procurement decisions that are necessary to prevent or alleviate serious delay, a threat to public health, safety or welfare, the disruption of essential services or damage to public property, or to respond to an emergency. F. This Purchasing By-Law is designed to work in conjunction with “best practices” Purchasing Procedures, which are administratively held and managed by staff as approved by the CAO or Deputy CAO. G. This Purchasing By-Law has been developed to meet the specific needs of the Town. H. Town Council has deemed it expedient to repeal Corporate Purchasing Policy CP.19-07-05, revised by Council Resolution 232-08.11, and replace it with this By-law. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil enacts the following.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 1 of 38

Table of Contents PART I ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.

DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

PART II .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Title and Administration of By-Law ............................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Validity and Severability ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.5 Interpretation ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.6 Public Purchasing Code of Ethics ................................................................................................................... 9

PART III ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.

PURCHASING PRINCIPLES & GOALS ...................................................................................................................... 11

PART IV ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.

GENERAL CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 12 4.9 Standardization ............................................................................................................................................ 12 4.10 No Local Preference and Non-Discrimination ............................................................................................. 12 4.11 Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest ..................................................................................................... 13 4.12 Lobbying Restrictions ................................................................................................................................... 13 4.13 Access to Information .................................................................................................................................. 13 4.14 Persons with Disabilities .............................................................................................................................. 13 4.15 Green Procurement ...................................................................................................................................... 13 4.16 Legal Claims.................................................................................................................................................. 13 4.17 Collusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.18 Elected Officials and Committee Members ................................................................................................. 14 4.19 Disposal of Surplus Goods or Assets ............................................................................................................ 14 5. REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVED FUNDS ................................................................................................................. 14 Insufficient Budget at Time of Award of Solicitation ............................................................................................... 14 6. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................... 15 Overall Considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 15 6.1 Purchasing Staff ........................................................................................................................................... 15 6.2 Managers ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 6.3 Treasurer ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 6.4 Chief Administrative Officer or Deputy Chief Administrative Officer ......................................................... 17 PART V ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18 7.

STANDARD METHODS OF PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................................ 18 7.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 7.2 Low Cost Purchase (LCP) .............................................................................................................................. 18 7.3 Informal Request for Quotation (RFQ) ........................................................................................................ 18 7.4 Formal Request for Quotation (RFQ) ........................................................................................................... 18 7.5 Request for Tender (RFT).............................................................................................................................. 18 7.6 Informal Request for Proposal (RFP) ........................................................................................................... 19 7.7 Formal Request for Proposal (RFP) .............................................................................................................. 19 7.8 Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) .............................................................................................................. 19 7.9 Request for Information (RFI) ...................................................................................................................... 20 7.10 Request for Expression of Interest (RFEOI) .................................................................................................. 20 7.11 Request for Prequalification (RFPQ) ............................................................................................................ 20

PART VI ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22 8.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................ 22 8.1 Single Source ................................................................................................................................................ 22 8.2 Sole Source ................................................................................................................................................... 22 8.3 Emergency Purchase .................................................................................................................................... 22

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 2 of 38

8.4 8.5 8.6

Cooperative Purchase .................................................................................................................................. 23 Unsolicited Proposal..................................................................................................................................... 23 Negotiated Purchase .................................................................................................................................... 23

PART VII ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 9.

OTHER .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 9.1 In-House Bids ................................................................................................................................................ 24 9.2 Specifications ................................................................................................................................................ 24 9.3 Corporate Purchasing Card .......................................................................................................................... 24 9.4 Bid Review Committee ................................................................................................................................. 24 9.5 Evaluation Committee ................................................................................................................................. 24 9.6 Tie Bids ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 9.7 Vendor Performance ................................................................................................................................... 25 9.8 Alternative Dispute Resolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Competitive Bid Process Protest ............................................................ 25 9.9 Alternative Dispute Resolution - Contract Disputes .................................................................................... 25 9.10 Contract Change Order ................................................................................................................................ 25 9.11 Council Reporting ......................................................................................................................................... 26 9.11.1 Memorandum to Council ......................................................................................................................... 26 9.11.2 Council Approval ...................................................................................................................................... 26

SCHEDULE A ................................................................................................................................................................ 28 GOODS & SERVICES EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASING BY-LAW ........................................................... 28 SCHEDULE B ................................................................................................................................................................ 30 SUMMARY OF THRESHOLDS FOR PURCHASING ............................................................................................................. 30

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 3 of 38

PART I

1. DEFINITIONS In this By-Law, “Acquisition” means the purchase of Goods, Services and/or Construction; “Acquisition Method” means the process by which Goods, Services and/or Construction are purchased; "Advertisement" means the public communication of bid opportunities through one or more predetermined methods that may include, electronic mail, newspaper, electronic tendering method (e.g. Biddingo), to ensure an open, fair, transparent and competitive solicitation process; “Agreement” means a legal document that binds the Town and other parties; “Alternative Dispute Resolution” means a series of steps put in place to resolve competitive bid process protests and Contract disputes without the use of litigation, where the unresolved issue is raised to a higher level of authority, as required, with the hope that a solution satisfactory to both parties has been found; “Approval” means authorization to proceed with a purchase of Goods, Services and/or Construction or a Disposal; “Award” means the authorization to proceed with the purchase of Goods, Services and/or Construction from a selected Proponent(s); “Bid” means an offer or submission received from a Proponent in response to a Call for Bid, which is subject to acceptance or rejection; “Bidder” means the entity or person who submits a response to a Request for Quote, Request for Tender or Request for Standing Offer; “Bid Irregularity” means a deviation between the requirements (including terms, conditions, specifications, or special instructions) of a Bid Request and the information provided in a Bid; “Bid Request” means a written request for Bids or a solicitation, which may be in the form of a Call for Bid; “Bid Review Committee” means a committee constituted to review Bid Irregularities as required; “Call for Bid” means a formal or informal request for Bid, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Town’s Bid documents, that may be in the form of a Request for Quotation, Proposal, Tender, or Standing Offer; “Chief Administrative Officer” or “CAO” means the person appointed to that position as approved by Council and includes his or her Designate; “Collusion” means an activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of dividing the market, setting prices, limiting production, or limiting open competition, by THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 4 of 38

deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law, typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage; “Compliant Bid” or “Complaint Bidder/Proponent” means a responsive and responsible Bid or Bidder/Proponent that submits a Bid, respectively, that meets all requirements stipulated in the Call for Bid and that possesses the capacity and ability, including financial and technical abilities, to perform as contractually required; “Conflict of Interest” means a situation where the existence of a personal or business relationship or interest of an elected official, officer or employee of the Town creates a potential conflict with the best interest of the Town; “Construction” means a creation, reconstruction, demolition, repair or renovation of a building, structure or other civil engineering or architectural work, including site preparation, excavation, drilling, seismic investigations, soil investigations, the supply of products and materials and equipment and machinery if they are included in and incidental to the construction, and the installation and repair of fixtures of a building, structure or other civil engineering design or architectural work, but DOES NOT include the Consulting and Professional Services related to the construction Contract unless they are included in the specifications for that Procurement; “Consulting and Professional Services” means those services requiring the skills of a specialist for a defined service and includes architects, engineers, designers, surveyors, planners, accountants, auditors, management professionals, marketing professionals, software and information technology experts, financial consultants, lawyers, law firms, real estate agents and brokers, environmental planners and engineers, hydro geologists, transportation planners and engineers, communications consultants and any other consulting or professional services required by the Town; “Contract” means a legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates an obligation to supply Goods, Services and/or Construction in return for money or other consideration; “Contract Change Order” or “CCO” means a mutually agreed upon addition to, deletion from, or modification of a Contract between the Town and the Vendor that could not have been reasonably foreseen and thereby included in the Call for Bid document; “Cooperative Purchase” means an Acquisition Method that combines the requirements of two or more entities in order to obtain the benefits of volume purchases and/or reduction in administrative effort and costs; “Corporate Purchasing Card” means a credit card issued to an authorized Town staff member to be used for procuring and paying for Goods and Services within established guidelines; “Council” means the Council of the Town comprised of elected officials; “Deputy Chief Administrative Officer” or “Deputy CAO” means the person(s) appointed to those position(s) as approved by Council and includes his or her Designate(s); “Designate” means a person authorized by the CAO, Deputy CAO, Manager or Supervisor to act on his or her behalf;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 5 of 38

“Disposal” means the removal of physical materials or assets owned by the Town and deemed to be Surplus through its sale, trade-in, auction, alternative use, gift, or destruction; “Emergency Purchase” means an Acquisition that does not follow the regular procurement process because of a circumstance described in Section 8.3 of this by-law; “Evaluation Committee” means a group of individuals involved in evaluating submissions and may include one or more representatives from Purchasing Services to facilitate the process where required in accordance with the Purchasing Procedures; “GBAPPC” means the Georgian Bay Area Public Purchasing Cooperative; “Goods” means moveable property including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, or manufacturing such moveable property, and any necessary raw materials, products, supplies, equipment and other physical objects of every kind and description whether in solid, liquid, gaseous or electronic form, unless they are procured as part of a Construction Contract; “Lease” means a time limited grant of either real or personal property from the owner of that property (known as the “lessor”) to another party (known as the “lessee”), under which the lessee is entitled to the use and benefit of the property in question for the period so granted, in exchange for the payment of a stipulated rent or other consideration to the owner; “Low Cost Purchases” or “LCP” means a purchase of Goods, Services and/or Construction at the thresholds indicated in this Purchasing By-Law; “Manager” means the person responsible for direction and operational control of a Town’s service area or authorized Designate(s); “Negotiation” means the action or process of conferring with one or more Vendors with the goal of reaching an agreement on an Acquisition made pursuant to this Purchasing By-law; “Procurement” means purchasing, renting, leasing or otherwise acquiring any Goods, Services and/or Construction, including the description of requirements, solicitation method, selection of sources, preparation and Award of Contract and all phases of the contract administration; “Proponent” means the entity or person who submits a response to a Request for Proposal or Request for Pre-Qualification; “Purchase Order” means a Contract with a successful Bidder/Proponent that has a unique number issued by the Purchasing Services, which formalizes the acceptance of an offer received in accordance with this Purchasing By-Law; “Purchasing Procedures” means the administrative document that establishes procedures to be followed by Town staff for Acquisition that represents “best practices” and that is consistent with the intent of the Purchasing By-Law; “Purchasing Services” means the service area of the Town responsible for facilitating and overseeing Acquisitions for the Town; THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 6 of 38

"Request for Expression of Interest” or “RFEOI” means a written, formal, non-binding solicitation document to determine if there is any interest in the market place to provide the Goods, Services and/or Construction that the Town is contemplating procuring. It is typically used when it is unknown if a market for the desired Goods, Services and/or Construction exists. A subsequent Call for Bid may follow an RFEOI; “Request for Information” or “RFI” means a written, formal, non-binding solicitation document to obtain information on product or service details, comments, feedback or reactions from potential Bidders/Proponents prior to issuing a Call for Bid. It is typically used when the specifications are unknown. Price is generally not required. Feedback may include best practices, industry standards, and technology issues; "Request for Pre-Qualification” or “RFPQ” means a written, formal, non-binding solicitation document to obtain detailed information from firms and/or individuals that may include their experience, financial strength, education, background and personnel, to prequalify to supply Goods, Services and/or Construction to the Town. The RFPQ may be a precondition to a further Call for Bid opportunity; "Request for Proposal” or document to obtain proposal specifications are not able to evaluation factor. RFP’s may multi-step process;

“RFP” means a written, informal or formal, Call for Bid submissions from firms and/or individuals where detailed be clearly identified and/or where price is not the primary have provisions for Negotiations and may be in a single or

“Request for Quotation” or “RFQ” means a written, informal or formal, Call for Bid document used for Acquisitions based on clearly defined specifications; “Request for Tender” or “RFT” means a written, formal, Call for Bid document used for Acquisitions based on clearly defined specifications and where the sealed bids are opened in the public; “Request for Standing Offer” or “RFSO” means a written, formal, Call for Bid document used for Acquisition based on clearly defined specifications from one or more Vendors to provide pricing for a defined time period on an “as needed” basis, where there are no defined quantities nor commitment to utilize the awarded Vendor(s); “Service” means the services to be provided under a contract and includes labour and Consulting and Professional Services; "Single Source" means the Procurement decision whereby Acquisitions are made from one source where other sources may be available; “Sole Source” means the Procurement decision whereby Acquisitions are made from one source where only one source of supply exists that meets the requirements of the Town; “Surplus” means Goods fully owned by the Town that have been deemed surplus by the relevant Manager and are no longer required by the Town; “Tender” means a Bid specifically provided in response to a Request for Tenders; “Town” means The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 7 of 38

“Treasurer” means the person as appointed by Council and includes his or her Designate(s); “Unsolicited Proposal” means an offer or proposal submitted by a contractor, supplier, Vendor or consultant, in the absence of a Call for Bid. It may be submitted in response to a perceived need but not in response to a Call for Bid; “Vendor(s)” means the entity or individual who may or does currently supply Goods, Services and/or Construction to the Town;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 8 of 38

PART II 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1

Purpose The purposes of this Purchasing By-Law are set out in the Recitals and they form part of the operative provisions of this by-law.

2.2

Application This Purchasing By-Law applies to all elected officials, committee members and staff of the Town.

2.3

Title and Administration of By-Law This by-law may be referred to as the “Purchasing By-Law”. Purchasing Services, under the direction of the Treasurer, is responsible for the administration of this bylaw, which includes updating and evaluating for effectiveness, as appropriate but no later than every five (5) years.

2.4

Validity and Severability Should any section, subsection, clause, paragraph or provision of the by-law be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the decision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Purchasing By-Law as a whole.

2.5

Interpretation In this Purchasing By-Law,

2.6

The word "may" is permissive.

ii.

The words "shall" and “will” are imperative.

iii.

Words used in the present terms include the future.

iv.

Words in the singular number include the plural number and vice versa.

Where staff of the Town are authorized to do any act, such act may be done by their authorized delegate unless specifically stated otherwise.

vi.

Where the context so requires, the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neutral genders and vice versa.

Public Purchasing Code of Ethics All employees authorized to purchase Goods, Services and/or Construction on behalf of the Town shall adhere to the following principles, which are based on the tenets of the Ontario Public Buyer Association’s Code of Ethics: i.

Open and Honest Dealings with Everyone Who is Involved in the Purchasing Process. This includes all businesses with which the Town contracts or from which it purchases Goods and Services, as well as all members of staff and of the public who utilize the services of Purchasing Services.

ii.

Fair and Impartial Award Recommendations for All Contracts and Tenders. This means that the Town does not extend preferential treatment to any Vendor, including local companies. Not only is it against the law, it is not good business practice, since it limits fair and open

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 9 of 38

competition for all Vendors and is therefore a detriment to obtaining the best possible value for each tax dollar. iii.

An Irreproachable Standard of Personal Integrity on the Part of All Those Designated as Authorized Purchasers for the Town. Absolutely no gifts or favours are accepted by any employee or elected official of the Town in return for business or the consideration of business. Also, employees and elected officials do not publicly endorse one company in order to give that company an advantage over others.

iv.

Cooperation with Other Public Agencies in Order to Obtain the Best Possible Value for every Tax Dollar. The Town is a member of a cooperative purchasing group. Made up of several public agencies, this group pools its expertise and resources in order to practice good value analysis and to purchase Goods and Services in volume and save tax dollars.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 10 of 38

PART III 3. PURCHASING PRINCIPLES & GOALS The Town adheres to the following purchasing principles: 3.1

To purchase, rent or Lease the required quality and quantity of Goods, Services and/or Construction by promoting an open, fair, and transparent competitive process in an efficient, professional and cost effective manner while maintaining budgetary control and protecting the best interests of the Town.

3.2

To encourage an open fair and transparent competitive processes for the Acquisition and Disposal of Goods and Services and to obtain the best value for the Town.

3.3

To offer a variety of Acquisition Methods and to use the most appropriate method depending on the particular circumstances of the Acquisition.

3.4

To consider all costs and factors, including, but not limited to, Acquisition, operating, training, maintenance, quality, warranty, payment terms, Disposal value and Disposal costs, in evaluating submissions.

3.5

To utilize comprehensive and unbiased specifications.

3.6

To give full consideration to the annual aggregate value or to consider the total project cost of specific Goods, Services and/or Construction that will be required by each department and by the Town as a whole prior to determining the appropriate Acquisition Method.

3.7

To conduct centralized procurement through Purchasing Services.

3.8

To encourage the purchase of Goods, Services and Construction with due regard to the preservation of the natural environment; Vendors may be selected to supply Goods made by methods resulting in the least damage to the environment and supply Goods incorporating recycled materials where practicable.

3.9

To avoid real and perceived conflicts between the interests of the Town and those of the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, elected officials and committee members and to ensure compliance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.5, as amended.

3.10 To promote respect for international and interprovincial trade treaties and agreements. 3.11 To promote and incorporate, whenever possible, the relevant requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 32 and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11, in Procurement for the Town.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 11 of 38

PART IV 4. GENERAL CONDITIONS 4.1

No Town staff, elected official or committee member shall purchase or offer to purchase, on behalf of the Town, any Goods, Services or Construction except in accordance with this by-law and following the rules set out in the Purchasing Procedures, as amended from time to time.

4.2

Any employee who intentionally and knowingly acquires or disposes of any Goods or Services for the Town in contravention of this Purchasing By-Law or the Purchasing Procedures, as amended from time to time, may be subject to disciplinary action.

4.3

Exceptions to this by-law are identified in Schedule A.

4.4

All purchases must have appropriate pre-approved funding and must be authorized prior to the preperation of a Call for Bid.

4.5

A Manager shall not Award where the Treasurer has determined that the provisions of this Purchasing By-Law have not been adhered to and he or she has so advised the Manager.

4.6

No employee or designated representative for the Town shall prepare, design or otherwise structure Procurement, select a valuation method or divide Procurement requirements into two or more parts in order to circumvent any obligation and/or threshold of this by-law.

4.7

The Town shall not enter into any Contract for Goods, Services or Construction where there would be the establishment of an employee-employer relationship, except as exempted under Schedule A.

4.8

For the purpose of determining whether a Contract falls within the prescribed financial limits on Contracts that may be awarded under the authority of a Manager or provides for financial limits on Contracts required to be reported to Council, the Contract amount shall be the sum of all costs to be paid to the Proponent under the Contract, including the non-rebated portion of tax.

4.9

Standardization It shall be the intent of the Town, wherever possible, to standardize the purchase of Goods, Services and Construction to allow for: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix.

reduced amount of Goods, Services and Construction required; increased volume on common cross departmental items or services; maximizing volume buying opportunities; providing economies of scale; reduced handling, training and storage costs; minimizing maintenance costs; Cooperative Purchasing activities; more competitive Bid results; and reduced overall costs.

4.10 No Local Preference and Non-Discrimination The Town shall not practice local preference in awarding purchases, pursuant to the Discriminatory Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D12; Agreement of Internal Trade Implementation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 17; and, the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 12 of 38

4.11 Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest All Procurement by the Town shall be undertaken in accordance with the Town’s Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Policy CP.03-10, as amended, the Town’s Code of Conduct for Member of Council Policy CP.01-13-02, as amended, and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R,S.O. 1990, c.M.50, as amended. 4.12 Lobbying Restrictions 4.12.1 Vendors, their staff, or anyone involved in preparing a Bid shall not engage in any form of political or other lobbying whatsoever or seek to influence the outcome of the purchasing process or subsequent Award. This restriction extends to all of the Town’s elected officials, committee members and staff. 4.12.2 No Town’s elected officials, committee members, or employees shall provide information regarding the Town’s need for a specific Good, Service or Construction to prospective Vendors where the provision of the knowledge could provide an unfair advantage whether perceived or actual to that Vendor. 4.12.3 The Town may reject any Bid by any Bidder/Proponent that engages in lobbying, without further consideration, and may terminate that Bidder’s/Proponent’s right to continue in the purchasing process. 4.12.4 During a formal Call for Bid process, all communications shall be made through Purchasing Services. No Vendor or person acting on behalf of a Vendor or group of Vendors, shall contact any elected official, committee member or employee of the Town to attempt to seek information or to influence the Award. This restriction extends to all of the Town’s elected officials, committee members and staff. 4.13 Access to Information The disclosure of information received in relation to a Call to Bid or the Award shall only be made by the appropriate staff in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, as amended. 4.14 Persons with Disabilities When procuring Goods, Services and Construction, the Town will incorporate accessibility criteria and features when applicable and practical as may be required from time to time by applicable legislation. When applicable, Procurement documents will specify the desired accessibility criteria to be met and provide guidelines for the evaluation of proposals in respect of those criteria. When it is not practical for the Town to incorporate accessibility criteria and features for Acquisition, the Supervisor of Purchasing or service area Manager will provide a written explanation, upon request. 4.15 Green Procurement Through Acquisitions, the Town’s staff are encouraged to seek ways of enhancing environmental sustainability by incorporating green Procurement requirements where possible, practical and feasible. 4.16 Legal Claims The Town reserves the right to neither accept nor Award to any Bidder/Proponent, inclusive of its sub-contractor(s), a Contract with who the Town is in litigation.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 13 of 38

4.17 Collusion Collusion will not be tolerated and Bids may be rejected without further consideration if Collusion is suspected or present. 4.18 Elected Officials and Committee Members Elected officials and committee members shall completely separate themselves from the Procurement process. This includes but is not limited to obtaining information on any particular Procurement and participating as an evaluation member in any Procurement process. 4.19 Disposal of Surplus Goods or Assets No staff member, elected official or committee member shall personally obtain any real or personal property with a market value of greater than $500 that has been declared Surplus, unless it is obtained through a public process. 5. REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVED FUNDS 5.1

The beginning of the Procurement process commences with the approval by Council of the operating and capital budgets for the Town. Upon approval of these budgets, Managers and Purchasing Services staff have the authority to purchase Goods, Services and Construction (excluding leasing of greater than one year, which requires Council approval). Managers are authorized to spend up to fifty percent (50%) of the previous year's approved operating budget before receiving the current budget yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approval from Council.

5.2

Sufficient funds must be allocated for each Acquisition in the appropriate accounts within the Council approved operating or capital budget prior to the Award and execution of the Contract.

5.3

Where certain Goods and Services are routinely purchased on a multi-year basis, the exercise of authority to Award and execute such a Contract is subject to the following: i. ii.

the identification and availability of sufficient funds in appropriate accounts for the current year within Council approved estimates; and the opinion of the service area Manager that the requirement for the Goods or Services will continue to exist in subsequent years and the concurrence of the Treasurer that the required funding can reasonably be expected to be made available.

5.4

Acquisitions that are deemed by a Manager to be necessary but that are not in the approved capital budget must be approved by Council prior to the commencement of the solicitation process.

5.5

Acquisitions that are deemed by a Manager to be necessary but that are not in the approved operating budget must be approved by Council prior to the commencement of the solicitation process if the Acquisition value is over $50,000. Insufficient Budget at Time of Award of Solicitation In the event that the Bid that is recommended for Award exceeds the approved funds available, the Town may pursue any of the following options: i.

Council may add additional funds to the approved budget, provided that there are sufficient funds available to allow the Town to Award. Managers are required to submit a Staff Report to Council seeking approval of the additional funds, unless the following condition applies:

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 14 of 38

(a) The total cost of the Goods, Services and/or Construction does not exceed the approved budget by $50,000. In that case, the Manager shall submit a request for additional funding to the CAO or Deputy CAO, and Treasurer. The CAO or Deputy CAO, and Treasurer, shall identify the additional funding sources required for the unfavourable variance and approve the request at their discretion. A memorandum to Council shall be provided where the approved additional funding has been approved by the CAO or Deputy CAO, and Treasurer, where the amount is between $25,000 and $50,000. ii. iii. iv. v.

Award part of the Call for Bid; Negotiate if the Call for Bid permits it; Cancel the Call for Bid; or, Materially revise the Call for Bid and issue the revised Call for Bid.

6. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES Overall Considerations Town Staff are accountable for the decisions and actions which they take pursuant to this by-Law and in the administration of Contracts that have been Awarded. 6.1

Purchasing Staff

6.1.1 Purchasing Staff shall

6.1.2

Monitor adherence to the provisions of this by-law and the Purchasing Procedures and report any noncompliance to the Treasurer.

ii.

Provide Procurement advice and related services, including the necessary forms, Contracts, and Call for Bid document templates (in consultation with Legal Services) that may be required by departments for the purposes of fulfilling the Procurement needs of the Town.

iii.

Facilitating all aspects of the Call for Bid process including creating and issuing the Call for Bid documents, opening, verifying compliance with the terms and conditions of the Call for Bid as well as facilitating the Award and execution of all Agreements and Contracts. Additionally, where applicable, facilitate Contract extensions, Contract Change Orders, Vendor performance, dispute resolution, additional funding, and Contract termination.

iv.

Facilitate the Disposal of physical materials and assets that have been deemed Surplus by Managers through one of the methods outlined in the Purchasing Procedures.

Act as the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s representative with other public agencies including the GBAPPC, Broader Public Sector (BPS), Ontario Shared Services (OSS), Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM), Ministry of Government Services (MGS), on initiatives where such involvement is in the best interest of the Town.

vi.

Where applicable, participate in Negotiations.

The Supervisor of Purchasing shall i.

Review and may authorize all Single, Sole and Emergency Purchase Acquisitions in conjunction with the Manager or CAO or Deputy CAO depending on the threshold of the Acquisition; and,

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 15 of 38

ii.

6.2

Managers

6.2.1

6.3

Prepare an annual summary report for the Treasurer to present to Council for all Single, Sole and Emergency Purchase Acquisitions that meet or exceed the thresholds outlined in Schedule B.

Managers shall i.

Be responsible for Procurement activities within his or her department and shall be accountable for determining and achieving specific objectives as outlined for each Procurement project.

ii.

Ensure that there are sufficient funds available and identified for all purchase requests.

iii.

Have the authority to Award and execute Contracts based on the requirements of this by-law up to the thresholds as per their signing authority.

iv.

Along with their staff, ensure that Legal Services reviews in advance Vendor agreement templates.

Along with their staff, be responsible for monitoring and documenting Vendor performance and compliance with Contracts as outlined in the Vendor Performance section of this by-law.

vi.

Along with their staff, ensure that Contract Change Order forms are properly completed with appropriate approvals and then issued to Purchasing Services to process.

vii.

Along with their staff, ensure that additional funding forms are properly completed with appropriate approvals and then issued to Purchasing Services to process. The required additional funding must be in place prior to the execution of the Contract or amendment thereto.

viii.

Ensure that Emergency Purchase, Sole Source and Single Source forms are completed and issued to Purchasing Services for review prior to Contract commitment consistent with the requirements outlined in Schedule B.

ix.

Managers are responsible to notify Purchasing Services once an item has been deemed as a Surplus asset over $500 for Sale or Disposal as outlined in the Purchasing Procedures.

Managers are responsible for reviewing all contemplated Lease agreements with Legal Services, Purchasing Services and the Treasurer. The Treasurer may recommend that a staff report be prepared for Council consideration as the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s debt capacity may be impacted.

Treasurer

6.3.1

In the absence of Purchasing Services Staff, the Treasurer may act in their place.

6.3.2

The Treasurer shall address all instances of non-compliance of this by-law with the appropriate Manager(s) and continued non-compliance shall be reported to the CAO or Deputy CAO.

6.3.3

The Treasurer together with a Manager has the authority to Award Emergency Purchases as outlined in Schedule B.

6.3.4

The Treasurer shall present to Council an annual summary report prepared by the Supervisor of Purchasing for all Single, Sole and Emergency Purchase Acquisitions that meet or exceed the thresholds outlined on Schedule B.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 16 of 38

6.3.5

6.4

The Treasurer together with the CAO or Deputy CAO may authorize the approval of additional funding for new operating Acquisitions or additions to Acquisitions that are over the value authorized by Council, but cumulatively per project does not exceed $50,000.

Chief Administrative Officer or Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

6.4.1

The CAO or Deputy CAO shall ensure that all staff adhere to this by-law and Purchasing Procedures and shall address any non-compliance that the Treasurer has brought to their attention.

6.4.2

The CAO or Deputy CAO may authorize the approval of any Contract Change Order that is in excess of the service area authority level, providing that the conditions outlined in the Contract Change Order section of this by-law have been satisfied.

6.4.3

The CAO or Deputy CAO together with the Treasurer may approve additional funding for new operating Acquisitions or additions to Acquisitions that are over the value authorized by Council, but that cumulatively the per project cost does not exceed $50,000.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 17 of 38

PART V 7. STANDARD METHODS OF PROCUREMENT 7.1

General The Acquisition Methods described below shall be utilized, unless another section of this by-law applies, as recommended by the Supervisor of Purchasing and shall be advertised, reported, approved and the Contract executed in accordance with the provisions of this by-law and in accordance with Schedule B.

7.2

Low Cost Purchase (LCP) A Low Cost Purchase (LCP) shall be conducted for Acquisitions not covered under an existing Contract or otherwise requiring another Acquisition Method as described in this by-law. Acquisitions within this category are not to be repetitive or ongoing and are instead intended to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;one-offâ&#x20AC;? or small, multiple purchases with a cumulative value not exceeding the prescribed threshold. Where practical, three written quotes should be solicited to ensure that a fair and competitive process has been conducted. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters for this Acquisition method are outlined in Schedule B.

7.3

Informal Request for Quotation (RFQ) Use of an Informal Request for Quotation for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used only when specifications can be clearly defined: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation should be issued to a minimum of three (3) Bidders; 3. Award of the Contract shall be to the lowest Compliant Bidder; and, 4. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

7.4

Formal Request for Quotation (RFQ) Use of a Formal Request for Quotation for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used only when specifications can be clearly defined: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 3. Award of the Contract shall be to the lowest Compliant Bidder; 4. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

7.5

Request for Tender (RFT) Use of a Request for Tender for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used only when specifications can be clearly defined: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 18 of 38

3. A public Tender opening shall be conducted on the Tender closing date as outlined in the Call for Bid document; 4. Award of the Contract shall be to the lowest Compliant Bidder; 5. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B. 7.6

Informal Request for Proposal (RFP) Use of an Informal Request for Proposal for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and may be used when specifications cannot be clearly defined: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation should be issued to a minimum of three (3) Proponents; 3. Evaluation will be based on the criterion as outlined in the Call for Bid document of which price is only one criterion; 4. Award of the Contract shall be issued to the highest scoring Compliant Proponent; 5. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

7.7

Formal Request for Proposal (RFP) Use of a Formal Request for Proposal for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and may be used when specifications cannot be clearly defined: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 3. Evaluation will be based on the criterion as outlined in the Call for Bid document of which, price is only one criterion; 4. Award of the Contract shall be issued or Negotiated (where permitted) with the highest scoring Compliant Proponent; 5. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

7.8

Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) Use of a Request for Standing Offer for Goods, Services and Construction shall be used when (i) there is a need to develop a short list of qualified Proponents that have the capabilities to meet the Town’s requirements; (ii) specifications can be clearly defined; and, (iii) there is a need for a roster list of Vendors for their services that will be provided on an “as needed or required” basis. RFSO shall follow the process outlined below: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. Solicitation shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 3. Evaluation will be based on the criterion as outlined in the Call for Bid document; 4. Selection methodology of the Proponent’s will be as outlined in the Call for Bid document;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 19 of 38

5. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B. 7.9

Request for Information (RFI) Use of a Request for Information for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used when the requesting service area is seeking information, clarification, comments, feedback and/or reactions from the marketplace that may assist in compiling a potential future Call for Bids: 1. A written, formal, non-binding document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the RFI; 2. If applicable, the RFI may request publicly available commodity cost details for the purpose of budget planning; 3. An RFI submission shall not create any contractual obligation between the Town and the respondent; 4. The RFI document shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 5. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

7.10 Request for Expression of Interest (RFEOI) Use of a Request for Expression of Interest for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used when there is uncertainty regarding the market availability and interest in providing the Goods, Services and/or Construction for which the Town is contemplating Acquisition to assist with a potential future Call for Bids: 1. A written, formal, non-binding document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the RFEOI; 2. An RFEOI submission shall not create any contractual obligation between the Town and the respondent; 3. The RFEOI document shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 4. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B. 7.11 Request for Prequalification (RFPQ) Use of a Request for Prequalification for Goods, Services and Construction shall follow the process outlined below and shall be used when the work is considered complex, high risk or there is a need to develop a short list of qualified Proponents that have the capabilities to meet the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirements for an initial phase of a two or more phase solicitation process: 1. A Call for Bid document shall be issued to the service area by Purchasing Services for the solicitation; 2. A subsequent Call for Bid document will be issued as outlined in the RFPQ only to the prequalified Proponents; 3. An RFPQ submission shall not create any contractual obligation between the Town and the Proponent; 4. Solicitation shall be advertised through an electronic tendering method; 5. Evaluation will be based on the criterion as outlined in the Call for Bid document; 6. Selection methodology of the prequalified Proponentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will be as outlined in the Call for Bid document; THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 20 of 38

7. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 21 of 38

PART VI 8. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROCUREMENT 8.1

Single Source A Single Source may only be used when one of the following circumstances applies: 1. A Good or Service is compatible with an existing Town owned Good or Service where a substitute Good or Service is available, however the warranty, maintenance, or service will be affected if the substitute is used and it is therefore not in the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best interest to use the substitute; 2. A Good or Service is in short supply due to market conditions; 3. When either no Bids or no Compliant Bids were received in a Call for Bid process; 4. Specific Standards are adopted by Council requiring certain Goods or Services; 5. A Good or Service is being purchased for defined testing or a trial use period; 6. A Good or Service is of a confidential condition or matter and where the disclosure of such in an open competition could compromise confidentiality of the Vendor or the Town or be contrary to public interest; or, 7. When the Town has a Lease with a purchase option and exercising the purchase option would benefit the Town. Negotiations may be used with a Single Source. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

8.2

Sole Source A Sole Source may only be used when one of the following circumstances applies: 1. A Good or Service is covered by an exclusive right such as a patent, copyright or exclusive licence; or, 2. A Good or Service is compatible with an existing Town owned Good or Service or is a replacement part for which there are no substitutes. Negotiations may be used with a Sole Source. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B.

8.3

Emergency Purchase An Emergency Purchase may be authorized by a Manager in collaboration with the Treasurer when it is required to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

prevent or alleviate serious delay; maintain essential Town services; maintain security or order; protect public property; protect human, animal or plant life or health or prevent or alleviate a threat to same; 6. comply with official orders issued by an upper tier government (e.g. Province); or, 7. comply with the Emergency Response Plan or respond to a State of Emergency.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 22 of 38

Negotiations may be permitted and used with this type of purchase. The threshold, advertising, approval and purchase execution parameters are outlined in Schedule B. 8.4

Cooperative Purchase Cooperative Purchases are encouraged through any public sector agency where it is in the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best interest. Deviations from this by-law may be required and are permitted when engaging with Cooperative Purchases because agencies may have different procurement procedures and strict compliance with all policies may not be practical.

8.5

Unsolicited Proposal An Unsolicited Proposal received by the Town shall be reviewed by the relevant Manager(s) and Purchasing Staff. Any Acquisitions resulting from the receipt of an Unsolicited Proposal shall comply with the provisions of this by-law.

8.6

Negotiated Purchase Negotiations during Acquisitions may be used under any of the following circumstances: 1. When only one submission is received and it exceeds the amount allocated in the budget, Negotiations may be conducted provided that the selected Vendor is Compliant; 2. During a Single, Sole or Emergency Purchase; 3. When a competitive Bid process has been conducted and an extension of the Contract term is available as outlined in the original Call for Bid; 4. When a competitive Bid process has been conducted and the Contract has expired or will shortly expire and unforeseeable circumstances have caused a delay in issuing a new Call for Bid; in such cases, the Contract extension should not extend beyond a one (1) year term; 5. Where a competitive Bid process has been conducted and expanded works or coordinated works are appropriate in the circumstances.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 23 of 38

PART VII 9. OTHER 9.1

In-House Bids The acceptance and Award of in-house Bids shall require the prior approval of Council and only be permitted where private sector Vendors have also been given an opportunity to submit Bids.

9.2

Specifications

9.2.1

Service area staff are responsible for the preparation of the specifications for the applicable Acquisition Method and same shall be approved by the appropriate person(s) within the service area.

9.2.2

Purchasing Services may review and recommend amendments to the specifications. The service area and Purchasing Services shall collaborate in the finalization of the specifications and associated Procurement documents.

9.2.3

Specifications should be clear and concise. They must not be structured to restrict or limit competition due to brand or other similar requirements. They shall allow for potential Vendors to provide alternatives in the event that an equivalent product or method is available. Biasing of specifications in favour of, or against, a particular Good or Service is prohibited. Nothing in this section restricts the ability to design specifications in unique situations, e.g. standardization or compatibility with existing Goods or Services.

9.2.4

Vendors may be requested to expend time, money and effort on the content or in the development of a specification(s) or otherwise help define a requirement to be contained in the specifications that may be used in a Procurement document. A Vendor who provides such assistance shall be deemed as a consultant of the Town and the specifications are deemed property of the Town. Such a Vendor shall be prohibited from submitting a response to a Call for Bid for which those specifications apply.

9.3

Corporate Purchasing Card

9.3.1

Acquisitions made with the corporate purchasing card must comply with this by-law and the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purchasing card program and applicable policies.

9.3.2

No personal purchases may be made with the corporate purchasing card that are not authorized by Town policy. Town Staff shall not use corporate purchases to gain personal points or other similar benefits in any Vendor reward program.

9.4

Bid Review Committee

9.4.1 Purchasing Services, in collaboration with Legal Services as required, is the Bid Review Committee who initially reviews submissions for compliancy to the Procurement document requirements. 9.4.2 When a Bid Irregularity is present, action shall be taken in accordance with the attached Bid Irregularity Schedule. 9.5

Evaluation Committee

9.5.1 Evaluation Committees are used with some Acquisition Methods to allot points according to the criteria and submission requirements in the Call for Bid. The highest scoring submission will be the successful Proponent, subject to the terms and conditions of the Call for Bid and this by-law. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 24 of 38

9.6

Tie Bids

9.6.1 In the case of a tie of the scores between two Compliant Bidders/Proponents, and where multiple Awards are not possible, the Town shall determine the successful Bidder/Proponent by a coin toss as outlined in the Purchasing Procedures. 9.6.2 In the case of a tie bid of the scores between three or more Compliant Bidders/Proponents, and where multiple Awards are not possible, the Town shall determine the successful Bidder/Proponent by a draw of the Bidder’s/Proponent’s names from a receptacle as outlined in the Purchasing Procedures. 9.7

Vendor Performance

9.7.1 Managers are responsible for monitoring and documenting Vendor performance and ensuring compliance with Contracts. Managers shall address performance issues directly with the Vendor to resolve and document all performance issues and acknowledgements related to same. 9.7.2 Purchasing Services shall be advised of Vendor performance issues in writing from the Manager. The Supervisor of Purchasing will consult with the Manager and Town Solicitor, where appropriate, to resolve any ongoing and/or escalating or unsatisfactory performance issues. If performance issues cannot be resolved, the Supervisor of Purchasing may, in consultation with Legal Services, terminate the Contract. 9.7.3 Any Vendor (or its subcontractors) that is involved in unprofessional conduct (the nature of which the Town will be the sole judge), a health and safety violation, criminally charged, or in dispute or litigation of any kind with the Town, the Town may terminate the Contract with that Vendor. That Vendor may also be excluded from bidding at the discretion of the Supervisor of Purchasing in consultation with the relevant Manager, and Legal Services where appropriate. The exclusion from bid participation shall not last longer than two years. 9.8

Alternative Dispute Resolution – Competitive Bid Process Protest

9.8.1 All Vendors dealing with the Town or bidding on potential Contracts shall resolve any and all disputes they have specific to the competitive Bid process through the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process described in the Call for Bid and shall agree to such process as part of any response to the competitive Bid process. 9.8.2 The Award of any Contract shall not be rescinded or the progress of any project delayed by a request for the use of the ADR unless recommended by the relevant Manager and/or CAO or Deputy CAO. 9.8.3 Any Vendor that has asked to participate in the ADR process will be provided with information by Purchasing Services to assist them to understand the Bid process and to assist them to improve their future Bid submissions for the Town. 9.9

Alternative Dispute Resolution - Contract Disputes Any Contract disputes that arise between the successful Bidder/Proponent and the Town during the term of the Contract shall be handled through the Contract dispute process as outlined within the Call for Bid or Contract.

9.10 Contract Change Order 9.10.1 A Contract Change Order may be executed by the service area Designate with appropriate signing authority provided that the total project cost has not exceeded the level authorized by Council. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 25 of 38

9.10.2 Where a Contract Change Order exceeds the service area Designate signing authority level, the CAO or Deputy CAO may approve the execution of the Contract Change Order provided that the total project cost has not exceeded the level authorized by Council. 9.10.3 Where a Contract Change Order or the cumulative value of the Contract Change Orders plus the original Contract price exceeds the level authorized by Council by less than $50,000, the service area Designate shall obtain the appropriate Additional Funding authorization from the CAO or Deputy CAO and Treasurer prior to executing the Contract Change Order. 9.10.4 Where a Contract Change Order or the cumulative value of the Contract Change Orders plus the original Contract price exceeds the overall level authorized by Council by more than $50,000, Council approval of additional funds is required. 9.10.5 Where a Contract Change Order is to be paid by a third party and the security to ensure payment is in place to the satisfaction of the Treasurer, the service area Designate may execute the Contract Change Order. Where a portion of the Contract Change Order is to be paid by the Town, the provisions of section of the by-law shall be followed. 9.10.6 Funding should be in place prior to approving the CCO and prior to the execution of the works. When it is not possible to complete the CCO prior to the execution of the works, it shall be completed as soon as possible after commencement. 9.11 Council Reporting 9.11.1 Memorandum to Council The service area Designate shall create a memorandum to Council to be included in the Council agenda for information purposes in the following circumstances: 1. The value of the Acquisition is greater than $1,000,001, but is within the level authorized by Council; 2. A Single Source, Sole Source or Emergency Purchase is greater than $10,001; 3. The CAO or Deputy CAO and Treasurer have approved additional funding to award a project that is over the level authorized by Council and the overage is between $25,000 and $50,000; or, 9.11.2 Council Approval The service area Designate shall create a staff report to be included in the Council agenda for consideration for approval in the following circumstances: 1. Where an Acquisition or Contract Change Order exceeds the level authorized by Council by more than $50,000; 2. Where the lowest Compliant Bid submission is not being recommended for Award; 3. Where the highest scoring Compliant Proponent proposal submission is not being recommended for Award; 4. Where provision(s) of this by-law are being waived; 5. Where the Acquisition of a tangible capital asset was not included in the approved capital budget;

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 26 of 38

6. Where Goods, Services or Construction were not included in the approved operating budget and is over $50,000; 7. Any Contract requiring approval from the Ontario Municipal Board; 8. Any Contract prescribed by statue to be authorized by Council; 9. Where Council has directed staff to provide a report for approval. PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

_________________________________ Barbara Baguley, Mayor

_________________________________ Karen Fraser, Acting Clerk

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 27 of 38

SCHEDULE A GOODS & SERVICES EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASING BY-LAW 1. Training and Education a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) 2.

Books Conferences Courses Conventions Memberships Seminars Periodicals Magazines Staff training Staff development Staff workshops Subscriptions

Refundable Employee Expenses a) b) c) d) e) f)

Advances Meal allowances Travel & Hotel accommodation Entertainment Mileage Miscellaneous – Non-Travel

3. Employer’s General Expenses a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

Payroll deduction remittances Licences (vehicles, elevators, radios, etc.) Debenture payments Grants to agencies/donations Payments of damages Tax remittances Charges to/from other Government or Crown Corporations Employee wages Freight charges

4. Professional and Special Services a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j)

Committee fees Witness fees Court reporters’ fees Honoraria Arbitrators Legal settlements Temporary Help Recreation Instructor Fees Courier Charges Legal fees

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 28 of 38

SCHEDULE A GOODS & SERVICES EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHAING BY-LAW (Continued) 5. Utilities/Other a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

Postage Water and sewer charges Hydro Cable television charges Telephone, connectivity (excluding cellular Services) Natural gas/propane Refunds and rebates to ratepayers Utility relocates by a public utility Vendor Collection Agencies (ex: Tax Sale Services)

6. Advertising a) Classified advertising such as help wanted, for sales, etc. b) Display advertising such as event notices c) Public Tender advertising

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 29 of 38

SCHEDULE B SUMMARY OF THRESHOLDS FOR PURCHASING Purchase Type

Purchase Threshold

Procurement Method 

Low Cost Purchase (LCP)

$0 - $10,000



 Informal Request for Quotation (RFQ)

$10,001 - $25,000



Formal Request for Quotation (RFQ)

$25,001 -$100,000



 Request for Tender (RFT)



Process facilitated by service area directly Three (3) written quotations where practical



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued to minimum of three (3) Vendors



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued



 

$10,001 - $25,000



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued to minimum of three (3) Vendors

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Approval 

Not Required



$100,001 +

 Informal Request for Proposal (RFP)

Advertising

 

By invitation through email; Optional: Electronic Tendering System



Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local Newspaper



Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired



By invitation through email; Optional: Electronic Tendering System



Purchase Execution

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to make (LCP) and; Assign a limit of spending/signing authority to staff The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Assign specific staff with a level of authority to enter into contract with the awarded Bidder The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Assign specific staff with a level of authority to enter into contract with the awarded Bidder or sign off on the award themselves

   

Petty Cash or; Corporate Purchasing Card or; Purchase Order and/or; Vendor invoice

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel enter into contract with the awarded Bidder

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Assign specific staff with a level of authority to enter into contract with the awarded Proponent

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

Page 30 of 38

Purchase Type

Purchase Threshold

Procurement Method 

Formal Request for Proposal (RFP)

 $25,001 +

 $0 - $25,000

 Informal Request for Proposal – For Consulting and Professional Services Only (RFP)

$25,001 - $75,000



Process facilitated by service area directly Three (3) written quotations where practical



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued



$75,001 +



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Approval

Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired



Not Required



 

 Formal Request for Proposal – For Consulting and Professional Services Only (RFP)



 Informal Request for Proposal – Low Cost Purchase – For Consulting and Professional Services Only (RFP)

Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued

Advertising

  

Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired



Purchase Execution

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel enter into contract with the awarded Proponent

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to make (LCP) and; Assign a limit of spending/signing authority to staff

  

Corporate Purchasing Card or; Purchase Order and/or; Vendor invoice

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel enter into contract with the awarded Proponent The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel enter into contract with the awarded Proponent

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order

Page 31 of 38

Purchase Type

Purchase Threshold

Procurement Method  

Request for Standing Offer (RFSO)

Not Applicable



Not Applicable



Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued

 

Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; RFI or EOI document issued

  



Single Source Or Sole Source



 Request for Information (RFI) or Expression of Interest (EOI)



Any Amount

 Request for Prequalification (RFPQ)

Process facilitated through Purchasing Services; Call For Bid issued

Advertising

Not applicable

$10,000 +



Approval

Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired



Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired



Electronic Tendering System; Optional: Local and/or Commercial Newspaper and/or; Other forms of advertising where desired Not Applicable

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel authorize the prequalification of the selected Bidders/Proponents

  

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order and/or Vendor Invoice

The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the Call for Bid and; Ensure that the appropriate signing personnel authorize the prequalification of the selected Proponents



Not applicable



The Manager shall authorize specific staff to create specifications for the RFI or EOI



Not applicable



Single/Sole Source Form submitted from the Manager or appropriate signing authority to Supervisor of Purchasing for approval of process before commitment of Acquisition is made; Vendor quotation is required; Memo to Council is required or; At the Manager or appropriate signing authority’s discretion, Council Approval may be requested

 

Contract Agreement and; Purchase Order



  

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Purchase Execution

Page 32 of 38

Purchase Type

Purchase Threshold

Procurement Method 

Not applicable

Advertising 

Not Applicable

Approval  

Emergency Purchase

$10,000 +

  

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Manager and Treasurer approval required and; Emergency Purchase Form submitted from Manager with above approval issued to Supervisor of Purchasing before commitment of Acquisition if possible and practical or as soon as possible after given the circumstance; Vendor quotation, if possible and practical given the circumstance; Memo to Council is required or; At the discretion of the Manager and Treasurer, Council Approval may be requested

Page 33 of 38

Purchase Execution  

Contract Agreement where possible given the circumstance and; Purchase Order

SCHEDULE C - BID IRREGULARITIES A bid irregularity is a deviation between the requirements (terms, conditions, specifications, special instructions) of a bid request and the information provided in a bid response. A "major irregularity" is a deviation from the bid request that affects the price, quality, quantity or delivery, and is material to the award. If the deviation is permitted, the Bidder/Proponent could gain an unfair advantage over competitors. Purchasing Services shall reject any bid, which contains a major irregularity. A "minor irregularity" is a deviation from the bid request, which affects form, rather than substance. The effect on the price, quality, quantity or delivery is not material to the award. If the deviation is permitted or corrected, the Bidder/Proponent would not gain an unfair advantage over competitors. Purchasing Services in consultation with Legal Services may permit the Bidder/Proponent to correct a minor irregularity. MATHEMATICAL ERRORS - RECTIFIED BY STAFF Purchasing Services and/or the service area will correct errors in mathematical extensions and/or taxes, and the unit prices will govern. ACTION TAKEN: 1. The Bid Review Committee shall be responsible for all action taken in dealing with bid irregularities, and acts in accordance with the nature of the irregularity:  major irregularity (automatic rejection)  minor irregularity (Bidder/Proponent may rectify)  mathematical error (additions or extensions) as above 2.

The list of irregularities in this schedule should not be considered all-inclusive. The Bid Review Committee will review minor irregularities not listed and acting in consensus shall have authority to waive other irregularities or grant two (2) business days to initial such irregularities, which they jointly consider to be minor.

In the event that the vendor withdraws its bid due to the identification of a major irregularity, The Town may disqualify such vendor from participating in Town quotations/tenders/requests for proposals for a period of up to one year.

Where a submitter has been given notice of a specified time period to correct an irregularity, the submitter shall be deemed to be in default of the process and, where applicable, the bid deposit shall be forfeited if the correction is not made. The submission will be given no further consideration for award.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 34 of 38

This Bid Irregularity List shall apply where the irregularity is with respect to a stated requirement of a Formal Call for Bid (RFQ, RFP, and RFT) or Information Gathering Bid (RFEOI, RFI, RFPQ) and where the submission must be received on/before a specified date and time.

ITEM IRREGULARITY GENERAL 1. 1Late Submissions 2. 2Unsealed Envelopes 3. 1Failure to attend mandatory site visit 3 4. 1Partial Submissions (all items not bid on) 6 5. Conditional Submissions (Submissions qualified, based on a Bidderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s/Proponentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s condition or restricted by an appended statement) 6. 2Submissions Containing Minor Obvious 7Clerical Errors that do not result in any ambiguity with respect to the overall submission and/or award decision 7. 2Submitter has not been previously qualified 8under a related pre-qualification process, where applicable 8. 2More than one submission from the same 9submitter and not identified as an alternative or optional submission or, no written withdrawal notice has been received 9. Failure to include required supplementary copies of the original at time of submission 10. Other Minor Irregularities 11. Any Irregularity

RESPONSE Automatic rejection, not read publicly and unopened to the Bidder/Proponent Automatic rejection Automatic rejection

returned

Acceptable unless complete submission has been specified in the request. Rejection unless, in the opinion of the Bid Review Committee, the qualification or restriction is minor and would not adversely affect an award decision and/or the total price Two (2) business days to correct and initial errors

Automatic Rejection

The submission package bearing the most recent date/time stamp will be considered the intended submission and the previously date/time stamped submissions will be considered withdrawn and, returned to the submitter Two (2) business days to submit The Bid Review Committee shall have the authority to waive irregularities, which are considered minor Despite the provisions herein contained, Council may waive any irregularity where it considers it to be in the best interest of the Town

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 35 of 38

BID DOCUMENTS 12. All required sections of the document not Automatic rejection unless, in the consensual opinion of completed Purchasing Services, Manager in charge of solicitation, and Legal Services, the incomplete nature is trivial or insignificant and does not affect the total price. 13. Un-initialled changes to the request Two (2) business days to correct and initial errors. The documents which are minor (e.g.; the Town reserves the right to waive initialling and accept of the Bidder’s/Proponent’s address is amended by submission overwriting but not initialled) 14. Incomplete, illegible or obscure submissions Automatic rejection; unless the Bid Review Committee or submissions which contain additions not deems the irregularity as called for, erasures, alterations, or strike-out immaterial and the irregularity is remedied by the errors or irregularities of any kind Bidder(s)/Proponent(s) – two (2) business days to correct 15. Submissions not completed in ink or Automatic rejection typewritten 16. Submissions not completed in English Automatic rejection 17. Failure to acknowledge addenda identified as Automatic rejection amending e.g.: results in financial implications 18. Failure to acknowledge addenda identified as Two (2) business days to acknowledge informational e.g.: closing date extended 19. Submissions received on Call for Bid Automatic rejection documents other than those provided on Tender Forms by the Town 20. Submissions received in envelopes other Acceptable if officially received on time than the tender envelopes supplied or proper Submission label used 21. Authority to bind the Town or signature Automatic rejection missing 22. Authority to bind the Town or signature not Automatic rejection an original (completed in ink) 23. Alternate items provided in whole or in part Available for further consideration unless specified otherwise in the request 24. Pages requiring completion of information by Automatic rejection Bidder/Proponent are missing

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 36 of 38

BID DEPOSIT 25. Bid Deposit or Bid Bond not submitted with submission 26. Bid Deposit or Bid Bond not in the acceptable form 27. Certified Cheque not certified 28. Amount on Bid Deposit or Bid Bond is incorrect and/or insufficient 29. Surety provider and/or Bidder’s/Proponent’s authorized signature missing from the Bid Bond 30. Effective period of Bid Bond is less than the irrevocable period stipulated in the call for bid document AGREEMENT TO BOND 31. Agreement to bond with the Town not submitted submission 32. Agreement to bond amount is incorrect and/or insufficient 33. Surety provider and/or Bidder’s/Proponent’s authorized signature missing from Agreement to Bond PRICING 34. Failure to include the Schedule(s) of Items & Prices, Price Form, or Price Details, as may be applicable, for inclusion with the submission 35. Pricing or signature pages missing 36. Submissions Containing Minor Mathematical Errors

Automatic rejection Automatic rejection Two (2) business days to rectify Two (2) business days to rectify Two (2) business days to rectify

Two (2) business days to rectify

Automatic rejection Two (2) business days to rectify Two (2) business days to rectify

Automatic rejection

Automatic rejection Two (2) business days to correct and initial errors. The Town reserves the right to waive initialling and accept submission. 37. Conditions placed by the Bidder/Proponent Automatic rejection on the Total Contract Price 38. Unit price has been changed but not initialled Two (2) business days to correct initial errors. The Town and the price extension is consistent with the reserves the right to waive initialling and accept bid unit price as amended 39. Unit price has been changed but not initialled Automatic rejection and the price extension is not consistent THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 37 of 38

with the unit price as amended 40. Unit price extension which is not consistent with the unit price 41. Other mathematical errors which are not consistent with the unit prices

The Town will correct the extension based on the unit price provided. Unit pricing will govern. Two (2) business days to initial corrections. Unit prices will govern. The Town reserves the right to waive initialling and accept submission. 42. Where an error has been made transferring The Town will update with the amount shown before the an amount from one part of the submission transfer, subject to any corrections noted in foregoing to another irregularities and the ensuing totals corrected accordingly 43. Pricing appears to be unbalanced to the Automatic rejection extent that it would have a significant adverse effect to the Town if awarded POST AWARD NOTIFICATION 44. Failure to execute required bonding or Automatic rejection and Bid Deposit forfeited financial security within the prescribed time period 45. Failure to execute a Contract Agreement Automatic rejection and Bid Deposit forfeited within the prescribed time period 46. Failure to provide supporting documents, as Automatic rejection and Bid Deposit forfeited specified within the bid document and within the prescribed time period

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL BY-LAW 071-14

Page 38 of 38

Privacy Disclaimer: Please note that, pursuant to the Town of Innisfil Collection, Use, Disclosure and Destruction of Information Policy (CP.02-07) information contained within the attached list is considered public information, unless otherwise stated.

APPENDIX 1 TO COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 INFORMATION LIST #16-14

ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AS INFORMATION Town Correspondence G.1

That the correspondence from Engineering Services dated September 4, 2014 addressed to Michelle Fowlie re: Booth Avenue “No Parking” sign request, be received as information.

G.2

That the correspondence from Engineering Services dated September 4, 2014 addressed to Mr. & Mrs. Lambert re: No Heavy Vehicle Parking Request, be received as information.

G.3

That the correspondence from Engineering Services dated September 4, 2014 addressed to Ms. D. Sykes re: Adullam Avenue Curb and Drainage, be received as information.

G.4

That the memorandum from Engineering Services dated August 7, 2014 address to the Innisfil Accessibility Advisory Committee (IAAC) re: GO Transit Bus Stops update, be received as information.

G.5

That the memorandum from Fire Services dated September 17, 2014 re: Fire Master Plan Implementation Plan and Update, be received as information.

Proclamations G.6.

That the proclamation request for Child Care Worker & Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day on October 29, 2014 is hereby proclaimed by the Town of Innisfil and the organization be so advised.

G.7

That the proclamation request for Waste Reduction Week on October 20 – 26, 2014 is hereby proclaimed by the Town of Innisfil and the organization be so advised.

G.8

That the proclamation request for International Day of Persons with Disabilities is hereby proclaimed by the Town of Innisfil and the organization be so advised.

Intergovernmental Correspondence G.9

That the correspondence from the County of Simcoe dated August 20, 2014 re: County Council Update Special Report for 2010-2014, be received as information. [Report is available on the County of Simcoe’s website]

Information List #16-14

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 3

G.10

That the correspondence from the County of Simcoe dated August 15, 2014 addressed to the Land Registry Office 51 re: Notice of Final Plan Approval to Land Registrar for Part Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 West of Albert Street, and Part of Block B, Reg. Plan 99 - Patson Holdings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dreamland Homes, be received as information. [original material provided to Planning Services]

G.11

That the News Release from Karen Wallace, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing dated August 18, 2014 re: Province Supporting the Infrastructure Needs of Small Communities, be received as information.

G.12

That the correspondence from the County of Simcoe dated August 14, 2014 re: 911 numbering of Simcoe County Forest Properties, be received as information.

Board and Agency Correspondence G.13

That the NVCA Media Release dated September 4, 2014 re: new memorial recognizes unsung heroes of the War of 1812, be received as information.

G.14

That the NVCA Media Release dated September 4, 2014 re: volunteers needed for Minesing Wetlands tree planting, be received as information.

G.15

That the NVCA Highlights of the NVCA Board of Directors dated August 22, 2014, be received as information.

G.16

That the correspondence from the Environmental and Land Tribunals Ontario â&#x20AC;&#x201C; OMB dated August 20, 2014 re: OMB Case # PL131258 and PL131260, Memorandum of Oral Decision issued June 4, 2014 for 1117 & 1103 Stoney Point, be received as information. [fwd to Planning & Legal Services August 26/14]

General Correspondence G.17

That the thank you letter from ICE Corp. dated August 13, 2014 re: Summerfest fee waiver requests, be received as information.

G.18

That the AMO Policy Update dated August 21, 2014, be received as information.

G.19

That the Procedural Order from the Court of the Drainage Referee dated September 3, 2014 re: South Innisfil Drain, be received as information. [Affecting Land Owners sent order September 4, 2014]

G.20

That the Bridge Expo 2014 Bridge Innovation Conference scheduled for November 4 & 5, 2014 at the Mississauga Convention Centre, be received as information.

ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA INDICATED FOR REVIEW & REPLY, WITH A COPY TO COUNCIL AS INFORMATION G.21

That the correspondence from The Crossroads Plaza dated August 14, 2014 re: garbage collection, be received and forwarded to the County of Simcoe for review and reply with a copy to Council as information.

Information List #16-14

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 3

G.22

That the correspondence from the Alcona Business Association dated August 7, 2014 re: garbage collection, be received and forward to the County of Simcoe for review and reply with a copy to Council as information.

G.23

That the correspondence from Ilze Andzans, Blue Flag Coordinator, Ontario dated September 2, 2014 re: Blue Flag Beaches Innisfil, be received and forwarded to Operation Services for review and reply with a copy to Council as information.

G.24

That the correspondence from Christa West and Joe Scott dated August 27, 2014 re: speed signs and removable speed bumps on Houston Ave, be received and forwarded to Engineering Services for review and reply with a copy to Council. [Ref: Item 9.2 on Council Agenda September 17/14]

ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA FOR ACTION AND REPLY, WITH A COPY TO COUNCIL AS INFORMATION G.25

That the petition in opposition of the proposed Medical Marihuana Production Facility in Cookstown, be received and forwarded to Planning Services for action and reply, with a copy to Council as information.

ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO SERVICE AREA INDICATED FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL [None received] Circulated: September 11, 2014

Item G.1 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

CAPITAL ENGINEERING Ref: CR-128-51.14 September 4, 2014 Ms. Michelle Fowlie 1166 Booth Avenue Innisfil, ON L9S 4W1 Dear Ms. Fowlie, Re: Booth Avenue “No Parking” Sign Request Further to your request for consideration of ‘no parking’ signage in front of 1168 Booth Avenue, Capital Engineering staff completed an investigation and recommended that parking restrictions be implemented. The Town adopted transportation policies in May 2013 which guide the evaluation of requests such as yours. Your request was evaluated under Policy No. CP.06-13-13, Parking and Stopping Regulations. After completing the investigation staff has recommended that a “No Parking” sign be installed on the north side of Booth Avenue in the landscaped portion between 1166 Booth Avenue and 1168 Booth Avenue due to its proximity to the intersection of Lamstone Street and Booth Avenue. Parking as described would impede the vision of oncoming traffic from vehicles turning at the intersection, preventing its safe use. The intersection was also evaluated under the Ministry of Transportation guidelines, and it meets the criteria that “No vehicle shall park within 9m of an intersection or 15m of an intersection controlled with traffic signals.” Booth Avenue is classified as a local road with a designated speed limit of 50km/h. A by-law with a recommendation to amend Parking By-law No. 070-11 and include ‘No Parking’ signage for this section of Booth Avenue was adopted by Council on September 3rd, 2014. Thank you for your correspondence. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Amber Leal, BSc., C.E.T. Engineering Technologist 705-436-3740 Ext. 3246 aleal@innisfil.ca c:

Council Info List J. Inwood, Operations D. Rodgers, Municipal Law Enforcement

Item G.2 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

CAPITAL ENGINEERING Ref: CR-128-50.14 September 4, 2014 Mr. & Mrs. Lambert 1178 Arnold Street. PO Box 362 Belle Ewart, ON L0L 1C0 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lambert, Re: No Heavy Vehicle Parking Request

Further to your request to add Arnold Street to Schedule C of the Town’s Parking By-Law No. 070-11, Capital Engineering staff completed an investigation and recommended that a by-law to prohibit heavy vehicle parking on Arnold Street be adopted.

The Town adopted transportation policies in May 2013 which guide the evaluation of requests such as yours. Your request was evaluated under Policy No. CP.06-13-13 Parking and Stopping Regulations. There are several sub sections in the Town’s parking by law that can be enforced to control the parking and stopping of vehicles on one or both sides of a local road, where parking or stopping obstructs traffic. Section 8.1.8 of the by-law reads that “No person shall park a vehicle or permit a vehicle to remain parked on any highway/roadway where the width of roadway is six metres or less.” Arnold Street is classified as a local road. It has an average pavement width of 6 metres, and therefore meets the criteria for prohibiting heavy or large vehicle parking. A by-law with a recommendation to amend Schedule ‘C’ of the Town’s Parking By-law No. 070-11 to prohibit heavy vehicle parking on Arnold Street was adopted by Council on September 3rd, 2014. Thank you for your correspondence. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Amber Leal, BSc., C.E.T. Engineering Technologist 705-436-3740 Ext. 3246 aleal@innisfil.ca c:

Council Info List J. Inwood, Operations D. Rodgers, Municipal Law Enforcement

Item G.3 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS CR-121-26-14 G.18 September 4, 2014 Ms. D. Sykes 1058 Lebanon Drive Innisfil, ON, L9S 2B7 Re: Adullam Avenue Curb and Drainage

We are providing follow up information based on your discussions with Town staff as a result of your correspondence to Council dated July 11, 2014. In your letter you outlined concerns with construction of curbing and ditch works along your property from Adullam Avenue to Lebanon Drive. As you are aware, these modifications and improvements to Adullam Avenue are being made as part of the Bremont Homes subdivision development. Following is the Operations Staff and Engineering Staff response to your concerns. Road Width & Snow Load You raised the concern that the road widening will result in additional snow being pushed onto your property. There will be minimal widening of Adullam on the east side to accommodate the new curb, bringing it from a rural design to an urban design. Snow plowing of an urban curbed road will result in minimal change in snow pushed to your property, and the curb will assist in controlling the melt off and subsequent flow to your property. Flooding from Spring Thaw You were concerned about flooding to your property after the spring thaw. Staff have noted that any previous flooding to your property has largely been from the existing Lebanon road. The new urban curbing for the east side of Adullam will actually reduce the flows draining towards Lebanon and eliminate the Adullam road drainage along the road ditch of your property. Also as part of the improvements on Adullam, the design requires the east ditch to be re-graded and driveway culverts replaced to eliminate any existing high points that may have caused ponding previously. Further to your request for the wood retaining walls to be re-instated around the culvert on either side of your driveway, Operations staff have inspected the existing retaining walls and confirm that they meet minimum Town Standards. Change in Ditch & Snow Removal You noted that the change in the ditch will result in snow being pushed on your property. An urban curbed road on Adullam will collect road drainage along the western portion of the property which

Ms. D. Sykes Adullam Avenue Curb & Drainage September 4, 2014

will minimize drainage to the existing ditch that currently takes road flows in a rural condition. A portion of the driveways on the east side of Adullam will be positively graded to the road to contain storm drainage along the new curb to collect to the new road storm/catchbasin system. Snow plowing of an urban curbed road will result in minimal change in snow pushed to the Town ditch, and the curb will assist in controlling the melt off and subsequent flow to your property. The new Adullam construction works will be completed as per approved design drawings. Curb Along Adullam Ending at Lebanon You were concerned that the curb ending before your driveway will result in drainage onto your driveway, however as noted previously the new curbing on the east side of Adullam will reduce the flows draining toward Lebanon and eliminate Adullam road drainage along the Adullam ditch on the west side of your property. The new curb will terminate at the end of the road intersection radius and angle 45 degrees toward the Lebanon road ditch to allow the remaining drainage into the ditch before it reaches your driveway. As previously communicated by Town Staff, we consider this matter to be closed. As agreed, staff can be available once construction is completed in full to review the finished works. Sincerely,

Carolyn Ali, Manager of Development Engineering

Jason Inwood, Manager of Operations

c: Council Info List

Page 2 of 2

Item G.4 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

CAPITAL ENGINEERING

MEMORANDUM DATE:

2014-08-07

TO:

Accessibility Committee

CC:

Ali Mustafa, Andy Campbell

FROM:

Amber Leal

SUBJECT:

Go Transit Bus Stops

The Town is working closely with Go Transit to have bus shelters and pads installed in select locations along Yonge Street in Innisfil by the end of this year. These bus shelters will be installed on both sides of the road at the following Go Bus stops:   

North of Hwy. 89 in front of Trotter’s Trucking (The bus stop will be relocated from Gilford Rd.); South of Killarney Beach Road in Churchill; and Victoria Street in Stroud.

In addition to installing bus shelters with concrete pads, Go Transit has also committed to paying for the installation of asphalt pads at the following GO Bus Stops:   

East side of Yonge Street, north of Glenn Avenue in front of Rexall Pharmacy; West side of Yonge Street, south of Lynn Street in front of Tim Horton’s; and West side of Yonge Street, north of Lynn Street.

In addition to the above items, GO Transit has committed to compensating the Town for consulting engineering items including design documents, tender documents and construction costs for this project. The design and specifications for civil works for this project provided by the engineering consultant C.C. Tatham and Associates Ltd. will include grading a level pad for the shelter and the associated adjustment to ditches, curbs and driving lanes to facilitate the shelters and excavation and placement of granulars and asphalt for the other locations without shelters. Their work plan is as follows:       

Topographic survey of each location; Registry office search to confirm the location of existing property lines; Identification of the drainage catchment area on west side of Yonge Street, north of Highway 89, and hydraulic analysis to determine culvert sizing under the concrete pad along the roadside ditch; Detailed design of each bus stop location; Preparation of a single tender document for all sites based of Town’s standard template; Preparation of construction cost estimate; One review meeting with the Town of Innisfil and one site visit;

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Two submission to the town (90% Drawings, cost estimate, and tender document) and final submission based on comments received from the Town.

Currently C.C. Tatham is surveying the above mentioned areas and once completed the engineering drawings, cost estimates and tender documents for all sites will follow within four weeks. Engineering and Legal are working closely with Go Transit to finalize an agreement between Metrolinx and the Town of Innisfil for use of the property where the shelters will be located. The works is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2014.

Page 2 of 2

Item G.5 Info. List 16.14 Sept. 17/14 Fire and Emergency Services

MEMORANDUM DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

CC:

N/A

FROM:

Jon Pegg, Fire Chief

SUBJECT:

Fire Master Plan Implementation Plan and Update

During 2013, a Fire Master Plan update was conducted. The plan was adopted by council on June 19, 2013 (DSR-109-13.) As part of the adoption, Council directed the Fire Chief to complete a multi-year implementation plan to achieve the service level standards approved by Council. The following is an update on the status of the recommendations contained in the plan and is divided into three categories: projects that are complete, projects that are underway and projects that will be addressed in the future. Completed Projects Project Name Replace Tanker #4 (Cookstown)

Horizon Identified in Master Plan Immediate

Renewal of Tanker Shuttle Accreditation

Immediate

Implement the position of Training Officer

Immediate

Date Completed New truck was delivered in July 2014 and is now in service. A rating of 1900 litres per min was successfully achieved in May 2013 and is valid for a period of 5 years. Interim step included the hiring of a training coordinator in February 2014, position made into permanent Training Officer July 2014.

Projects Underway Project Name Rebuild Station #2 (Lefroy) including a new headquarters and large training room

Horizon Identified in Master Plan Short Term

Rebuild Station #4 (Cookstown)

Short Term

Part time administrative support position Purchase 2 vehicles for staff transport to be located at station #2 (Lefroy) and station #3 (Stroud)

Short Term

Address staffing levels (multiple options were identified in the Master Plan)

Short/mid/long Term

Live fire training facility rental/partnership

Long Term (2017-2022)

Mid Term (2014-2016)

Expected Completion April 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;funding included in 2014 capital program, the design build has been awarded and construction is underway. November 2015 - funding included in 2014 capital program and the design build has been awarded. September 2014 2015 - 2014 capital expenditure included a new vehicle (assigned to the Chief) with a reallocation of one vehicle at station #3. Capital budget for 2015 will be presented to council requesting the second required vehicle. 2016 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Council approved the hiring of 4 additional firefighters during 2014 as part of multi-year approach to address staffing needs. All 4 have been hired and are working rotating daytime shifts to meet the noted deficiency per the Fire Master Plan. Staffing program will be reviewed and presented to new council in future to meet the service level expectations per community needs and Fire Master Plan. 2016 - Fire service is currently investigating possible partnerships or rental options as live fire training is a requirement under the Health & Safety Act. Subject to progress related to above efforts, there is a potential to consider the acceleration of this project ahead of the timelines identified in the Master Plan.

Future Projects Page 2 of 3

Project Name Build a new Station 5 (Big Bay Point)

Horizon Identified in Master Plan Mid Term (2014-2016)

Purchase new pumper and tanker trucks for Station 5

Mid Term (2014-2016)

Increase Part Time Administrative position to full time

Long Term (2017-2022)

Expected Completion 2016 - Land has been allocated as part of the Friday Harbour development. A 9000 square foot station similar to the new Station 4 will be constructed. 2016 - This is expected to be completed as a capital project in 2016 and is required to serve the station 5 response area. 2016 - Based on growth and workload it is estimated that the part time position will be required on a full time basis in the near future (estimated to be required in 2016)

Page 3 of 3

Item G.6 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.7 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.8 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.9 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.10 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.11 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.12 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.13 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New memorial recognizes unsung heroes of the War of 1812 Utopia, Ontario, September 4, 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On September 11, the Friends of Historic Fort Willow and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority unveil a new memorial recognizing the heroic contributions of the men of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment of Fencible Infantry to the War of 1812. During the winter and spring of 1814, the Royal Newfoundlanders stationed at Fort Willow constructed 29 batteaux, a type of shallow-draft, flat-bottomed cargo boat. These boats were used to convey 30 tons of supplies down the Nottawasaga River and across Georgian Bay to British posts in the North West. With the Lower Great Lakes controlled by American forces at the time, these supplies provided the beleaguered troops stationed at Fort Michilimackinac with much needed relief. The new memorial acknowledges the dedication and sacrifice of the 200 men that made this daring journey and helped ensure British control of the North West for the rest of the war. The dedication ceremony takes place at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 11 at the Fort Willow Conservation Area in Springwater Township. Lt.-Col. Andrew Heale, Commanding Officer of the First Battalion of the present-day Royal Newfoundland Regiment will unveil the memorial. Lt.-Col. Heale will be joined by local historians and military reenactors. Members of the public are welcome to attend. For more information visit www.nvca.on.ca or www.fortwillow.com. - 30 About the NVCA: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is a public agency dedicated to the preservation of a healthy environment through specialized programs to protect, conserve and enhance our water, wetlands, forests and lands. www.nvca.on.ca

About the Friends of Historic Fort Willow: The Friends of Historic Fort Willow are volunteers working to preserve the original site and its reconstructed features and promote the historical, educational and recreational activities happening at the fort. www.fortwillow.com

Media contacts: Byron Wesson, Director of Land Operations and Stewardship Services 705-424-1479 ext. 224, bwesson@nvca.on.ca Peter Monahan, Friends of Historic Fort Willow 705-435-0953, petemonahan@sympatico.ca

Item G.14 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Volunteers needed for Minesing Wetlands Tree Plant Utopia, Ontario, September 4, 2014 – Volunteers are needed to help plant trees in the Minesing Wetlands Conservation Area on Sunday, September 14 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The event is part of TD Tree Days, a national program lead by TD Friends of the Environment Foundation. The program sees volunteers from “Brownies to bankers” plant trees to help the environment in their local community. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is pleased to work with TD on this event. The Minesing Wetlands planting event takes place between Barrie and Angus, at 2274 George Johnston Rd. in Springwater Township. Volunteers can register at www.tdtreedays.com. Community groups are welcome to participate, as are high school students wishing to count this event towards their required volunteer hours. Weather-appropriate and comfortable clothing, closed-toe shoes or rubber boots, gloves and bug spray are recommended. If possible, please B.Y.O.S. (bring your own shovel). For more information visit www.nvca.on.ca. - 30 About the NVCA: The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is a public agency dedicated to the preservation of a healthy environment through specialized programs to protect, conserve and enhance our water, wetlands, forests and lands. www.nvca.on.ca Media contacts: Shannon Stephens, NVCA Healthy Waters Program Coordinator 705-424-1479 ext. 239, sstephens@nvca.on.ca Heather Kepran, Communications Coordinator 705-424-1479 ext. 254, hkepran@nvca.on.ca

Item G.15 Info List 16-14 Sept 17/14

HIGHLIGHTS of the NVCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS No. 08/14 – August 22, 2014

Efficiency Audit Recommendations Released Next phase to focus on human resources and performance management The NVCA Board of Directors received 26 recommendations coming from Phase I of the authority’s efficiency audit, conducted by Gazda Houlne and Associates over the spring and summer of this year. These recommendations cover NVCA organization and staffing, service delivery, finance, human resources and corporate leadership, and board operations. Fifteen of these recommendations were prioritized by the board; the Efficiency Audit Committee will work with staff to detail how these items may be implemented, subject to direction from board. The board approved 15 additional recommendations coming from Phase II of the audit and related to performance management. They moved on these items immediately, contracting Gazda Houlne and Associates to prepare a performance management program for the senior management team. Gazda Houlne and Associates will also conduct a market compensation review to ensure that current rates of pay at NVCA are in-line with those of similar-sized authorities across the province. Updated Regulation Mapping Approved New pilot project to look at streamlining low-risk development permit approvals The board approved updates to the NVCA’s regulation mapping, which identifies areas of potential hazard related to development in wetlands and adjacent to waterways. The adjustments to the regulation limits in the mapping reflect the findings from new technical studies, engineering modelling and site visits. Further, they reflect information gathered by NVCA staff through an extensive consultation process with municipalities, landowners and other interested parties. The updated mapping includes the shoreline of Georgian Bay extending 5 km into the lake. In total, the new limits increase the amount of land regulated by NVCA by 8.65% along Georgian Bay, and 1.02% throughout the rest of the watershed. In addition to the updated mapping approval, the board agreed to a new pilot project that will look at streamlining low-risk development permit approvals. Working with member municipalities, staff will test a process for municipal approval of minor development activities in low-risk areas. This will simplify the process for many residents seeking permits and free NVCA staff to focus on more significant, higher risk development applications. It is anticipated that the streamlined approvals will cover minor development activities (such as pools, grain bins, sheds and other accessory structures) in regulated areas between 30 and 120 m of non-provincially significant wetlands. NVCA Board Meeting Highlights No. 08/14 – August 22, 2014

1 of 2

Tiffin Tornado Damage Update Board members received an update on the clean-up from the June 17 tornado that caused extensive damage at the Tiffin Conservation Area. Twelve acres of trees were downed by the storm and considerable educational, recreational and operational infrastructure was damaged or destroyed. To-date, trees have been removed from the affected area, electrical systems have been repaired and/or updated, and damaged outbuildings have been assessed for repair or replacement. The board agreed to release $3,000 from the revenue generated by sale of salvaged wood to assist with remaining clean-up activities that will not be covered by NVCA’s insurance. These funds will be used to purchase a small bulldozer to spread wood chips salvaged from tornado damaged trees to mulch areas to be replanted. Many community groups and corporate partners have volunteered their services to help with the replanting. NVCA Staff Recognized for Years of Service The board formally recognized four staff members for their years of service to the Authority: Naomi Saunders, environmental education assistant (5 yrs.); Laurie Barron, executive assistant (10 yrs.); Kimberly Winder, receptionist/administrative associate (15 yrs.); and Byron Wesson, director of lands, operations & stewardship services (25 yrs.).

For more information: Nina Bifolchi, Chair council4@wasagabeach.com For the full meeting agenda including documents and reports, visit the NVCA website at www.nvca.on.ca/about/boardofdirectors.

Future meetings & events: Sept 11 – Fort Willow Royal Newfoundland Regiment Memorial Dedication Ceremony (Fort Willow Conservation Area, Minesing) Sept 13 – Festival at Fort Willow (Fort Willow Conservation Area, Minesing)

NVCA Board Meeting Highlights No. 08/14 – August 22, 2014

Sept 14 – TD Tree Days Volunteer Planting Event (Minesing Wetlands, near Angus) Sept 16 to 20 – NVCA Displays at International Plowing Match (Ivy) Sept 26 – NVCA Board of Directors Meeting (Utopia Hall, Utopia)

2 of 2

Item G.16 Info List 16-14 Sept 17/14

Item G.17 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

1326 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON, L9S 4B7 Gord Wauchope, Chairman Phone: (705) 436-5388 Email: blackhawks2213@bell.net

August 13, 2014

Mayor Barb Baguley and Members of Council Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON, L9S 5A3 RE: Thanks to Council and Staff The Board and Members of ICECorp want to thank members of Council for their consideration and granting of our fee waiver requests for the 2014 Summerfest. Council graciously funded our request for a waiver of parking fees and also a waiver of fire inspection fees related to the fireworks inspection. These waivers, which were funded from the Council Discretionary Fund, greatly assisted us in advertising and attracting visitors to not only Summerfest, but Innisfil in general. We would also like to acknowledge with thanks the efforts of Innisfil Staff for assisting us in putting on Innisfil Summerfest. Members of the Special Event Permit team, Building Services, and Parks Staff were of great assistance. Special mention and thanks to Mel Milanovic, Parks Superintendent and Chris Jennings, Parks Lead Hand and their staff who facilitated in the preparation, worked diligently during the event and no doubt had there work cut out for them to restore the park following Summerfest. Without the cooperation of Council and Staff, it would be difficult to put on an event of Summerfestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size. Again many thanks. Respectfully submitted,

Gord Wauchope, Chairperson Innisfil Community Events Corporation

ICECorpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dedicated Signature and Community Sponsors Aqua Gem Companies

Item G.18 Info. List 16-14 Sept 17/14

POLICY UPDATE August 21, 2014 This Is What We Heard At The AMO Annual Conference – If You Were Not There, This Is Some of What You Missed…

On Municipal Governments and the Provincial Deficit: The Premier agreed that there needs to be better and on-going discussions so that our respective interests in fiscal wellbeing might be met. The comment was made in response to a question at the Ministers’ Forum about the need to end budget surprises for municipal governments (of which there were a number in the 2014 Budget), and to evaluate any potential fiscal changes in a cumulative manner, particularly as the province looks to its plan to balance its budget by 2017-18.

On reducing the cost of policing: The Premier said that it is a conversation she's willing to have; “We recognize we now have to do that work with the municipalities.” The Minister of Community Services and Correctional Services, the Hon. Yasir Naqvi told delegates that in early fall he will be receiving the report of the Future of Policing Advisory Committee (a committee which includes AMO and police service boards but mostly made up of representatives from police management and union associations). He assured municipalities that it would not languish on the Ministry’s shelf. AMO’s Modernization of Policing Task Force will work to provide further input.

On joint and several liability: The Attorney General, the Hon. Madeline Meilleur advised that she was not going ahead with any of her Ministry’s proposed solutions to provide some reasonable limits on the impacts of joint and several liability. In the spring, all Parties in the Legislature (including the Liberals) passed a motion which called on the government to implement a solution by this summer. The province is offering no lifeline for municipal governments when it comes to this matter and is siding with the trial lawyers and Law Commission of Ontario. (The Commission only reviewed joint and several liability in the context of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, legislation which does not apply to the municipal circumstance.) Delegates were extremely disappointed with the news, after a year of solid work to arrive at a potential solution that would help address a portion of the challenge. AMO has advised the government that it will not be easing up. Municipal governments cannot afford to be the insurer of last resort when at minimal fault or to assume the responsibility of others’ mistakes.

On interest arbitration: The Minister of Labour, the Hon. Kevin Flynn, advised that the government is prepared to deal with parts of this issue - namely shortening the timelines and process related to decision-making. However on the key municipal issue of ability to pay, the Minister advised he needed “more clarity”. AMO has provided and will continue to provide the needed clarity. Of interest to this issue is polling that Nic Nanos undertook for his presentation, one question related to fire and police personnel wages/benefits. 59% of those polled felt that fire and police personnel should have the same increase as other employees of the same municipality (32%) or a wage/benefit freeze (27%). Only 32% supported a sector to sector approach regardless of the municipal size. (Check out the AMO website for the entire Nanos Presentation and municipal issues polling results.)

200 University Ave., Suite 801 Toronto ON M5H 3C6 Canada | Tel: 416.971.9856 | Fax: 416.971.6191 | Toll‐Free in Ontario: 1.877.426.6527 | amo@amo.on.ca

On tools to collect POA fines: AMO and delegates pressed the government to re-introduce and pass this legislation in the fall legislative session. In 1997, we inherited responsibility for the administration of Provincial Offences Act however, without some additional collection tools, million upon millions of fines cannot be collected. AMO will continue to message the importance of progress on this and we are hopeful that this ‘ask’ will be realized sooner than later.

Improving Municipal Infrastructure: Premier Wynne announced the roll out of two funding sources – the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) and Build Canada Fund – Small Communities Fund (BCF-SCF). The OCIF is a permanent $100m fund for municipalities with less than 100,000 population and Northern Ontario cities. It will provide $50m on a formula basis to them and $50m on an application basis for critical infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, water and waste water) identified under asset management plans. A Guidebook is available now which sets out how the formula portion is to be calculated for allocation purposes, and the grant application process which begins with Expressions of Interest due September 19th. In addition, the Small Communities Component of the Build Canada Fund is now open for applications in Ontario. That process is also described in the Guidebook. The BCF-SCF is a 1/3rd share program with a total federal and provincial contribution of $544 m for municipal governments under 100,000 population. The eligible project categories are much larger. For details on both, got to: http://www.moi.gov.on.ca/en/infrastructure/building_together_mis/index.asp.

Double Hatter Firefighters: Full time firefighters bring substantial experience to fire services in many rural and small communities that they call home. However, if challenged by a local union, they often resign their volunteer work for fear of losing their permanent job. All volunteerism, including fire prevention and suppression by double hatters, should be celebrated, not litigated. AMO is seeking intervener status in a case that is going to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The issue of double hatters has been a systemic issue for a number of years and can no longer be tolerated. AMO will keep its members updated.

The Accountability Act (Bill 8): The Premier and Deputy Leader will be meeting with AMO in the near future to discuss transparency and accountability and the policy approach within the Bill. Power Dam Payments: The Premier acknowledged the “bad process” associated with the government’s plan to begin scaling back $4.4 million in payments over four years. She also indicated that the government would consider re-instating the municipal authority to tax these facilities to recover municipal revenue losses. These are some of the highlights of policy matters discussed during the conference and at the Ministers’ Forum. Check out AMO website over the coming days for presentations of both plenary and concurrent speakers on a range of current and emerging issues.

AMO Contact: Policy@amo.on.ca 416.971.9856

Item G.19 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.20 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Bridge Expo 2014 Bridge Innovation - For Now. For the Future Tuesday, November 4 & Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Mississauga Convention Centre Member Rate: $470 + HST

A two-day program and trade show covering the following topics: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Regulatory Changes Envision™ Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System Wildlife Crossings Pedestrian Bridges – Inspection & Maintenance Accelerated Bridge Construction Preservation of Heritage Bridges Value Engineering Rail Bridges Spray on Culvert Relining Alternative Finance Procurement Structural Health Monitoring Determining the REAL Lifecycle Costs of Structures InspecTech™ and Bridge Information Modeling Bridge Aesthetics

Online registration is available at www.ogra.org For Trade Show details, please contact Joe Tiernay at 289-291-6472 or joe@ogra.org.

www.OGRA.org

Item G.21 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.22 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

From: Ilze Andzans [mailto:iandzans@environmentaldefence.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:34 PM To: Barb Baguley, Mayor Subject: Blue Flag beaches in Innisfil

Item G.23 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Dear Mayor Baguley, As promised, I am following up on a conversation we had at the AMO Conference in London Ontario on August 17, where you expressed interest in the Blue Flag Program. The main web page for the program in Canada is: www blueflag.ca which provides the program description and the the application forms. There is no cost to apply. Once we receive you application, we can jointly conduct a feasibility study on site, examine the water testing results for the past 4 years and identify any improvements which might need to be made to ensure that you qualify as a Blue Flag beach. Once you are accepted into the program there is a nominal annual fee based on population and the number of accredited beaches in your community. It is recommended that you strike a Beach Management Committee comprised of representatives from various municipal departments, the public health unit, perhaps someone from your local Conservation Authority. In addition, it is important to form alliances with any active community groups that could help with practical improvements to the beach (e.g. beach cleanup or dune restoration projects or raising funds for capital projects such as boardwalks , playgrounds etc.). It is also important to involve people that could promote the Blue Flag in your community as part of a broader tourism strategy, such as members of your local BIA. Each Beach Management Committee is different, depending on the individuals most closely tied to beach management in your community. If we can arrange a meeting this fall and get the ball rolling, you could plan to announce that your beach as a candidate Blue Flag beach at the start of the next swimming season. I look forward to meeting with you or speaking to you on the phone at your earliest convenience and would like to see your beach as part of the Canadian Blue Flag Family. We are currently planning the Blue Flag workshops for the next year and they usually include information about beach management, control of invasive species, the link between beaches and tourism, best practices from other beaches in the program and the use of social media to promote your beach. We are also very fortunate to have the Great Lakes Beach Association Conference coming up in Toronto on November 12-14, 2014 (www.glin.net/glba/2014conference) and encourage you to attend. If you are not directly responsible for beach management, please forward this email to the person best placed to follow up on this and I would be very happy to speak to them. Thank you for your interest in the Blue Flag Program and looking forward to your response. Ilze Andzans Blue Flag Co-ordinator, Ontario Home office (Niagara-on-the-Lake):

289 868 9499

116 Spadina Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2K6 Tel: 416.323.9521 | Toll Free: 1.877.399.2333 | Fax: 416.323.9301 web: environmentaldefence.ca | twitter: @envirodefence | facebook: EnvironmentalDefenceCanada

Item G.24 Info. List 16-14 Sept. 17/14

Item G.25

APPENDIX 1 TO COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION LIST #16-14 A

SUPPLEMENTARY INFO. LIST ITEMS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; RECEIVED AS INFORMATION G.26

That the correspondence from McCormick Rankin dated September 5, 2014 re: Notice of Filing: Design and Construction Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; replacement of the Hwy. 89 Innisfil Creek Bridge by the Ministry of Transportation, be received as information.

G.27

That the correspondence from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change dated September 15, 2014 re: class environmental assessment for minor transmission facilities Notice of Completion of Class Environmental Assessment Review, Project No. 05070, be received as information.

G.28

That the correspondence from the Ontario Municipal Management Institute and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs dated June 26, 2014 re: achievement of the Certified Municipal Manager (CMM) for Robin Chadwick, Training Officer-Fire Services, be received as information and congratulations extended.

G.29

That the correspondence from the Peel Regional Police Association dated August 27, 2014 requesting a letter of support to the Chancellery of Honours in Ottawa re: Peace Officer Eligibility Recognition, be received as information.

G.30

That the correspondence from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario dated August 25, 2014 re: How Your Municipality Can Use the Environmental Bills of Rights (EBR) be received as information. [booklet at www.eco.on.ca or commissioner@eco.on.ca]

G.31

That the memorandum from Engineering Services dated September 17, 2014 re: Innisfil Beach Road Urbanization Project update, be received as information.

G.32

That the Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board Minutes dated July 21, 2014, be received as information.

Circulated: September 15, 2014

Item G.26 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique

Environmental Approvals Branch

Direction des autorisations environnementales

2 St. Clair Avenue West Floor 12A Toronto ON M4V 1L5 Tel.: 416 314-8001 Fax: 416 314-8452

2, avenue St. Clair Ouest Étage 12A Toronto ON M4V 1L5 Tél : 416 314-8001 Téléc. : 416 314-8452

Item G.27 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

September 15, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO:

Municipalities Distribution List

RE:

Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities Notice of Completion of Class Environmental Assessment Review Project No. 05070

Attached is a Notice of Completion of Environmental Assessment Review, which pertains to the above Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) and is given as required by section 7 of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Notice clarifies the procedures for making a submission or requiring a hearing on the Class EA or the Review and sets out the decisions to be made under the Environmental Assessment Act, with regard to this undertaking. You will note that the expiry date for receipt, by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, of submissions or requirements for a hearing under this Notice is October 24, 2014. Sincerely,

Wesley Wright Project Officer Environmental Approvals Branch Wesley.wright@ontario.ca Phone: 416-325-5500 Enclosure

2069 (2011/10)

Item G.28 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

Item G.29 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

Item G.30 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14 Commissaire a l'environnement de l' Ontario

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Gord M ille r. B.Sc.. M.Sc.

Gord M iller. B.Sc.. M.Sc.

Commissioner

Co rnmissaire

August 25, 2014 How Your M unicipality Can Use the Environmental Bill ofRights (EBR) I'm writin g to share a smart new booklet about Ontario 's Environm ental Bill ofRights (EBR). This booklet sketches out how you and your municipality's residents have a say in how the province protects the environment - thank s to the EBR. Since 1994, Ontarians have had a right under the EBR to know about , and to comment on, provincial proposals that could affect the environment. Municipalities have used this right to comment on proposed permi ts and approvals (like compan ies' aggregate extraction permits, Permits to Take Water , and approvals to release air pollution), and to comment on legislation and plans that affect them, like the Provincial Policy Statement. Comments from municipalities and residents help inform and improve government decisions. Ontarians also have the right under the EBR to ask the provincial government to investigate alleged violations of environmental laws, and the right to ask for new environmental policies, acts and regulations , or changes to exist ing ones . Municipal counci ls and staff have used these EBR tools creatively; for example, they have encouraged the province to conserve ecologically important lands and protect public health from pollution. To mark the 201h anniversary of the Environmental Bill ofRights , the enclosed booklet shares inspiring stories of real Ontarians and municipalitie s who have used the EBR's tools to get results. I encourage you to skim and share this booklet and learn more about how your municip ality and residents can use the EBR tools too. For more information. or additional copies of the enclosed booklet, please contact my office at 1800-701-6454 or commissioner@eco .on.ca. Digital copies can also be found at www. eco.on.ca. Sincerely,

R;~~~ TOWN OF INNISFJL

GAO

Gord Miller Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 1075 Bay Street. Suite 605

Toronto, O ntario. M5S 28 1

Tel, (4 16) 325路3377 Fa" (4 16) 325-3370 1-800-70 1-64 54

CEO

1075. rue Bay. bureau 605 Toronto (O ntario) M5S 28 1 Tel, (4 16) 325-33 77

Telec' (4 16) 325-3370 1-800-70 1-64 54

Item G.31 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

BRADFORD WEST GWILLIMBURY / INNISFIL POLICE SERVICES BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday, July 21, 2014 7:00 p.m.

Item G.32 Info. List Supplementary Sept. 17/14

Innisfil Town Hall 2101 Innisfil Beach Road, Innisfil, ON

MINUTES Board Members Present:

Ms. Lori Boudreau, Acting Chair (Municipal Council Appointee) Ms. Sharon Villani, Chair (Provincial Appointee) Mayor Barb Baguley, Town of Innisfil Mayor Doug White, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

SSPS Present:

Chief Rick Beazley Staff Sergeant Lisa Hunt Ms. Andrea Dover, Finance Manager Ms. Julie Kumar, Human Resource Manager

Regrets:

Mr. Rod Hicks, Vice-Chair (Provincial Appointee)

CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of July 21, 2014 was called to order by the Acting Chair at 7:00 pm.

DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None Declared.

ADOPTION OF REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Resolution #072014-001

Baguley/White

That the Regular Meeting Agenda dated July 21, 2014 be adopted with the following addition: ď&#x201A;ˇ 11.4 SSPS 5km Family Run or Walk in support of CRIME STOPPERS. CARRIED 4.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Resolution #072014-002

White/Baguley

That the minutes of the Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board meeting of June 16, 2014 be adopted as printed.

BWG/Innisfil PSB Meeting Minutes – 2014-July-21

2 CARRIED

DELEGATIONS None received.

PRESENTATIONS No presentations were received.

NEW BUSINESS No new business.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS No business arising from previous meetings.

MONITORING REPORTS TO THE BOARD 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10

CIB Report - May 2014 Traffic & Marine – May 2014 Commercial vehicle blitz Community Patrol – May 2014 Occurrences that have been identified on the increase were noted. Communications – May 2014 Records – May 2014 Once PRIDE (Police Regional Information and Data Entry) is fully engaged, applicants will have opportunity to expedite process locally rather than having to go to the Commissioner’s office in Barrie. ERU – May 2014 Auxiliary – May 2014 Canine – May 2014 Training – May 2014 Detailed Statement of Financial Activities – Period Ending May 31, 2014

Staff Sergeant Lisa Hunt reviewed reports with the Board. Resolution #072014-03

Villani/Baguley

That the Monitoring Reports to the Board be received for information. CARRIED

10.

CHIEF UPDATE Sharon Villani and Chief Beazley provided an update on the meeting they attended for the PRIDE/NICHE system in Cambridge on July 21, 2014. It was reported that the draft budget was approved by the NICHE group provisional on BWG/Innisfil Police Services

BWG/Innisfil PSB Meeting Minutes – 2014-July-21

Board approval and execution of the contract which is expected by the end of August 2014. The budget figures for SSPS have not changed as previously presented to the Board. The implementation date for infrastructure is the first week of April 2015, using the newest 9.3 version. Training is to commence approximately November 2014. Resolution #072014-04

Baguley/White

That the verbal report from Chief Beazley and Sharon Villani be received by the Board. CARRIED 11.

COMMUNICATIONS 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

Methadose oral solution for methadone maintenance treatment MOHLTC Changes to Methadone Maintenance Treatment OAPSB Letter to Minister SSPS 5km Family Run or Walk in support of CRIME STOPPERS.

Board Members provided comments regarding both pieces of correspondence. Resolution #072014-05

White/Baguley

That the communications to the Board be received for information. CARRIED 12.

ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.

13.

NEXT MEETING Monday, August 25th, 2014, Innisfil Town Hall, Community Room, 6:30 pm.

14.

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST – CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None declared.

15.

ADOPTION OF CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Resolution #072014-06

Villani/Baguley

That the Closed Session Agenda dated July 21, 2014 be adopted as printed. CARRIED 16.

CLOSED SESSION Resolution #072014-07

White/Baguley

BWG/Innisfil PSB Meeting Minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014-July-21

That the Board resolve itself into closed session to discuss matters under the provisions of the Police Services Act, Part III, Section 35 (4) to address Intimate financial and personal matters and matters involving public security. CARRIED 17.

RISE AND REPORT PROGRESS The Board considered the information as presented and provided direction to staff. Resolution #072014-08

18.

Baguley/White

That the reports pertaining to intimate financial and personnel matters and public security be resolved for information. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Resolution #072014-09

Villani/Baguley

That the Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board adjourns at 8:13 p.m. CARRIED

Item 9.1 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-157-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lockie Davis, Treasurer/CFO

SUBJECT:

Section 357/358 Property Tax Write-offs

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Treasurer/CFO, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. M25, be authorized to write off the property taxes for the year 2014 in the total amount of $9,627.96 for the properties identified in Appendix A to Staff Report DSR-157-14. BACKGROUND: As required under sections 357(5) and 358(9) of the Municipal Act, 2001, in order to approve applications for property tax cancellations, reductions or refunds (excluding vacancy rebates) the Town is required to hold a meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the applicant, if they elect to do so, to make a representation prior to Council making its decision on the applications. Notices of the meeting have been mailed to all of the affected property owners within the prescribed fourteen day period prior to the Council meeting. The property taxes being recommended for write off are resulting from changes in the assessed value of the property occurring subsequent to the annual taxes being levied for the respective year(s). ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: There are ten applications presented at this time, eight of which involve property assessment reductions resulting from structures being demolished, one where the house and garage was destroyed by fire, and one which had portables removed from the property. These assessment changes represent typical or routine adjustments that occur during the course of a year. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: There are no options or alternatives applicable.

â&#x20AC;Ś/

Staff Report DSR-157-14 Section 357/258 Tax Write-offs

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The operating budget includes provisions for tax write-off expenses pertaining to the Town and Police portions. Education and County portions of the tax write-offs are recoverable from those respective parties and have no direct impact to Town revenues or expenditures. The total amount of the current applications for write-offs is $9,627.96 with the Town and Police portions being $4,180.76. CONCLUSION: That Council approve the Section 357/358 property tax write-offs as provided in Appendix A to staff report DSR-157-14. PREPARED BY: Marjut Luoma-Uhlik Revenue/Taxation Officer REVIEWED BY: Sharon Downie, Supervisor of Revenue Services

APPROVED BY:

________________________ Lockie Davis, Treasurer/CFO

Staff Report DSR-157-14 Section 357/258 Tax Write-offs

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A 357/358 APPEALS TO BE HEARD BY COUNCIL TOWN OF INNISFIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Wednesday, September 17, 2014

NAME

LOCATION

MPAC RECOMMENDATION

YEAR

010 001 04600

Daniel Mazanik, Lisa Mazanik

3798 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2nd Line

Demolition effective Feb 14, 2014

2014

(237.71)

(118.15)

(78.90)

(434.76)

010 009 09000

Douglas Muni, Karen Muni

911 Barry Ave

Demolition effective Feb 28, 2014

2014

(526.24)

(261.56)

(174.66)

(962.46)

010 012 22400

Wayne Hammond, Ann Hammond

1044 Ferrier Ave

Garage demolition effective Jan 1, 2014

2014

(98.93)

(49.17)

(32.84)

(180.94)

010 016 19800

Peter Millard, Mary Millard

713 Chandos Ave

Demolition effective date May 5, 2014

2014

(213.08)

(105.91)

(70.72)

(389.71)

010 026 12800

Alcona Beach Club

2044 25th Sideroad

Portables removed effective July 28, 2014

2014

(1,571.29)

(780.97)

(2,503.14)

(4,855.40)

010 026 15600

Frank Anderson

2002 25th Sideroad

Demolition effective June 17, 2014

2014

(306.05)

(152.11)

(101.58)

(559.74)

010 048 12600

625 Mapleview Dr East

Garage demolition effective April 28, 2014

2014

(32.50)

(16.15)

(10.78)

(59.43)

010 050 01100

Michael Borg Jan Tesar, Kathleen Tesar

47 Campus Place

Old cottage demolished effective July 30, 2014

2014

(119.37)

(59.33)

(39.62)

(218.32)

010 052 18900

Ju Te Rod Chin, Li Hua Jennifer Cheng

3972 Guest Rd

Old cottage demolished effective June 26, 2014

2014

(364.04)

(180.95)

(120.83)

(665.82)

030 074 20600

John Cairns, Pamela Duguay

1213 Shore Acres Dr

House and garage destroyed by fire May 1, 2014

2014

(711.55)

(353.66)

(236.17)

(1,301.38)

(4,180.76)

(2077.96)

(3,369.24)

(9,627.96)

Total of 357/358 Hearing for September 17, 2014

TOWN

Tax Adjustments COUNTY SCHOOL

ROLL NO.

TOTAL

Staff Report DSR-157-14 Section 357/258 Tax Write-offs

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 4

Year-to-Date Total for 357/358 Hearings Year-to-Date Total for ARB & MOS/ANA/PRAN Write-offs Year-to-Date Total for Capping Adjust & Rebates

(41,470.18) (20,826.52) (44,613.88) (22,533.33) (1,079.99) (552.17)

(62,583.32) (44,760.16) (1,818.75)

(124,880.02) (111,907.37) (3,450.91)

Total Write-offs Year-to-Date

(91,344.81) (45,989.98) (112,531.47)

(249,866.26)

Item 9.3 Council Agenda Sept 17/14

TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO:

DSR-168-14

DATE:

September 17, 2014

TO:

Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Tim Cane, Manager of Land Use Planning

SUBJECT:

Site Plan Control By-law Update

RECOMMENDATION: That Staff Report DSR-168-14 be received for Council’s information; and That Council approve the proposed new Site Plan Control By-law (No. 098-14) and repeal the Town’s Current Site Plan Control By-law (No. 072-07 as amended); and That Council direct Staff to undertake consultation and prepare appropriate policies and provisions for site plan control in other areas of the Town, including shoreline areas. 1.0 PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to: 

Provide to Council a summary of the proposed new Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 098-14) that will replace the current Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 072-07);



Provide an explanation and rationale for the proposed by-law amendments, including implementation strategies;



Seek direction from Council to consult with the public and stakeholders to prepare an additional Official Plan Amendment and amendment to the implementing Site Plan Control By-law in order to include policies and provisions for site plan control in other areas of the Town, including shoreline areas.

2.0 BACKGROUND: Site plan control is a planning tool provided to municipalities under Section 41 of the Planning Act (RSO 1990). Development that is subject to site plan control must go through a site plan approval process before a building permit can be released. This allows the Town to control or influence development to ensure that the design meets planning and engineering standards, public health and safety guidelines, and is visually appropriate. It can also help ensure that the design is sustainable, as well as accessible and appropriate for people with a disability. Currently, the Town’s Official Plan designates all of the land in the Town of Innisfil as a proposed site plan control area, with the exception of single detached and semi-detached dwelling areas and agricultural buildings and structures associated with a typical farming operation (Section 9.4.1). The implementing Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 072-07, as amended) designates site plan control areas by reference to land use Zones, which are established and assigned to each lot in the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. It also …/

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 2 of 11

outlines site plan control exceptions for specific lots and types of development, as well as provides more detailed information about pre-consultation, application requirements and the site plan approval process. The current Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 072-07) was passed in June, 2007 and has not been comprehensively updated since then. The only changes have been a few site-specific amendments and an update in 2010 to include new Zones introduced in the Resort Residential Community Zoning By-law (By-law 029-05). Since 2007 there has been considerable growth within the Town, as well as an increase in staff capacity to carry out development review internally. Therefore, staff recommend a comprehensive update is made to the Site Plan Control By-law, in keeping with the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 promise to undertake regular reviews to meet our customers’ expectations. Furthermore, the existing Site Plan Control By-law has not been updated since the passing of the Town’s comprehensive Zoning By-law 080-13, and therefore updates to the Zones referenced in the Site Plan Control By-law are necessary. 3.0 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE TOWN’S DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES Staff are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Town’s wider development approval process as part of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 community vision. The goal of this review is to streamline approval processes where appropriate, in order to meet our commitment under Inspiring Innisfil 2020 “to deliver core services in an efficient and effective manner,” to fulfill our responsibilities, and meet our customers’ expectations. Currently, the development approval processes can be complex, as consideration must be given to numerous local and provincial documents, including policies, standards, legislation, laws, by-laws, and guidelines. There may be multiple approval authorities for one application, and ongoing coordination will be required between several internal service areas, including Engineering, Planning, Legal Services and the Community Development Standards Branch. This review process is seeking ways to more effectively and efficiently utilize staff time and resources, to clarify and integrate approval processes, and to evaluate development in a more holistic way. The review of development approval processes aims to align our practices with the Supporting Behaviours identified in Inspiring Innisfil 2020, by considering “bold new ideas,” while striving for “one-step ahead planning” through “unified hard work.” Therefore, a key outcome of this comprehensive review will be the creation of a Development Guide, as well as Development Rating Criteria, that can be used to guide and assess new subdivision proposals within the Town. The proposed changes to the Site Plan Control By-law outlined in this staff report are primarily related to process and are a part of the comprehensive review and update to all of the Town’s development approval processes. In making the recommendations included within this report, consideration was given to the role of various departments involved in the Site Plan Control Approval process, and input was sought from Staff who are involved directly and indirectly with Site Plan Control Approval. The basic workflows (Attachment 2) illustrate the changes proposed in Site Plan Control By-law 098-14. There are three new streams for Applications for Site Plan Control Approval – Full Site Plan, Minor Site Plan, and Site Plan Amendment.

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 3 of 11

4.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN CONTROL BY-LAW AMENDMENTS The chart below provides a detailed summary of the proposed amendments (see Attachment 1) to the Site Plan Control By-law, including updates, additions, and deletions. Key changes include:   

  



Introduction of headings to improve organization and make it easier to read and locate information within the by-law; Amendments to provide greater clarity about delegated approval authority; Introduction of three new application types – Full Site Plan Control, Minor Site Plan Control, and Site Plan Amendment – to replace previous language regarding the potential ‘scoping’ of application requirements; Introduction of provisions that require some notification, circulation and consultation with internal staff, external commenting agencies, the public, and elected officials; More clarity on the types of conditions of approval that can be imposed; Exempting the following types of development from Site Plan Control: o Duplex and townhouse dwellings within approved developments, where architectural control guidelines are in place; o On-farm buildings and structures associated with agricultural uses; o Alterations to existing development that increase the total floor area by less than 20%, provided that certain conditions are met o Municipal development projects on Town property. Updates to Schedule A to reflect the changes to Zones in comprehensive Zoning By-law 080-13

Table 1: Summary of Site Plan Control By-law Amendments Section

Change

Rationale

Preamble

Clause five: Update to the existing wording to better match the language used in the Official Plan.

To provide improved clarity and consistency with the Official Plan policies in Section 9.4.

Clause six: Additional clause added specifying the application of Site Plan Control to any expansions of buildings that involve an increase floor area of at least 20 per cent.

To provide improved clarity and consistency with the Official Plan policies in Section 9.4.

Section 1.0: Addition of a new definitions section to the by-law, including definitions for: Act; Agricultural uses; Application, Full Site Plan; Application, Minor Site Plan; Application, Site Plan Amendment; Development; Dwelling, Duplex; Dwelling, Semi-Detached; Dwelling, Single Detached; Dwelling, Townhouse; Official Plan; Town Official; and Zoning By-law.

To provide clarity on the application of the bylaw, and to ensure it is interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Official Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Planning Act. These definitions help to clarify what development is included and excluded, based on definitions provided by the Official Plan (i.e. ‘agricultural uses’) the Zoning By-law (i.e. dwelling types) and the Planning Act (i.e. ‘development’). It clarifies who the Town Official is (i.e. the Manager of Land Use Planning, or his or her designate) and also introduces three different application types and. These three application types more clearly identify the basis on which the approval

Definitions

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 4 of 11 process may be scoped.

Approval Authority

Section 3.1: Addition of a new provision that clearly states that the authority to review and approve an Application for Site Plan Control is delegated from Council to the Town Official.

To clarify that the Town Official has the authority to approve an Application for Site Plan Control; this was delegated to them by By-law 072-07.

Preconsultation

Section 4.1: Updated to clarify that formal submission requirements will be identified during the preconsultation, as well as whether the Application will be considered a Full Site Plan Application, Minor Site Plan Application, or Site Plan Amendment.

The current language indicates that the purpose of pre-consultation is “to ensure that all required information was provided.” The new language more clearly indicates that the purpose of pre-consultation is for the Town Official to identify submission requirements and determine what type of Application the Applicant needs to submit (i.e. Full Site Plan, Minor Site Plan, or Site Plan Amendment).

Application Requirements

Section 5.1: Updated to clearly indicate that the Town Official will determine the submission requirements for an Application for Site Plan Control, including but not limited to the requirements of Plans, Drawings, Studies and Reports. The Town Official will prepare a record of submission requirements during preconsultation which will be valid for one year from the date it is issued to the Applicant.

The current language states that the Town Official “may scope the requirements for Site Plan Control and the requirements for Plans, Drawings, Studies and Reports.” The new language strives to clarify that the Town Official will determine what the formal submission requirements include, based on the pre-consultation. It also places an expiration date on the record of submission requirements for the purpose of ensuring that they are relevant and appropriate at the time an Applicant submits a formal Application for Site Plan Control.

Section 5.2: Updated the language in the section referring to complete submission requirements to state that an Application for Site Plan Control Approval “may include but is not limited to the following.”

The current language states that a complete submission “shall include the following.” The new language introduces greater flexibility in submission requirements and is more consistent with the rest of the language in the by-law, which states that the Town Official can determine submission requirements during pre-consultation.

Section 5.2(b): Include a copy of the record of submission requirements provided during pre-consultation as a requirement of a complete application.

The current by-law already states that all Applicants shall consult with the Town Official prior to submitting an Application for Site Plan Control. This amendment goes hand-in-hand with the proposed revisions to Section 5.1, which allow for the Town Official to determine submission requirements. Submitting a record of these requirements will more easily allow the Applicant and the Town Official to confirm that an Application is complete.

Section 5.2(f): Update to the wording prior to the list of Studies and Reports

The current by-law list pre-dates requirements under the Clean Water Act, and also does not

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 5 of 11

that may be required, changing it from “as follows” to “including but not limited to.” Additions to the list, including a notice from the Risk Management Official (in the case the development is subject to Section 59 of the Clean Water Act), a soil study, and a hydrogeological study.

account for two other very commonly required pre-development studies and reports (i.e.soil study and hydrogeological study). The change from “as follows” to “including but not limited to” allows for greater flexibility in requesting other studies and reports that may be required as a result of provincial legislation or other Town policies.

Section 6.1: Addition of a new provision that requires the Applicant to post on-site notice informing the public that a complete Application for Site Plan Control Approval has been submitted. Applications shall be circulated to Council, applicable external commenting agencies, and Town staff for review and commenting.

The current by-law does not explicitly require any notification signs or circulation to staff, external agencies, or elected officials, as these are not statutory requirements under the Planning Act. The new requirements go beyond the basic requirements of the Planning Act and aim to improve transparency and help ensure that each Application for Site Plan Control is reviewed in a consistent manner that gives consideration to the Triple Bottom Line (Environment, People, Economy), in keeping with Our Actions under Inspiring Innisfil 2020.

Section 6.3: Addition of a new provision that states any Application for Site Plan Control may be subject to public consultation at the discretion of the Town Official.

The current by-law does not explicitly state that an Application may be subject to public consultation. There is no statutory requirement for public consultation under the Planning Act and no third party appeal rights to the OMB; however, the new provisions will permit nonstatutory consultation when it is deemed appropriate.

Lapsed Applications

Section 7.1: Addition of a new provision that requires the Applicant to respond to comments issued under Section 6.2 of By-law 098-14 within one year from the date their Application is deemed complete, otherwise the Application shall lapse and a new Application may be required.

Timely and efficient processing of applications is necessary in order to ensure that new development is reviewed using the most current local and provincial policies, standards and by-laws/laws. This new provision has been added to prevent unapproved development applications from sitting open and inactive. Inactive development applications are a concern because their review and approval can become complicated if new policies, standards and/or by-laws/laws are adopted after the application was submitted, but prior to its approval. Timely approval of application prevents uncertainty over whether or not an application should be “grandfathered” and reviewed using out-dated standards.

Conditions of Approval

Section 8.0: Addition of new provisions which outline specifically the types of conditions that the Town may require the owner of the land to meet prior to approving Plans and Drawings. These conditions include

The current by-law states that the Town Official has the authority to impose conditions under Section 41 of the Planning Act. The conditions included in the proposed by-law are directly from those contained in Section 41(7) of the Planning Act, and are being provided to

Circulation and Consultation

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 6 of 11

things such as various works and facilities (e.g. walkways, parking, ramps for accessibility, etc.), maintenance of said works and facilities (e.g. snow removal, landscaping, salt management plans, etc.), and the entering into of Agreements to ensure the provision or maintenance of such works (e.g. cash-in-lieu of parking agreements) and/or to ensure development proceeds in accordance with approved Plans and Drawings (e.g. the Site Plan Agreement).

improve clarity and transparency in the new by-law.

Execution of Agreements

Section 9.1: Updated to delegate the authority to execute Agreements authorized under Section 41 of the Planning Act to the Town Official.

By-law 072-07 currently authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to execute Agreements upon receiving the written approval of the Town Official for the Plans, Drawings and Agreements authorized under Section 41 of the Planning Act. Therefore, delegating the authority to execute Agreements to the Town Official will make the approval process more efficient and effective in order to better meet our customer’s expectations, in keeping with Our Promise under Inspiring Innisfil 2020.

Exemptions

Section 10.1(a): Updated to require that development of single detached and semi-detached dwellings must be within approved developments where architectural control guidelines are in place, in order for it to be exempt from Site Plan Control.

Single detached and semi-detached dwellings were already exempt from Site Plan Control under By-law 072-07. Development of new single detached and semi-detached dwellings requires architectural control as a draft plan condition; the wording of this section has been therefore updated to better reflect this process and improve clarity and transparency in the new by-law.

Section 10.1(a): Addition of new provisions to exempt duplex dwellings within approved developments, from Site Plan Control, where architectural control guidelines are in place, unless they are otherwise subject to it as indicated in Schedule ‘A’ of the bylaw.

Semi-detached dwellings are exempt from Site Plan Control by the Official Plan and in the current by-law. Duplex dwellings are technically a type of semi-detached dwelling, but they are defined separately by the Zoning by-law. They are now being explicitly exempt to improve clarity.

Section 10.1(a): Addition of new provision to exempt townhouse dwellings within approved developments, from Site Plan Control, where architectural control guidelines are in place, unless they are otherwise subject to Schedule ‘A’ of the by-law.

Removing townhouse dwellings from Site Plan Control Approval will allow them to instead be reviewed through the normal Development Design process for new single detached and semi-detached dwellings. This will allow staff to provide development review services in a more efficient and effective manner. It will also lend itself better to the overall goal of the

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

Section 10.1(b): Updated to clearly state in the body of the by-law that “on-farm buildings and structures associated with agricultural uses” are exempt from Site Plan Control.

Section 10.1(c): Updated conditions for one-time exemptions from Site Plan Control for alterations to existing development by:  Changing the language from “construction alterations” to “alterations to an existing development;”  Increasing the allowable percent increase in total area from 10% to 20%;  Clearly including the total area of buildings, structures and parking lots in the description of potentially exempt development;  Adding a requirement that alterations to external works, roads or drainage infrastructure will not be required; and

September 17, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Community Development Standards Branch to undertake the lot grading review as part of their approval process. Currently, all new residential developments require architectural control as a draft plan condition for all lots, including Townhouse Blocks. Furthermore, all servicing requirements, overall lot grading, zoning, water and sewer allocation, and stormwater drainage for all lots within a subdivision are dealt with through the Development Design process. Therefore, removing townhouse dwellings from Site Plan Control will allow lot grading and zoning review for townhouses to be completed like single lot or semi lot reviews, which include Control Architect sign-off as per Town approved individual Subdivision Architectural Control Guidelines or Community Urban Design Guidelines (e.g. Lefroy Urban Design Guidelines). The current Official Plan and the preamble of the current by-law both make reference to exempting agricultural buildings and structures associated with a farming operation from Site Plan Control. This provision clarifies that it is the buildings and structures associated with agricultural uses (as defined in the Official Plan) that are exempt, therefore clarifying that Site Plan Control shall be applied to nonagricultural uses on agricultural properties where applicable, which is in keeping with the general intent of the site plan policies in the Official Plan. The new by-law will provide greater clarity on what type of alterations the one-time exemption provisions apply to, and improve consistency with the Official Plan. Increasing the allowable percent increase in total area to 20% will bring the by-law into conformity with the Official Plan policies in Section 9.4.4. Including buildings, structures and parking lots in the total area calculation will better reflect the definition of development provided by the Planning Act. Adding in the requirement that one-time exemptions for alterations must not have an impact on external works, roads or drainage infrastructure further emphasizes that the changes must be minor in nature, and will help ensure that any site alterations that could have an impact on works or infrastructure are subject to Site Plan Control.

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update 

Schedule ‘A’

September 17, 2014 Page 8 of 11

Clarifying the language that states that there must be an existing Site Plan Control Agreement executed and registered on title for the property.

Section 10.1(e): Addition of a new provision to exempt municipal projects from Site Plan Control.

Development projects carried out by the Town on Town property require approval from Council and must also meet planning, engineering and building standards. Since the Town would be considered both the Applicant and the approval authority in these situations, and such projects are already reviewed by Council, the need to undergo a formal Site Plan Control process and sign Agreements is not necessary. However, municipal projects will continue to be circulated to and reviewed by any appropriate Town staff and committees, as well as any applicable external commenting agencies.

Section 10.2: Addition of a new provision to clarify that one-time exemptions from Site Plan Control granted for alterations to existing developments may be made in writing without an amendment to the existing Site Plan Control Agreement.

One-time exemptions from Site Plan Control for existing developments were already permitted under By-law 072-07. The addition of this clause clarifies the process to do so.

Removal of the following land use Zones a result of the adoption of Zoning By-law 080-13: ‘Residential Multiple (RM) Zone;’ ‘Commercial General (CM) Zone;’ ‘Commercial Rural (CR) Zone;’ ‘Commercial Core (CC) Zone;’ ‘Institutional (I) Zone;’ ‘Open Space Private (OSP) Zone;’ ‘Agricultural Intensive (AI) Zone;’ and ‘Agricultural Marsh (AM) Zone.’

These land use Zones are no longer in use as a result of the 2013 updates to the Town’s comprehensive Zoning By-law, and have been removed from Schedule ‘A’ for housekeeping purposes.

Removal of the ‘Residential Townhouse (RT) Zone’ as a result of exempting townhouse dwellings from Site Plan Control.

See the rationale provided above for Section 10.1(a)

Addition of the following land use Zones as a result of the adoption of Zoning By-law 080-13: ‘Residential Apartment (RA) Zone;’ ‘Commercial Neighbourhood (CN) Zone;’ ‘Commercial Village (CV) Zone;’ ‘Mixed Use 1 (MU1) Zone;’ ‘Mixed

These land use Zones were introduced as a result of the 2013 updates to the Town’s comprehensive Zoning By-law. The land uses permitted in these new Zones are consistent with those previously included within the Site Plan Control Area that are outlined in the current Site Plan By-law as well as the Official

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 9 of 11

Use 2 (MU2) Zone;’ ‘Mixed Use 3 (MU3) Zone;’ ‘Mixed Use 4 (MU4) Zone;’ ‘Mixed Use 5 (MU5) Zone;’ ‘Agricultural Speciality Crop (ASC) Zone;’ and ‘Agricultural Rural (AR) Zone.’

Plan.

Addition of any lot with a Home Industry, any lot with a commercial water taking development, and any lot with a medical marihuana production facility, regardless of Zone.

Lots with a Home Occupation are already subject to Site Plan Control. The differentiation between a home occupation and home industry was introduced in Zoning By-law 08013, and therefore lots with a Home Industry have been added to Schedule ‘A’ for housekeeping purposes. In response to direction from Council, both commercial water taking development and medical marihuana production facilities have been added to Schedule ‘A’.

Addition of ‘Residential 1 Exception (R1-25) Zone,’ located on Registered Plan 369 as Lot 6 (municipally known as 2 John Drive).

This is a housekeeping amendment to Schedule ‘A’ as a result of Council’s decision to approve an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to permit a nursery school/daycare facility on this property (By-law 024-08, March 12, 2008).

Addition of the ‘Rural Residential Exception (RR-12) Zone,’ located on the north part of Lot 14, Concession 7 (municipally known as 2403 Innisfil Beach Road).

This is a housekeeping amendment to Schedule ‘A’ as a result of Council’s decision to approve an application for a ZBA to permit a Montessori School on this property (By-law 042-12, March 21, 2012).

Addition of ‘Agricultural General Exception (AG-23) Zone,’ located on Reference Plan 51R-30083, as Part 3 and Reference Plan 51R-37741, as Parts 6, 11, and 12 (municipally known as 2539 14th Line).

This is a housekeeping amendment to Schedule ‘A’ as a result of Council’s decision to approve an application for a ZBA to permit an event centre associated with Belcroft Estates (By-law 070-12, May 16, 2012).

5.0 SITE PLAN CONTROL IN OTHER AREAS, INCLUDING SHORELINE AREAS The majority of changes that have been proposed in the updated Site Plan Control By-law (09814) are related to updated approval processes, or are housekeeping amendments related to the adoption of comprehensive Zoning By-law 080-13. To further improve the process and ensure appropriate development within the Town, Staff are seeking direction from Council to undertake consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders in order to explore the possibility of including additional areas and types of development within the Town’s Site Plan Control Area. Areas and types of development that may be considered include infill lots, development within environmentally sensitive areas, or on lots with natural heritage features. For example, the application of Site Plan Control to ensure appropriate implementation of a Plan of Subdivision occurred in the South Shore Woods Development, due to the presence of significant natural environmental features, including the steep slopes along South Shore of Kempenfelt Bay.

Staff Report DSR-168-14 Site Plan Control By-law Update

September 17, 2014 Page 10 of 11

One area in particular that should be considered for inclusion within the Site Plan Control Area is waterfront lots. Undeveloped waterfront property is becoming increasingly scarce within the Town. Additionally, many existing shoreline lots are being used more intensively than in the past, as it is becoming common for existing seasonal shoreline dwellings to be demolished and replaced with luxury homes and much larger dwellings designed for all season use. This, coupled with higher density development within the Town, is increasing pressure on the health of the lake. A number of provincial policies have been introduced in recent years that recognize and address lake health, such as the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Ontario Septic ReInspection Program. At the local level, new waterfront specific provisions were introduced in Zoning By-law 080-13, and an objective of Inspiring Innisfil 2020 is to “promote and protect Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River watersheds for their critical ecological, heritage, and tourism benefits.” One way that other municipalities with shoreline areas have responded to waterfront development is through Site Plan Control. For example, the Township of Rideau Lakes, the City of North Bay, the Town of Huntsville, and the Township of Muskoka Lakes all have By-laws that place some or all shoreline areas under Site Plan Control. Provisions to include waterfront lots within the Site Plan Control Area and other potential areas of interest have not been included in this proposed by-law; however, Staff are seeking direction from Council to conduct public and stakeholder consultation to develop Site Plan Control policies that could enhance development within Innisfil. Including other areas within the Site Plan Control Area would require both an Official Plan Amendment, plus additional amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law. Staff envision that this process will include the following tasks: 

Assessing past development outcomes to determine other areas within the Town that would benefit from Site Plan Control.



Reviewing the use of Site Plan Control to manage shoreline areas in other municipalities;



A public open house and consultation with stakeholders in Q4 2015 or Q1 2015;



Presentation of draft Site Plan policies and provisions at a statutory public meeting early in Q2 2015; and



Presentation of final Site Plan policies and provisions, plus an implementation guide for Council approval

Overall, the key goals of the amended Official Plan policies for site plan control will be to ensure more responsive development and to better protect the natural heritage of Lake Simcoe. 6.0 OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council can adopt the proposed Site Plan Control By-law (098-14) or request Staff to make revisions. If revisions are requested or a portion of Site Plan Control By-law 098-14 is not adopted, Council can direct Staff to report back with a revised Site Plan Control By-law. 7.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: There are no direct financial costs associated with the adoption of the proposed Site Plan Control By-law. The changes proposed not only improve consistency with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 080-13, but reflect an attempt to make the Site Plan Control process more clear, timely and efficient. While the proposed Site Plan Control By-law differentiates between applications for ‘Full Site Plan Control,’ ‘Minor Site Plan Control’ and ‘Site Plan Amendment’ it is recommended that the current Fees and Charges By-law (132-13) remain unchanged. This is because the Site Plan Control fees in Section 11.5 of By-law 132-13 already account for the full cost of applicable staff time in addition to the applicable administration fee, and already contains