The Corporation of the Town of Mississippi Mills Environmental Advisory Committee February 8, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. Ramsay Room, Municipal Office Members: Paul Frigon Theresa Peluso Heidi Scott Peter Moller Councillor Val Wilkinson James Coupland A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Seeking approval of this agenda. B. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: Standard statement for members to declare pecuniary interest. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 18, 2016 D. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: None E. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES: 1. EAC Work Plan for 2016 - see attached 2. Night Skies By-Law Motion Moved forward from January 18, 2016 for clarification on wording. February 8, 2016 EAC Committee Agenda Page 1 Page 1
Moved by; Peter Moller Seconded by; Theresa Peluso Where as the use of LED lighting for outdoor use for illuminating both houses and commercial buildings; And Where As the current by-law does not cover the use of LED lighting; And Where As the spring/summer construction season is approaching; Therefore the EAC motions the following; That the EAC recommends council consider placing a higher priority on the development and implementation of the new Illumination By-Law. 3. Update on Natural Heritage Systems - Val Wilkinson to provide update if any 4. Use of Herbicides/Pesticides County Report PW-35-2015 attached. 5. Almonte Infrastructure Renewals Downtown Core - Update by Peter Moller F. ACTION CORRESPONDENCE: None G. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ride Share Motion; The EAC recommends council discuss the merits of a ride sharing program and how it could be effectively administrated. 2. Mill Run Park Attached for information purposes Planning Report Mill Run Park Development H. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS: Environmental Advisory Meeting Monday March 7, 2016 6:30pm Municipal Centre, 3131 Old Perth Road I. ADJOURNMENT: February 8, 2016 EAC Committee Agenda Page 2 Page 2
The Corporation of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES A regular meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee was held on January 18, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. in the Ramsay Room. Present: Heidi Scott Chair Absent: James Coupland Theresa Peluso Peter Moller Paul Frigon Councilor Val Wilkinson Staff: Cory Smith Recording Secretary Chair Heidi Scott, called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Moved by: Paul Frigon Seconded by: Val Wilkinson THAT the agenda be approved as written. CARRIED B. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: None. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by: Theresa Peluso Seconded by: Paul Frigon THAT the Minutes of the December 7, 2015 meeting be approved as written CARRIED D. DELEGATIONS/PRESENTATIONS: None. E. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES: 1. EAC Work Plan The EAC work plan was discussed to revise the priorities, in addition, some committee members identified additional topics they would like to incorporate to the work plan. The members were requested to submit a written outline of the topic they wished to incorporate to be included for discussion by the committee. Environmental Advisory Committee January 18, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Page 3
2. Night Skies By-Law A motion was crafted for further review 3. Update on Natural Heritage Systems ANSI Report received for information 4. Municipal Organics Program No new information 5. Use of Herbicides/Pesticides It was requested that the Committee receive the County Report 6. Almonte Infrastructure Renewals, Down Town Core No new information 7. Site Alterations By-Law Verbal Update by Councilor Wilkinson F. ACTION CORRESPONDENCE None. G. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS None H. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS: Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. Ramsay Room Municipal Office, 3131 Old Perth Road I. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Environmental Advisory Committee January 18, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Page 4
THE COUNTY OF LANARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE October 21, 2015 Report # PW-35-2015 of the Director of Public Works ROADSIDE WEED SPRAYING TRIAL RESULTS AND 2016 PROPOSAL 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS "THAT, Roadside Weed Spraying be undertaken on the County Road System commencing in 2016 and completed for two consecutive years; AND THAT, commencing year three, spraying on 50% of the County Road System be undertaken with ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness; AND THAT, the Maintenance Operations Budget include estimated funds to complete Roadside Spraying." 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Report is to inform the Committee of the results of the 2015 Roadside Weed Spraying Trial and provide a recommendation for 2016 Roadside Weed Spraying. 3. BACKGROUND Roadside vegetation control is an important activity of road maintenance. It ensures clear sight lines for signs and intersections, promotes drainage and prevents trees and brush from becoming established in the right-of-way. Wild Parsnip is an invasive plant that is becoming increasingly common in Lanark County. Current mowing practices may be contributing to the spread of the seeds along County Roads. Lanark County has an obligation to control noxious weeds, under the Weed Control Act, R.S.O. 1990, like all other landowners. During 2015, the Public Works Department received several calls from the public expressing concern with the amount of Wild Parsnip growing along County Roads with potential to spread onto their lands. Several people further expressed concern associated with the health hazards associated with this noxious weed. Page 5
In 2015, on a trial basis, roadside herbicide spraying was completed along 80 km of County Roads 1 (Rideau Ferry to Perth), 10 (Hwy 15 Ottawa Boundary), 17 (County Road 10 to Beckwith 9th Line) and 43 (Merrickville to Smiths Falls Boundary) on June 18. Clearview was the herbicide used as it selectively kills broadleaf weeds but not the grasses and is approved for use on roadsides under the public works exemption of the cosmetic pesticide ban. Roadside spraying was completed by Wagar & Corput Weed Control Inc., a qualified Contractor, licensed by the Ministry of the Environment. Only unmaintained ditches were sprayed, from the edge of the road shoulder to approximately one metre from the fence line. Roadsides maintained by property owners and within a 10 metre buffer from freshwater habitat were not sprayed. Spraying operations were turned off at mailboxes and whenever a pedestrian was nearby. Landowners were given the opportunity to request no spraying and obtain signage from the County. However, no requests were received. Taking these areas where spraying did not occur into account, the actual spraying conducted was on 65 km of road. The County did not tender the work as a minimal amount of spraying was to be undertaken. Invoicing was based on a cost / km for the application of the herbicide and a cost / kg for the herbicide product. The Pesticides Act contains a requirement to notify the public of any pesticide use. The default notification is to place signs along the spray area. However, this not being practical when spraying multiple kilometers of roadside, we elected to apply to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for approval of an alternative method of notification. The request required the County to submit a draft Notice of Pesticide Use, which we would advertise in local newspapers. The Notice format and content were done to meet MOE requirements and approval was obtained with specific advertising timing requirements. The Notice was advertised as requested by MOE and placed on the County's Website. If spraying operations exceed one month, re-advertising every month would be required until the spraying was completed. The required Notice is attached at Appendix "A". Press releases, utilization of social media and various information bulletins posted on the County's Website were all completed to aid in communicating to the public. Page 6
Spraying was conducted using a truck with boom-less sprayer. Although our spraying was too minimal to obtain production rates, industry representatives suggest 100 lane kilometers per day is a reasonable target rate. A County Patroller escorted the spray operation, allowing the spray operator to focus on driving and spraying while our Staff watched for pedestrians, fresh water and no spray signs. The effects of spraying along County roadsides were monitored and all indications were that the herbicide was very effective (80-90%) inside the right-of-way at controlling Wild Parsnip and other broadleaf weeds. One month after the spraying was completed, areas were visited and there was no indication of Wild Parsnip regrowth. Grass cover remained healthy and there was no evidence of any kill outside of the right-of-way. No complaints were received from landowners in the areas where the spraying occurred. Photos of sprayed areas are attached at Appendix "B". The cost to complete the 80 km of County Roadside spraying was $4,961. Additional roadside mowing was contracted with Steven Lewis, at a cost of $14,866, to complete a second cut of approximately 900 lane km to deal with other high growth areas and to resolve Weed Inspector's concerns. 4. DISCUSSION A Weed Audit of the County Road System right-of-way revealed that approximately 95% of the road sections contain Wild Parsnip or other noxious weeds, within the road allowance. Appendix "C", a summary of the Weed Audit, is contained in a separate file. Due to concern for volunteers, associated with the health hazards associated with Wild Parsnip, the Adopt-A-Road Program Fall Pickup was cancelled. Numerous calls were received from residents advising that they, their children or pets received burns and other health issues due to the sap of Wild Parsnip and requesting that the County do something to control the noxious weed. Multiple requests to have their area sprayed were received once the Notice about the trial spraying was published. Photos submitted by residents are attached at Appendix "D". Page 7
5. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS Option 1: Spray all permissible sections of the County Road System (approximately 700 lane kms) in 2016 (approximate cost $51,500); 80 90% effective in controlling Wild Parsnip (recommended). Option 2: Conduct 3 extra passes of roadside mowing, 2 swaths wide (approximate cost $72,000); 30 40% effective in controlling Wild Parsnip and may contribute to the spread of seeds (not recommended). Option 3: Do nothing (not recommended). 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Assuming 75% of the County Road System as potential spray areas and taking into account that approximately 80% of those areas could be sprayed, the anticipated costs, based on prices received on the trial, would be $51,500. 7. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT Resident requests to control Wild Parsnip infested Township Roads may increase once the results of the County Roadside Spraying become evident. Townships could advise the County of their desire to be included in the Roadside Weed Spraying Tender, allowing for them to realize the competitive pricing. However, MOE Notice requirements and administration of no spraying signs would still be required at the local level. 8. CONCLUSIONS The 2015 Roadside Weed Spraying Trial achieved the desired results and it is recommended that the program be expanded commencing in 2016 to include spraying of all permissible sections of the County Road System for two consecutive years. It has been indicated that Clearview could provide up to 24 months control and we, therefore, are recommending biannual spraying (50% of the Road System) every year thereafter with ongoing monitoring to ensure the vegetation is being kept under control. Continuous liaising with industry experts and adjacent Counties conducting weed spraying will be required to ensure the desired outcome is being achieved. Page 8
9. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appendix "A" - Notice Required by MOE. 2. Appendix B - Photos of Spray Areas. 3. Appendix C - Weed Audit Summary (sent as a separate file). 4. Appendix D - Photos Provided to County of Exposure to Noxious Weeds. Recommended By: Janet Tysick Business Manager Approved for Submission By: Terry McCann Director of Public Works Manager Approval By: Kurt Greaves Chief Administration Officer Page 9
PUBLIC NOTICE ROADSIDE WEED SPRAYING Pesticide Use The County of Lanark intends to utilize Wagar & Corput Weed Control Inc. to control weeds along the following rural roadsides: County Road 1 County Road 10 County Road 17 County Road 43 - Rideau Ferry to Perth - Highway 15 to Ottawa Boundary - County Road 10 to Beckwith 9 th Line - Merrickville to Smiths Falls Boundary The Contractor will be using the following pesticide: Clearview Herbicide Reg. #29752, active ingredients Metasulfuron-Methyl and Aminopyralid, present as potassium salt, under the Pest Control Products Act (Canada). Commencing: June 11, 2015 (weather depending) to July 10, 2015. For further information contact: Wagar & Corput Weed Control Inc., 613-938-2117 or Lanark County Public Works, 613-267-1353, Toll Free #1-888-952-6275 Please contact the County of Lanark if you require more detailed information regarding our Roadside Weed Spraying Program, including additional information on how to obtain and post No Spraying signage in front of your property. This information is available on our website at http://www.lanarkcounty.ca/page1887.aspx Page 10
Photos of Spray Areas Page 11
Appendix C Weed Audit Summary - (Sent as a separate file) Page 12
Photos Provided to County of Exposure to Noxious Weeds Page 13
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS MEETING DATE: February 2 nd, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PURPOSE PLANNING REPORT Committee of the Whole Stephen Stirling, Municipal Planner MILLRUN PARK DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY INFORMATION The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a copy of the base draft plan for the Millrun park along with the preliminary cost estimate for consideration prior to the public open house scheduled for February 11 th, 2016. LOCATION MAP BACKGROUND In 2013, Council for the Municipality supported a multi-phased plan of subdivision in the Municipality of Mississippi Mills that consisted of a total of 509 new residential dwelling lots. As part of this approval, the developer provided 1.6 ha (4.16ac) of land to the Municipality for Page 14
parkland development. The approved subdivision also provided a 1.1ha (2.84ac) block of land to accommodate the required storm pond for the development adjacent to the park due to soil conditions. At that time, the Municipality agreed to locate the development s storm pond block beside the park because they saw an opportunity to create a larger green space (2.83ha or 7ac) that could accommodate both active and passive uses. Section 3.8.4.1 of the Community Official Plan requires the municipality to consult with the public regarding the development of the local park. On June 29 th, 2015, Council directed staff to work with the developer and their landscape Architect to develop a front-ending agreement for the development of the park. This required staff and the developer to initiate the design and consultation process in order to establish an estimated cost to develop the park. The intent of the consultation process is to seek public input regarding the development of the park and what they would like to see in the park in an effort to try and establish a budget cost. Following the consultation process, a draft park plan will be developed along with a detailed preliminary cost estimate for Council s consideration. Based on the comments from Council a plan will be finalized for approval. A base plan for the park has been developed to initiate discussion and comments from Council and the public. Details of the plan at this time are limited only to the pathway to establish pedestrian traffic flow and to create recreation zones in order to provide some framework and accommodate flexibility based on the feedback from all parties. In addition to park development, there are also proposed improvements around the storm pond to protect the habitat of Federal Species at Risk. As per the subdivision agreement, the developer is required to clean and green (rough grade) the park; as a result these, costs are not reflected in the preliminary cost estimate to develop the park. The only grading costs accounted for in the preliminary cost estimate is the fine grading costs as the final grading of the park must reflect its intended use. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS At this point and time there are no cost implications to the Municipality. The costs associated with the conceptual design of the park are being paid by the developer. In terms of the development, the Development Charges by-law states that 65.5% of the costs to develop the park are recoverable through Development Charges with the Municipality being responsible for the remaining 34.5%. ATTACHMENTS i) Park Concept Plan ii) Preliminary Cost Estimate Page 15
All of which is respectfully submitted, Stephen Stirling MCIP, RPP Municipal Planner Diane Smithson Reviewed by CAO Page 16
MILLRUN PARK PLAN - DRAFT Page 17
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 18
Page 19