HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 17, 2020 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers Thursday, December 17, 2020 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Public Planning Meeting A.Municipality of BayhamB.Rob ThompsonC.Rob Vanwynsberghe
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3.REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
4.ANNOUNCEMENTS
5.DELEGATIONS
6.ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A.Council Meeting held December 3, 2020
B.Committee of Adjustment held December 3, 2020 re B. & S. Crevits Farms Ltd. – A-13/20
7.MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
8.RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Correspondence
8.1.1 Receive for Information
8.1.2 Requiring Action
8.2 Reports to Council
9.PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
9.1 Correspondence
9.1.1 Receive for Information
9.1.2 Requiring Action
9.2 Reports to Council
A.Report PS-05/20 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works re RFP 20-01 Supply andDelivery of One (1) Loader
10.DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
10.1 Correspondence
2020 Council Agenda December 17, 2020
2
10.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting re Official Plan Amendment – Municipality of Bayham
B. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Rob Thompson, 7254 Bogus Road, Vienna C. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Rob Vanwynsberghe, 55963 Calton Line, Vienna D. Notice of Committee of Adjustment Decision – Brian & Susan Crevits, 57575 Light Line
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-78/20 by Bill Knifton, Chief Building Official|Drainage Superintendent re Reimer Drain Award Contract B. Report DS-79/20 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Rezoning Application – Thompson Zoning By-law No. Z719-2020 C. Report DS-80/20 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Rezoning
Application – Vanwynsberghe Zoning By-law No. Z720-2020
D. Report DS-81/20 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Official
Plan Amendment – Partial Services in Urban Areas 11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Long Point Region Source Protection Authority minutes of virtual meeting held June 3, 2020 B. Long Point Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors minutes of meeting held November 4, 2020
C. Long Point Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors minutes of budget meeting held November 12, 2020
D. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re Bill 229
E. Ontario Farmers Network re Support of Ontario Government’s Budget Act Schedule 6 F. Municipality of Southwest Middlesex re Drainage Matters CN Rail 11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
2020 Council Agenda December 17, 2020
3
12.BY-LAWS
A.By-law No. 2020-091 Being a by-law to provide for an Interim Tax Levy
B.By-law No. 2020-092 Being a by-law to authorize borrowing from time to time to meet current expenditures during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021
C.By-Law No. 2020-093 Being an adopting by-law for Official Plan Amendment No. 26 regarding services in the Village of Straffordville and Hamlet of Eden in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan (This by-law follows the recommendation in Report DS-81/20 by
Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of
December 17, 2020)
D.By-law No. 2020-094 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Municipality of Bayham and Froese Excavating Inc. for the provision of
drainage works for the Reimer Drain in the Municipality of Bayham pursuant to the provisions of the Drainage Act, Chapter D.17, R.S.O. 1990 as amended (This by-law follows the recommendation in Report DS-78/20 by Bill Knifton, Chief Building
Official|Drainage Superintendent during the regular meeting of December 17, 2020)
E.By-law No. Z719-2020 Being a by-law to further amend By-law No. Z456-2003 –
Thompson (This by-law follows the recommendation in Report DS-79/20 by Margaret
Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of December 17, 2020)
F.By-Law No. Z720-2020 Being a by-law to further amend By-law No. Z456-2003-Vanwynsberghe (This by-law follows the recommendation in Report DS-80/20 by
Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of
December 17, 2020)
13.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14.OTHER BUSINESS
A.Regular Meeting of Council – January 7, 2021
14.1 In Camera
B.Confidential Report regarding a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to beapplied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of themunicipality or local board (Agreement No. 0632)
C.Confidential Report regarding information explicitly supplied in confidence to the
municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of anyof them (Grant Funding)
14.2 Out of Camera
15.BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2020-095 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
2020 Council Agenda December 17, 2020
4
16. ADJOURNMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, December 3, 2020
6:00 p.m.
6:45 p.m. Committee of Adjustment
A. B & S Crevits Farms Ltd.
PRESENT:
MAYOR ED KETCHABAW
DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER
COUNCILLORS C. VALERIE DONNELL
DAN FROESE
SUSAN CHILCOTT
STAFF PRESENT:
CAO|CLERK PAUL SHIPWAY
DEPUTY CLERK|PLANNING COORDINATOR MARGARET UNDERHILL
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
None
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Ketchabaw reminded everyone that the Straffordville Parkette Lighting of the Lights is
tomorrow evening, December 4, 2020, however advising the event will be held virtually with no
public gathering due to the pandemic and the event link will be posted online.
5. DELEGATIONS
A. County of Elgin Warden Dave Mennill and County of Elgin CAO|Clerk Julie Gonyou re
County Update & Service Delivery Review Presentation
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT the presentation from County of Elgin Warden Dave Mennill and County of Elgin
CAO|Clerk Julie Gonyou re County Update & Service Delivery Review Presentation be
received for information.
CARRIED
2020 Council Minutes December 3, 2020
2
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Council Meeting held November 19, 2020
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT the minutes of the Council Meeting held November 19, 2020 be adopted.
CARRIED
7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
8. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Correspondence
8.1.1 Receive for Information
8.1.2 Requiring Action
8.2 Reports to Council
9. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
9.1 Correspondence
9.1.1 Receive for Information
9.1.2 Requiring Action
9.2 Reports to Council
10. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting Committee of Adjustment re Minor Variance Application A-
13/20 B. & S. Crevits, 57575 Light Line
B. Notice of Passing of Zoning By-law No. Z717-2020 re C. Baker, 8 Robinson St., Port
Burwell
C. Notice of Passing of Zoning By-law No. Z718-2020 re M. & K. Emberson, 7 Erieus St.,
Port Burwell
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Municipality of Bayham
E. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Rob Thompson,
7254 Bogus Road
F. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Rob
Vanwynsberghe, 55963 Calton Line
2020 Council Minutes December 3, 2020
3
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT correspondence items 10.1.1A – 10.1.1-F be received for information.
CARRIED
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re 30-Day Notice Draft LPRCA Budget
B. Press Release issued November 19, 2020 re Oxford & Area Ontario Health Team
Receives Approval
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT correspondence items 11.1.1-A – 11.1.1-B be received for information.
CARRIED
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
12. BY-LAWS
A. By-law No. 2020-086 Being a by-law to repeal By-law 2017-064, being a By-law to
authorize the borrowing upon debentures (This By-law follows the recommendation
contained within Report CAO-43/20 of November 19, 2020)
B. By-law No. 2020-087 Being a by-law to amend By-law 2018-007, as amended, being a
By-law to appoint Municipal Officers & Employees for the Municipality of Bayham
C. By-law No. 2020-088 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Development
Agreement – B & S Crevits Farms Ltd. (This by-law follows the recommendation in
Report DS-77/20 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator during the
Committee of Adjustment meeting of December 3, 2020)
D. By-law No. 2020-089 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Demolition
Agreement with Joe Jager of 55942 Maple Grove Line
2020 Council Minutes December 3, 2020
4
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT By-law No. 2020-086, 2020-087,2020-088 and By-law No. 2020-089 be read a
first, second and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. OTHER BUSINESS
A. By-law No. 2019-049 Site Plan Agreement – Sandytown Retirement Home Inc.
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT Council agrees to extend the Sandytown Retirement Home Inc. site plan
agreement approved by By-law 2019-049, modified May 11, 2020 due to expire on
December 1, 2020 for an additional time period expiring on April 15, 2021.
CARRIED
14.1 In Camera
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 6:55 p.m. to
discuss:
personal matters about an identifiable individual including municipal or local board
employees (Human Resources)
CARRIED
A. Confidential Report re personal matters about an identifiable individual, including
municipal or local board employees. (Human Resources)
14.2 Out of Camera
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” session at 7:09 p.m. with nothing to
report.
15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2020-090 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
2020 Council Minutes December 3, 2020
5
THAT Confirming By-Law No. 2020-090 be read a first, second and third time and finally
passed
CARRIED
16. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, December 3, 2020
6:45 p.m.
B & S Crevits Farms Ltd. A-13/20
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: ED KETCHABAW
RAINEY WEISLER
C. VALERIE DONNELL
DAN FROESE
SUSAN CHILCOTT
STAFF PRESENT:
CAO|CLERK PAUL SHIPWAY
SECRETARY-TREASURER MARGARET UNDERHILL
SIGNED IN ATTENDEES: NONE
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. APPLICATION
A. Minor Variance Application A-13/20 B & S Crevits
THE PURPOSE of the variance is to to permit the placement of a portable structure on
the subject lands for the purpose of accommodating an additional supplementary farm
dwelling, located at 57575 Light Line, south side, east of Godby Road.
THE EFFECT of this variance will be to allow the permitted use of a third supplementary
farm dwelling in addition to previous Minor Variance A-05/11 granted August 4, 2011
permitting a second supplementary farm dwelling on the subject lands.
4. STAFF PRESENTATION
A. Report DS-77/20 re Minor Variance Application A-13/20 B & S Crevits Farms Ltd.
Secretary-Treasurer M. Underhill presented the staff report.
2
Statutory Planning Minutes – Committee of Adjustment December 3, 2020
5. PRESENTATIONS BY APPLICANT/AGENT
None
6. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
None
7. COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
None
8. DECISION OF COMMITTEE (Motions)
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Committee of Adjustment Secretary-Treasurer’s report DS-77/20 regarding
the Crevits minor variance be received;
AND THAT the Committee of Adjustment considered all written and oral submissions
received on this application, the effect of which helped the committee to make an
informed decision;
AND WHEREAS the Committee agrees that the proposed variances as presented meet
Section 45.1(1) of the Planning Act and are considered minor;
THEREFORE application A-13/20 submitted by Brian and Susan Crevits, pursuant to
Section 45 of the Planning Act for minor variance, is granted to allow relief from
Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law Z456-2003:
Section 5.2 Permitted Uses - to permit one additional supplementary farm
dwelling in the form of a school portable with a maximum floor area of 72 m2
(768 ft2) to accommodate a maximum of six (6) seasonal farm labourers for a
total of three (3) supplementary farm dwellings accommodating maximum total of
twenty-two (22) seasonal labourers at 57575 Light Line
Condition: Development Agreement to be executed within 60 days of the minor
variance approval.
CARRIED
9. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Committee of Adjustment hearing for consideration of Minor Variance
Application A-13/20 be adjourned at 6:51 p.m.;
3
Statutory Planning Minutes – Committee of Adjustment December 3, 2020
AND THAT in accordance with the regulations of the Planning Act, Notices of Decision
be circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer accordingly.
CARRIED
DATE:
CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY TREASURER
REPORT
PHYSICAL SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works
DATE: December 17, 2020
REPORT: PS-05/20
SUBJECT: RFP 20-01 SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF ONE (1) LOADER
BACKGROUND:
On June 18, 2020, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution:
THAT Report PS-03/20 re 2021 Capital Item No. PW-16 Loader – Practical Assessment be received for information;
AND THAT staff be directed to proceed the 2021 Capital Item No. PW-16 Loader – Practical Assessment.
On October 6, 2020, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution:
THAT Report TR-10/20 re 2021-2030 Capital Budget – Draft be received for information;
AND THAT Council approve in principle the 2021-2030 Capital Budget.
The 2021 Capital Budget includes Capital Item No. PW-03 Loader (Formerly PW-16) in the amount of $250,000. The Municipality currently operates a 2006 Case 621D Loader with 7,049 hours.
In 2020, the Municipality of Bayham commenced RFP 20-01 Loader, a two-part RFP process, to procure a new Loader as follows:
PART 1 – PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT
•During the fall of 2020 the Municipality of Bayham conducted field tests on the followingLoaders:
•John Deere 524L
•Caterpillar 926M
•Case 621G
•Volvo L60
Part 1 – Practical Assessment was completed by the Municipality of Bayham Loader Operators. Part 1 – Practical Assessment was worth 50% of the final overall score of
RFP 20-01.
PART 2 – LOADER BID PRICE
•Effective November 19, 2020 the Municipality of Bayham accepted Bid Prices frominvited vendors pursuant to RFP 20-01.
•RFP 20-01 closed on December 4, 2020.
Part 2 – Loader Bid Price was worth 50% of the final overall score of RFP 20-01. ThePart 2 – Loader Bid Price scoring rubric, out of 100, is as follows:
Bid Price Score
CASE 621G 191,400+HST 100
Volvo L60 183,000+HST 100
Caterpillar 926M 208,008+HST 100
John Deere 524L No Bid 0
DISCUSSION:
The results of RFP 20-01 are as follows:
RFP 20-01 Loader
Part 1 Part 2 Total
CASE 621G 26.15 50 76.15
Volvo L60 27.50 50 77.50
Caterpillar 926M 25.00 50 75.00
John Deere 524L 22.12 0 22.12
The 2021 Volvo L60 was the top scoring Loader in both components of the assessment.
The Volvo L60 comes with a standard one (1) year or 2,500 hours, whichever comes first
warranty and a lifetime limited frame warranty.
Staff respectfully recommend adding the five (5) year or 5,000 hour, whichever comes first,
powertrain, hydraulic and component warranty (including travel time and mileage for any
warranty related service calls) at $7,500+HST. Based on the assessment of service calls,
specifically travel time fees, this should be a significant benefit to the Municipality. Additionally,
regardless of the loader selected the after purchase installation of a TWIN EP-2 Groeneveld
Automatic Greasing System is required at a cost of $8,428.03+HST.
The total recommended purchase price of the Volvo L60 loader is $198,928.03+HST.
Like the Municipality previously disposed of two tandem trucks, staff would respectfully
recommend that the Manager of Public Works be delegated authority to surplus the 2006 Case
621D Loader, upon delivery of the 2021 Volvo L60, at or above the reserve bid value of
$55,000+HST, in the where is, as is condition via:
•direct sale (through online services);
•auction services;
Capital Item PW-03 is projected to come in a minimum of $55,000 below budget. This provides
Loader Bid Price $200,000-$209,999 $210,000-$219,999 $220,000-$229,999 $230,000-$239,999 $240,000-$249,999 $250,000-$259,999 $260,000-$269,000 $270,000-$279,999 $280,000-$289,999 $290,000-$299,999 $300,000+
Scoring Rubric/100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
RFP 20-01 - Loader Assessment
an opportunity to address three (3) Public Works related health and safety concerns that have
recently occurred:
1)Kohler 38RCLB (38KW) 1800RPM liquid cooled natural gas generator, complete with
sound enclosure, cement pad, battery, block heater, battery charger and main breaker.
(labour, material and electrical permit to install automatic transfer generator)
•$38,485+HST
2)Exterior security camera system installation
•$10,000+HST
3)Wash Bay electrical system repairs
•$1,100+HST
RECOMMENDATION:
1.THAT Report PS-05/20 re RFP 20-01 Supply and Delivery of One (1) Loader be
received for information;
AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham award RFP 20-
01 in the amount of $190,500+HST to Strongco – Volvo Division;
AND THAT the Manager of Public Works be delegated authority to surplus the 2006
Case 621D Loader, upon delivery of the 2021 Volvo L60, at or above the reserve bidvalue of $55,000+HST, in the where is, as is condition via:
•direct sale;
•auction services;
AND THAT staff be directed to proceed with Public Works health and safety works as outlined within Report PS-05/20.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
_________________________ _________________________ Steve Adams Paul Shipway Manager of Public Works CAO|Clerk
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham is considering an amendment to its Official Plan.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 7:30 pm in the Municipal Council Chambers,
56169 Heritage Line in Straffordville to consider a proposed Official Plan Amendment under
Section 17 of the Planning Act.
THE PURPOSE of the Official Plan Amendment is to permit subdivision development in the
Village of Straffordville and the Hamlet of Eden on municipal sanitary sewers and private on-site
wells, until such time as municipal water services are available. The amendment will also establish
the criteria for which development may occur on partially serviced lands. The criteria will include
the submission of studies assessing the availability of water quantity and quality sufficient to
service the long-term needs of the subdivision; studies assessing the potential impacts of new
wells on the water quantity and quality for existing and approved development in the same aquifer,
and development agreements for future connection of subdivision lots to a municipal water
system.
THE EFFECT of this Official Plan Amendment will be to allow subdivision development in the
Village of Straffordville and the Hamlet of Eden on municipal sanitary services and private on-site
water services.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting adhering to mask and physical distancing
requirements and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the
proposed amendment.
***Given the current COVID-19 legislative restrictions and limitations, land use planning meetings
remain open to public comment. Please be advised that equal consideration is given to all written
and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting in regards to land use
planning applications. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-laws are passed, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning
Appeals Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan Amendment, you must
make a written request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendments may be obtained at the
Municipal Office or by visiting the municipal website: www.bayham.on.ca – Development
Services – Official Plan.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM THIS 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
P.O. Box 160, 56169 Heritage Line
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: ROB THOMPSON,
7254 BOGUS ROAD
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law Amendment.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council
Chambers, 56169 Heritage Line in Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law
amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to change the zoning of a 0.4 ha (1 ac) portion of the lands from
a site specific Agricultural (A1-12) Zone to a Rural Residential (RR) Zone, in Zoning By-law Z556-
2003. The lands are located on the south side of Calton Line, east of Bogus Road.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to rezone severed lands consistent with the merged lands, at
55693 Calton Line, to fulfill conditions of Consent E35/20.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting adhering to mask and physical distancing
requirements and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the
proposed amendment.
*** Given the current COVID-19 legislative restrictions and limitations, land use planning meetings
remain open to public comment. Please be advised that equal consideration is given to all written
and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting regarding land use
planning applications. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained by
contacting the Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 26th day of November 2020.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: ROB VANWYNSBERGHE,
55963 CALTON LINE
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law Amendment.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council
Chambers, 56169 Heritage Line in Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law
amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to change the zoning on a 0.1 m (1 ft2) portion of the lands from
a Rural Residential (RR) Zone to a site specific Agricultural (A1-12) Zone, in Zoning By-law Z556-
2003. The lands are located on the south side of Calton Line, east of Bogus Road.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to rezone severed lands consistent with the merged lands, at
7254 Bogus Road, to fulfill conditions of Consent E36/20.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting adhering to mask and physical distancing
requirements and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the
proposed amendment.
*** Given the current COVID-19 legislative restrictions and limitations, land use planning meetings
remain open to public comment. Please be advised that equal consideration is given to all written
and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting regarding land use
planning applications. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained by
contacting the Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 26th day of November 2020.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
RECOMMENDATION
1.THAT Staff Report DS-78/20 regarding Reimer Drain Award Contract be received for information:
2.AND THAT Council accept the tender for provision of drainage works set out in the Form of Tender for the Drain, as submitted by Froese Excavating Ltd, in the amount of
$15,643.00+HST, with work to commence on or before January 4, 2021 and be completed on or before January 6, 2021;
3.AND THAT By-Law 2020-094, being a by-law to authorize the execution of contract documents with Froese Excavating Ltd be presented to Council for enactment
Respectfully Submitted by:
Bill Knifton
Chief Building Official I Drainage Superintendent
Paul Shipway
CAOIClerk
Staff Report DS-79/20 Thompson
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report DS-79/20 regarding the Thompson rezoning application be received for
information;
AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held
December 17, 2020, no public comments were received regarding this matter;
AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council's decision passing
this resolution;
AND THAT Zoning By-law 2456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing
the zoning on the 0.4 ha (1 ac) lot addition lands owned by Robert Thompson located in Part Lot 14 Concession 4 known as 7254 Bogus Rd from site-specific Special Agricultural (A2-12) to Rural Residential (RR) to satisfy condition of Consent E35/20;
AND THAT Zoning By-law 2719-2020 be presented to Council for enactment.
Respectfully Submitted by:
;�Margaretnderhill
Deputy ClerklPlanning Coordinator
Reviewed by:
Paul Shipway CAO I Clerk
2
Staff Report D5-80/20 Vanwynsberghe 2
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report DS-80/20 regarding the Vanwynsberghe rezoning application be received
for information;
AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held
December 17, 2020, no public comments were received regarding this matter;
AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council's decision passing
this resolution;
AND THAT Zoning By-law 2456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing
the zoning on the 0.1 m2 (1 ft2) lot addition lands owned by Robert Vanwynsberghe located in Part Lot 14 Concession 4 known as 55963 Calton Line from Rural Residential (RR) to Site-specific Special Agricultural (A2-12) to satisfy condition of
Consent E36/20;
AND THAT Zoning By-law 2720-2020 be presented to Council for enactment.
Respectfully Submitted by:
�� Deputy ClerklPlanning Coordinator
Reviewed by:
Paul Shipway
CAOIClerk
Staff Report DS-81/20 OPA Urban Servicing Page 2
As per the OPA process, a Draft Official Plan Amendment No. 26 is provided for consideration, a public meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2020 followed by Council's consideration of the
amendment the same evening. Once Council adopted, the amendment will be forwarded to the
County of Elgin for approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.IBI Memorandum dated December 9, 20202.Draft By-law 2020-093 Official Plan Amendment No. 26
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report DS-81/20 be received for information;
AND THAT, pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting
held December 17, 2020 regarding partial servicing policies in urban areas, there
were no written or verbal public submissions regarding this matter and that all considerations were taken into account in Council's decision passing this
resolution;
AND THAT the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement 2020 and the Elgin County Official Plan as outlined in the 181 Group
memorandums of September 30, 2020 and December 9, 2020;
AND THAT By-law 2020-093, being an adopting By-law for Official Plan
Amendment No. 26 regarding partial servicing policies for the Village of
Straffordville and Hamlet of Eden in the Municipality of Bayham, be presented for enactment;
AND THAT adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 26 be forwarded to the County of
Elgin for approval."
Respectfully Submitted by:
.q� Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Reviewed by:
Paul Shipway
CAO/Clerk
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
1
LONG POINT REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Virtual Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2020
Approved December 2, 2020
Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus,
Valerie Donnell, Roger Geysens, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John
Scholten and Peter Ypma
Staff in attendance: Judy Maxwell, Lorrie Minshall, Craig Jacques, Zachary Cox
and Dana McLachlan
Regrets: Kristal Chopp and Ken Hewitt
* P. Ypma joined at 6:15pm
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm.
2. Additional Agenda Items: none
3. Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: none
4. Approval of Minutes:
No questions or comments.
SPA- 4/20
moved: J. Scholten
seconded: V. Donnell
THAT the minutes of the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority held
January 8, 2020 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
5. Business Arising: none
6. Correspondence:
a) Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee re: Submission of
Source Protection Plans Annual Progress Reports (Attachments
referred to in this correspondence are included with the report at
agenda item 7.a))
b) Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks re: Approval of
Amended Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan for the Long
Point Region Source Protection Area
No discussion.
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
2
SPA- 5/20
moved: R. Chambers
seconded: S. Patterson
THAT the correspondence outlined in the Source Protection Authority Agenda of
June 3, 2020 be received as information.
CARRIED
7. New Business
a) Submission of the 2019 Long Point Region Annual Progress Report and
Supplemental Form
Staff provided a report for the 2nd annual Long Point Region Source Plan
summarizing the implementation activities for municipal drinking water supplies
covered within the plan for the period of January 1 through December 31, 2019.
As noted in the correspondence, the Committee’s efforts for completing the plan
objectives is progressing well.
The Committee noted that the overall progress had improved over the previous
year due to the approval of the revised Source Protection Plan in March 2019
which included updated technical work and mapping. The reporting process was
smoother this year, as well, and will improve as reporting tools improve and staff
become more familiar with the processes.
The Committee did not have any additional comments to include with this
submission.
SPA-6/20
moved: D. Beres
seconded: V. Donnell
THAT the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority is satisfied that the
2019 Long Point Region Annual Progress Report and Supplemental Form meets
the requirements of S.46 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and any Director’s
instructions established under O. Reg. 287/07 S.52.;
AND THAT Lake Erie Region staff be directed to submit the 2019 Long Point
Region Annual Progress Report and Supplemental Form to the Director of the
Source Protection Programs Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks along with any Source Protection Committee comments, in
accordance with S.46 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and any Director’s
instructions established under O. Reg. 287/07 S.52.
CARRIED
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
3
b) Source Protection Committee Amended Rules of Procedure
Due to the pandemic, the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee was
required to update their rules of procedure to allow for meetings to be held
remotely. It was recommended that the four Source Protection Authorities within
the Lake Erie Region approve the amendment. Kettle Creek & Grand River
Conservation Authorities have recently approved the updated rules of procedure.
SPA- 7/20
moved: P. Ypma
seconded: T. Masschaele
THAT the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority approves the proposed
amendments to the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee’s Rules of
Procedure.
CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20pm.
Michael Columbus Dana McLachlan
Chair Administrative Assistant
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 1 -
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Board of Directors Meeting of November 4, 2020
Approved December 2, 2020
Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Valerie
Donnell, Roger Geysens, Tom Masschaele, John Scholten and Peter Ypma
Staff in attendance: Judy Maxwell, Aaron LeDuc, and Dana McLachlan. Ben Hodi
attended via conference call
Regrets: Kristal Chopp, Ken Hewitt and Stewart Patterson
1. Welcome and Call to Order
The chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 4, 2020.
2. Additional Agenda Items
There were no additional agenda items.
3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None were declared.
4. Deputations
There were no deputations.
5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
a) Board of Directors Meeting of October 7, 2020
A-99/20
Moved by J. Scholten
Seconded by V. Donnell
That the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting held October 7, 2020 be adopted as
circulated.
CARRIED
6. Business Arising
There was no business arising.
7. Review of Committee Minutes
There were no committee meeting minutes for review.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 2 -
8. Correspondence
There was no correspondence to report.
9. Development Applications
a) Staff Approved applications
Staff approved 28 applications since the last meeting in October: LPRCA-207/20,
LPRCA-208/20, LPRCA-209/20, LPRCA-210/20, LPRCA-213/20, LPRCA-214/20,
LPRCA-215/20, LPRCA-216/20, LPRCA-217/20, LPRCA-218/20, LPRCA-220/20,
LPRCA-221/20, LPRCA-222/20, LPRCA-223/20, LPRCA-225/20, LPRCA-226/20,
LPRCA-227/20, LPRCA-228/20, LPRCA-229/20, LPRCA-230/20, LPRCA-231/20
LPRCA-232/20, LPRCA-233/20, LPRCA-234/20, LPRCA-244/20, LPRCA-246/20,
LPRCA-249/20 and LPRCA-250/20.
All of the staff approved applications met the requirements as set out in Section 28 of
the Conservation Authorities Act.
A-100/20
Moved by R. Geysens
Seconded by J. Scholten
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation
Applications report dated October 27, 2020 as information.
CARRIED
10. New Business
a) General Manager’s Report
J. Maxwell reviewed the activities and accomplishments achieved over the past month.
The Campgrounds closed October 15th and hydro upgrades have started at Deer Creek
CA. The Phase 3 Waterford North CA upgrades to install 54 hydro/water sites will begin
shortly starting with a new road installation.
Responding to the Chair’s request for further information, the General Manager noted
that approximately nine acres of 2020 tree planting sites from the private tree planting
program will be need to be replanted due to the hot and dry temperatures this past
June.
A-101/20
Moved by D. Beres
Seconded by R. Chambers
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for October
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 3 -
2020 as information.
CARRIED
b) Ecological Surveys of Selected LPRCA Properties
LPRCA contracts a qualified ecologist to survey properties for species at risk and
species of concern on an annual basis. Staff retained the services of Natural Resource
Solutions Inc., as approved by the Board earlier this year, to complete the 2020 surveys
at four LPRCA properties.
The goal is to accumulate baseline data for all LPRCA properties as the ecological
surveys assist staff in preparing the prescriptions/operating plans.
A-102/20
Moved by R. Geysens
Seconded by V. Donnell
That the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the recommendations contained in the
report submitted by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. titled “Long Point Region
Conservation Authority Ecological Inventories for Significant Plant Species and
Vegetation Communities at Sackrider, Parrott, Nemeth, Harris Floyd (Block #2) Tracts.
CARRIED
c) Forest Management Prescriptions/Operating Plans
Staff prepares prescriptions/operating plans for the forest tracts that will receive some
form of silvicultural treatment. Plans for the Harris Floyd (Block #2) and the Parrott
Tracts were presented.
Marking will be completed this fall in preparation for tendering early next year.
A-103/20
Moved by J. Scholten
Seconded by V. Donnell
That the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the prescriptions/operating plans for the
Harris Floyd (Block #2) Tract on the 5th Concession of Houghton Township, and the
Parrott Tract on the 2nd Concession of Middleton Township.
CARRIED
d) 3rd Quarter Financials
A. LeDuc reviewed the overall financial picture to October 31, 2020.
As expected, campground revenues were negatively impacted by the COVID-19
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 4 -
restrictions but the forestry department attained its budgeted revenue target.
To offset the reduced revenue, staffing was reduced and purchasing restrictions were
implemented. As a result of these actions, LPRCA was in a surplus position as at
September 30, 2020.
With the actions taken to date and the continued expenditure restraints, the forecast is
projected to be between zero and 1% of budget.
Management will continue to monitor the financial operations and will take action to
mitigate further potential risks if required.
J. Maxell provided an update and projection on the outstanding capital projects as
requested by the Chair. Due to the pandemic, some of the projects are deferred until
2021.
A-104/20
Moved by R. Chambers
Seconded by R. Geysens
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the 3rd Quarter 2020 Budget Performance
Report for the period up to and including September 30th, 2020 as information.
CARRIED
e) Watershed Conditions Update
LPRCA Flood Coordinators have posted a standing Flood Outlook message and
provided the municipal emergency management coordinators with daily updates since
May 2019 due to the consistently high static Lake Erie levels.
Although the level of Lake Erie has decreased throughout this past summer, static water
levels on Lake Erie, and the other four great lakes, remains above historic levels.
Localized flooding and erosion continue to occur along the shoreline. The number of
permit applications for shoreline and repair work continue to be high due to Lake Erie
conditions.
Strong southwest winds, typical in the fall, tend to create a temporary surge in lake
levels. Therefore, the risk of flooding and erosion remains high and there is a one-in-
three chance of seeing another event similar to October 30, 2019.
It is predicted that Lake Erie water levels will remain high over the next few months but
is unlikely to see record levels.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 5 -
A-105/20
Moved by V. Donnell
Seconded by R. Geysens
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the October 2020 shoreline conditions
update report as information.
CARRIED
11. Closed Session
A-106/20
Moved by R. Chambers
Seconded by D. Beres
That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into a closed session to discuss:
A trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial or financial information that
belongs to the Authority and has monetary value or potential monetary value; or
A position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any
negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Authority.
CARRIED
A-107/20
Moved by D. Beres
Seconded by R. Geysens
That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now adjourn from the closed session.
CARRIED
12. Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Michael Columbus Dana McLachlan
Chair Administrative Assistant
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 1 -
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Board of Directors Budget Meeting of November 12, 2020
Approved December 2, 2020
Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie
Donnell, K. Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten and Peter
Ypma
Staff in attendance: Judy Maxwell, Aaron LeDuc, Ben Hodi and Dana McLachlan.
Regrets: Robert Chambers and Roger Geysens
* K. Chopp, K. Hewitt and T. Masschaele arrived late
Welcome and Call to Order
The chair called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m., Thursday, November 12, 2020.
Approval of Agenda
A-108/20
Moved by J. Scholten
Seconded by V. Donnell
That the Board of Directors approves the agenda for the LPRCA 2020 Budget Meeting
held November 12, 2020.
CARRIED
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None were declared.
General Manager’s Report on the 2021 Budget
The General Manager summarized the budget process. Once recommended by the
Board, the 2021 LPRCA Draft Budget will be circulated to member municipalities for a
30-day review.
At the first meeting of the year, January 13, 2021, the budget will be voted on by a
recorded, weighted vote.
The Manager of Corporate Services provided a general overview of the 2021 budget.
Staff complied with the direction received by the Audit and Finance Committee for a
1.5% target increase on the levy. A budget was presented for 1.51% or $30,633 on the
overall municipal general levy. The operating levy increased by 2.55% or $41,983 and
the capital levy decreased by 2.94% or $11,350.
K. Hewitt arrived at 9:25 a.m. No conflict declared.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 2 -
During the discussion staff noted that there is a plan in place to manage the budget if
the pandemic continues or worsens.
OPERATIONS
Watershed Planning and Technical Services
The Watershed Planning and Technical Services Department has two main
responsibilities: controlling development in and around hazardous areas through the
permitting process; and, providing advice on planning and land-use matters to
municipalities.
User fee revenues were low in the early part of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic
but staff have seen a steady increase over the past month.
Planning and Regulatory Services
The proposed Planning and Technical fees have been increased by 2-3%.
A new fee has been added for the pre-consultation process prior receiving a formal
application under the Planning Act. Pre-consultations require a significant amount of
staff time.
Watershed Flood Control Services
The Flood Control Services department includes the Flood Forecasting and Warning
System, and the maintenance and operation of dams and weirs. This department
provides notices about potential flooding to municipalities and the public, works with
member municipalities and emergency responders in flood preparation and response,
maintains hydrometric data, and works with member municipalities in hazard risk
identification assessment.
Healthy Watershed Services
The Healthy Watershed Services Department includes stewardship and restoration
programs, surface water and ground water quality monitoring , low water response
programs, and source water protection programs. The majority of the activities/projects
in this department are funded through various government programs and private
landowners/organizations while three programs are funded through levy.
For 2021, staff plan to create seven wetlands and 400 acres of cover crops, continue
lamprey barrier monitoring and provide phragmites control on 60 acres.
Communications and Marketing Services
The Communications Coordinator has been tasked with leveraging the new LPRCA
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 3 -
website and social media account for increasing promotion of the parks and utilizing
technology to streamline the flood forecasting warnings.
Purchased Services were decreased as the new website will be launched in 2020.
Backus Heritage Conservation Area
This department covers three operating areas: the campground including the Education
Centre, the Backhouse Historic Site and programming, and Conservation Education.
Conservation Parks Management Services
The Park Superintendent position was added in 2020 and has been very beneficial for
enforcement and oversight for the seasonal staff. The park superintendent will be
preparing a new operations manual to streamline operations and provide consistency
throughout the campgrounds.
Workshop staff provides support with park infrastructure and mechanical repairs.
Conservation Area User Fees
Seasonal camping fees have been increased to reflect upgrades in the parks and the
cost of services provided. There is no change to nightly camping fees.
A fee comparison was completed and LPRCA fees are mid-to-low-range compared with
surrounding campgrounds. As a result, the vehicle day-use entry fee and the season
pass fee have been increased.
The pavilion fee was to be increased by 13% which led to a discussion and the Board
voted to maintain the fee with no increase.
A-109/20
Moved by S. Patterson
Seconded by P. Ypma
That pavilion fees remain at $75 for 2021.
CARRIED
Public Forest Lands Management Services
LPRCA owns just over 11,000 acres, of which, 7,539 acres are in the Managed Forest
Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) and 2,593 acres are in the Conservation Land Tax
Incentive Program (CLTIP).
Not included in the budget is funding for a gypsy moth spray program. The matter is
being researched and will be presented to the Board if it is determined there is a need
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 4 -
for a strategic spray program.
After a short break, the meeting continued at 10:50 a.m.
Private Forest Land Management Services
The Private Forest Lands Management Department assists private land owners to
reforest lands on their property. The goal for 2021 is to plant 51,000 trees funded by
private landowners and Forest Ontario, and a further 12,000 trees with Ontario Power
Generation (OPG) funding.
This department also provides tree survival monitoring and reporting.
Other Conservation Land Management Services
This department includes all of the LPRCA parkettes within the watershed, the Lee
Brown Marsh, and the Maintenance Workshop.
Slight increases were included in purchased services to make repairs to the Black
Creek boat launch and to repaint the roofs of the workshop and buildings.
Corporate Services
The Corporate Services Department includes administration, accounting and IT
services. Staff will continue to update policies and procedures, and review department
workloads to achieve operational efficiencies. Scheduled for review are the Investment
Policy and the Tangible Capital Asset Policy.
The municipal levy has been increased by 5% in this department for the following
reasons:
Interest on investments was down significantly this year and interest rates are
expected to remain low for the next 18 months
Insurance and liability policies are expected to increase between 15-20%,
therefore, there is a budget increase of 17% over the previous year. LPRCA will
be tendering for insurance in 2021.
Property taxes have increased on average by 8% over the past three years,
therefore, the budget reflects an increase of 7.5% for property taxes.
CAPITAL
Capital Budget Summary – 2021-2025
The 2021 total for capital spending is budgeted at $615,000 requiring $375,000 from the
general levy and $225,000 special levy from Norfolk County.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 5 -
Watershed Services Capital Projects
Staff provided an updated detailed plan for the flood control structures to 2025. At the
end of 2021, all Dam Safety Reviews will be completed with the exception of Lehman
Dam and Deer Creek Dam. Deer Creek requires repairs prior to the safety review and
Lehman is on hold until further information is received from the Ministry of
Transportation regarding the bridge and road repairs on Highway 3.
Backus Heritage Conservation Area Capital Projects
A culvert upgrade is needed to increase the flow capacity to cross Dedrick Creek into
Campground A. The culvert tends to overflow in the spring and the road becomes
unsafe to cross and requires constant repairs.
Conservation Parks Management Capital Projects
Deer Creek Conservation Area. Install water and hydro hookups at the remaining 10
sites. All 40 campsites would then be serviced.
Norfolk Conservation Area. Hydro upgrades will continue by replacing aging electrical
panels and wiring to alleviate breakers tripping during peak usage.
Other Conservation and Land Management Capital Projects
Staff requested funds to purchase the following motor pool items:
Two new 4WD pickup trucks
One 4WD riding mower to maintain the many parkettes
One new backhoe/loader to replace the current 1983 model
One new float trailer for the backhoe/loader to replace the current 1998 model
A new table saw is required to complete the various projects at the workshop and
campground. The current table saw is 27 years old and is now unsafe and it has
become difficult to obtain parts.
The project to replace signage and missing corner posts at a number of LPRCA
woodlots was started in 2012 and will be completed in 2021.
Another continuing project requires gates to be added or replaced at woodlot entrances
to discourage ATV trespass and garbage dumping. The gates are built and installed by
the workshop staff and will continue at least until 2022.
Corporate Services Capital Projects
Computer hardware and accessories upgrades are required which will be deployed
throughout the organization. Additionally, staff requested an IT Assessment to test
cyber and data security.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 6 -
T. Masschaele arrived at 11:30 a.m. No conflict declared.
BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
General Manager’s Report and Budget Recommendations
K. Chopp arrived at 11:45 a.m. No conflict declared.
The board requested a minor change to staff’s recommendation to include the increase
to the operating budget and decrease to the capital budget and not just the blended
increase.
A-110/20
Moved by D. Beres
Seconded by J. Scholten
That the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following recommendations regarding
LPRCA’s 2021 Draft Operating and Capital budgets;
That the 2021 proposed Ontario Regulation 178/06 Permit Fees and Planning Act
Review Fees as set out in Tab 5 be approved;
That the 2021 proposed Healthy Watershed Services User Fees as set out in Tab 7 be
approved;
That the 2021 proposed Conservation Area User Fees as set out in Tab 11 be approved
as amended;
That the draft 2021 operating budget of $4,421,734 requiring $1,686,943 of general levy
representing an increase in the general levy of 2.55% or $41,983;
And the draft 2021 capital budget of $615,000 requiring $375,000 of general levy
representing a decrease in the general levy of 2.94% or $11,350;
And the draft 2021 capital budget of $615,000 includes a special levy of $225,000 for
Norfolk County;
AND the total general municipal levy of $2,061,943 (excluding the special levy) requiring
an increase of 1.51% or $30,633 overall compared to 2020 be circulated to member
municipalities for review and comment;
AND FURTHER that staff be directed to present the Draft 2021 Budget to member
municipalities when requested.
CARRIED
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Roger Geysens, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 7 -
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.
Michael Columbus Dana McLachlan
Chair Administrative Assistant
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm St., Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 0C4
519-842-4242 or 1-888-231-5408 ˖ Fax 519-842-7123
Email: conservation@lprca.on.ca ˖ www.lprca.on.ca
A Member of the Conservation Ontario Network
November 20, 2020
Via Email
Honourable Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca
Premier of Ontario
Honourable Rod Phillips minister.fin@ontario.ca
Minister of Finance
Honourable Jeff Yurek minister.mecp@ontario.ca
Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks
Honourable John Yakabuski minister.mnrf@ontario.ca
Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry
Honourable Steve Clark minister.mah@ontario.ca
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Re: Major Streamlining and Cost Concerns with Bill 229: Protect, Support and
Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures Act) – Schedule 6 – Conservation
Authorities Act
We are writing to you today in response to the proposed amendments to the Conservation
Authorities Act (CA Act), contained in Schedule 6, Bill 229. We anticipate that some of the more
prescriptive changes proposed in Bill 229 will lead to the opposite of your government’s stated
desire to help conservation authorities (CA) modernize and operate with greater focus,
transparency and efficiency.
For over 50 years, the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) has served as a
provincial/municipal partnership to protect people and property from flooding and other natural
hazards and to conserve natural resources on a watershed basis. LPRCA has been a trusted,
accountable partner to the Province and our municipalities. Our residents and municipalities
depend on us to deliver science-based technical advice and cost-effective services that meet
local watershed needs.
It is our view that several of the proposed amendments could increase the risk to life and
property from natural hazards and restrict LPRCA’s ability to efficiently deliver programs and
services on a watershed basis. We respectfully request you to remove Schedule 6 from Bill
229 until a more thorough analysis of the appropriate solutions can take place, the
regulations are created and communicated to address the issue identified through the
consultation process. We also encourage you to engage with CAs as you work on regulations
that will eventually define the limits of various CA Act clauses. We feel this is critical to ensure
the focus and performance of CAs is actually improved.
Several changes, such as those related to governance, fees, ministerial authority to issue
permits, and the removal of conservations authorities as public bodies under the Planning Act
will lead to increased administrative costs, red tape, delays, and above all bring into question
the integrity and transparency of the permitting and planning process. These changes will not
enhance our ability to work with applicants to find practical solutions for safe development.
Specifically:
The amendments introduce a governance model that has no legal precedence
The proposed changes will significantly reduce the capacity of Boards to make
decisions on a watershed basis. Our Board of Directors carry out their fiduciary
responsibilities, guide strategy, approve policies in support of our Provincial and
municipal responsibilities and track performance. They ensure LPRCA makes decisions
with integrity, based solely on our core responsibilities. It is our view that changing the
composition to reflect elected officials that represent the interests of their respective
municipalities runs counter to all governance principles.
The proposed changes to the Planning Act create a significant gap in the land use
planning system. Conservation authority participation in the planning appeals process
ensures that watershed science and data are being applied to planning and land use
decisions. The involvement of the conservation authorities in the plan review process
has resulted in the streamlining of municipal planning approval processes. LPRCA
provides timely plan review responses and has not caused delays in municipal planning
approvals. Efforts to limit CA involvement in identifying constraints upfront will only result
in misdirected development investments and delays in approval processes.
The integrity of the permitting process will be compromised – these amendments will
increase risk, liability, delays, and lead to inconsistency. LPRCA currently issues all
minor and major permits within the 30 and 90 day provincial standard. The average
turnaround for LPRCA permit approvals in 2019 was 5 days for minor permits and 12
days for major permits. It is our view that the proposed amendments have the potential
to allow individuals to circumvent checks and balances that exist to protect the
communities in our watersheds, and may inadvertently cause more people in the
community to be at risk, rather than protected, from natural hazards.
In conclusion, we do not want to see an increased risk to public safety, or increased liabilities to
the Province, municipalities, and conservation authorities. Nor do we want more red tape,
disruption and untimely delays in helping the government achieve its goal of economic recovery.
Given the time sensitive nature of this Bill, we encourage the Province to set Schedule 6 aside
from Bill 229 and work with LPRCA and other CAs on appropriate solutions that achieve the
government’s objectives. We have attached a more detailed (Board) report on our key concerns.
We appreciate you taking the time to consider our concerns. We feel there are better solutions
to deal with the actual versus perceived issues. We would be pleased to discuss these issues
and work with you to define the governing regulations at your earliest convenience. Please
contact Long Point Region Conservation Authority GM, Judy Maxwell (jmaxwell@lprca.on.ca)
so we can help support your mandate while ensuring success for all stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Michael Columbus
Chair
cc. Hon. Ernie Hardeman, MPP Oxford
Will Bouma, MPP Brantford-Brant
Toby Barrett, MPP Haldimand-Norfolk
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT
Date: November 20, 2020 File: 1.2.1.2
To: Chair and Members, LPRCA Board of Directors
From: General Manager
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act in Bill 229
Recommendation:
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receive the Proposed Amendments to the
Conservation Authorities Act in Bill 229 report as information,
And
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors request that the Province of Ontario remove
Schedule 6 from Bill 229 until a more thorough analysis of the appropriate solutions can
take place, the regulations are created and communicated to address the issues
identified through the consultation process,
And
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors direct the LPRCA Chair to send a letter expressing
the concerns with the report attached to The Premier and the Ministers of Finance,
Environment, Conservation and Parks, Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural
Resources and Forestry,
And
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors direct the General Manager to provide a copy of this
report and letter to all watershed member municipalities and watershed MPPs.
Link to Strategic Plan:
Strategic Direction #1 – Protect People and Property from Flooding and Natural Hazards
Strategic Direction #2 – Deliver Exceptional Services and Experiences
Strategic Direction #3 – Support and Empower Our People
Strategic Direction #4 – Organizational Excellence
Background:
On April 5th, 2019 the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) posted
proposals to amend the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) with the intent to help
conservation authorities (CA) focus and deliver on their core mandate and to improve
governance. Details about many of these changes was left to subsequent regulations that have
yet to be released. LPRCA prepared submissions on the changes to the Act but it was passed in
June 2019 under Bill 108 with little consultation or consideration for suggested modifications.
Since then, in October through December 2019, individual briefings with CAs were held with
Minister’s staff, ministry staff and local MPPs. In December 2019, LPRCA Chair, Vice Chair and
staff met with Minister Yurek to describe the range of LPRCA programs and their benefits to the
watershed. General consultations with CAs and stakeholders were held in the winter of 2020.
The results of those consultations have not been made public.
On November 5th, 2020, the Province released their budget Bill 229; Protect, Support and
Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020. Bill 229 includes amendments to 44
Acts, including Schedule 6, the Conservation Authorities Act. These new amendments are
described in the Environmental Registry (ERO) posting “to improve transparency and
consistency in conservation authority operations, strengthen municipal and provincial oversight
and streamline conservation authority roles in permitting and land use planning”.
While previously proposed changes to the Act have been posted to the ERO for a period of
public comment, these new changes are posted on the ERO for “information only using Section
33 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) which exempts proposals from the public
consultation requirements under the EBR if the proposal forms part of or gives effect to a budget
or economic statement presented to the Legislative Assembly”. The legislature is due to rise on
December 10th and therefore Bill 229 is expected to be passed in the next few weeks.
On November 9th, 2020 MECP hosted an information session with all 36 Conservation Authority
General Managers to provide additional information on the proposed amendments and
timelines. MECP has indicated a series of regulations and policies that will define mandatory
programs and services conservation authorities must provide will be released for public
comment in the coming weeks.
The proposed changes to the CA Act with comments on the effect of the change were provided
by Conservation Ontario and are attached as Appendix 1.
The proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act can be categorized into 6 areas:
1. Board Governance
2. Objects, Powers and Duties
3. Permitting
4. Land Use Planning
5. Enforcement
6. Other
Key changes to the CA Act under each of these categories are discussed below.
1. Board Governance
Key Changes
a. 14(1.1) Mandate that the municipal councillors appointed by particular municipalities as
members of a conservation authority be selected from that municipality’s own councillors
only.
b. Replace the current discretion to set other “such additional requirements regarding the
composition of the authority and the qualification of members” in a regulation (CA Act,
s14(4)) with the discretion of the Minister to appoint a member “as a representative of the
agricultural sector” (new CA Act provision 14(4))
c. Replace the currently unproclaimed duty of members to “act honestly and in good faith
with a view to furthering the objects of the authority” (CA Act, s14.1) to require that
members “act honestly and in good faith” and that, particularly, members appointed by
participating municipalities, “generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities” (new
CA Act provision 14.1)
d. Limit the term of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors to one year and to no
more than two consecutive terms, and require the Chair and Vice Chair to rotate every two
years between different municipalities (new CA Act provision 17(1.1))
Comments
LPRCA remains supportive of any changes made to enhance the transparency and
accountability of CAs. We also support the Province’s intent to clearly define mandatory
programs and services provided by conservation authorities and we look forward to the
opportunity to provide input on the regulations. There are several amendments that require
posting of documents, board agendas and minutes, financial audits and standard accounting
practices that we already undertake at LPRCA. We agree with those requirements.
Municipalities will no longer be able to appoint a member of the public to the Board. This will
not affect LPRCA at this time however smaller Municipalities and CA’s do have public members
appointed.
The direction in clause 14.1 that members generally act on behalf of their respective
municipalities is concerning. Good governance dictates that the Board act on behalf of the
organization and in the public interest. The standards of care for directors are set out under the
Business Corporations Act:
“Every director and officer of a corporation in exercising his or her powers and discharging his or
her duties to the corporation shall, (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best
interests of the corporation….; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably
prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances”.
This proposed change is contrary to the fiduciary responsibilities of a corporate body and
undermines the stated purpose of conservation authorities to address conservation matters,
including safety of the public, that transcend municipal boundaries.
Further, the Auditor General of Ontario recommended in their report on the Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority that “to ensure effective oversight of conservation authorities” activities
through boards of directors, we recommend that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks clarify board members’ accountability to the conservation authority” to which the
ministry response was in agreement.
2. Objects, Powers and Duties
Key Changes
a. Narrows the objects of a conservation authority from providing “programs and services
designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of
natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals” (CA Act, s20(1)) to three
categories: (i) mandatory programs and services, (ii) municipal programs and services,
and (iii) other programs and services (new CA Act provision 20(1))
b. There are a number of proposed clauses that enable the Minister to make regulations that
would prescribe standards and requirements for Municipal Programs and Services (i.e.,
service agreement between Municipalities and CAs) and Other Programs and Services
(i.e., those determined by the Board and if funded by municipal levy municipality
agreements would be required)
c. The Act allows the conservation authority to charge a fee for programs and services
prescribed by regulation. This has not changed. However, amendments to the Act
(Section 21.2) allow a person who is charged a fee for any LPRCA program or service to
apply to the authority to reconsider the fee and also to appeal the authority’s decision to
the LPAT.
Comments
The modifications to the objects should not materially change the way LPRCA operates.
However, since the regulations that detail the nature and scope of the mandatory programs and
services have not yet been provided, we are unable to assess the real implications. Programs
that enable LPRCA to study the watershed, provide watershed planning, carry out restoration
activities and deliver education programs may become unviable if each watershed municipality
independently decides to periodically opt in/out.
The proposed clause that allows the minister to dictate the standards and requirements for
municipal or other programs and services agreed upon through service level agreements (non-
mandatory programs) should be removed. Terms for these programs can continue to be
developed with watershed municipalities and funding determined annually through the budget
process. There is little to no provincial funding or support in these categories, although various
provincial ministries seek data and reports from LPRCA to further their mandates. This additional
level of bureaucracy and oversight is unnecessary and duplicates effort.
Multiple appeals of fees (including conservation area fees as well as plan review and permit
fees) have the potential to undermine Board direction with regard to cost recovery and to divert
both financial and staff resources away from LPRCA’s primary work.
3. Permitting
Key Changes
a. Authorizes the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to issue an order to take over
and make decision on an application for a permit under Section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act in place of the conservation authority (i.e., before the conservation authority
has made a decision on the application).
b. Allows an applicant, within 15 days of a conservation authority issuing a permit with
conditions or denying a permit, to request the minister to review the conservation
authority’s decision and allows the applicant to appeal directly to LPAT where the minister
fails to make a decision within 30 days
c. Where the minister has taken over a permit application or is reviewing a permit decision
by a conservation authority, allows an applicant to appeal directly to LPAT where the
minister fails to make a decision within 90 days.
d. In addition to the provision to seek a minister’s review, provide the applicant with the
ability to appeal a permit decision to LPAT within 90 days after the conservation authority
has made a decision.
e. Allows an applicant, within 120 days of a conservation authority receiving a permit
application, to appeal to the LPAT if no decisions by the conservation authority has been
made.
Comments
Changes under Section 28 will jeopardize public safety and environmental protections. The
changes will limit a CA’s ability to undertake non-partisan, transparent, and technically sound
decision making and will allow individuals to circumvent the technical CA permitting process.
The changes will result in more red tape, delays in approvals, and increased legal costs.
If the Minister issues an order to take over and decide on a permit application, or the
application’s is determined by LPAT, it is unclear how the application will be evaluated.
Decisions would be made without regard for local conditions, watershed context, or CA Board of
Directors’ approved regulatory policies. The proposed process lacks transparency. Without the
non-partisan and technical expertise of CAs (i.e., water resources engineering, environmental
planning and ecological expertise), or in the absence of a complete, technically sound permit
submission for a development proposal, it is unclear how risks to life, property or the
environment will be evaluated. If the Minister issues a permit before a CA has decided on a file,
the process risks losing all transparency and becoming politicized. Decisions will lack
consistency with CA policies and procedures and may result in precedent-setting decisions,
cumulative impacts, risk to public safety and property damage and lead to future management
challenges.
The proposed 120-day timeline for a CA to make a decision does not acknowledge the efforts
that CAs have made to find efficiencies and streamline their permit review processes. In 2019,
LPRCA issued all minor permits and all major permits within 30 days and 90 days respectively.
The average turnaround for permit approvals in 2019 was 5 days for minor permits and 12 days
for major permits. The proposed timeframe also fails to recognize the ‘Client Service Standards
for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review’ that was adopted CA-wide and developed
by Conservation Ontario and CAs in collaboration with the Province, AMO, landowners groups
and the building industry. This document establishes industry standards and procedures to
ensure that the CA plan and permit review processes are transparent, predictable and fair.
The proposed CA decision timeframe oversimplifies the permitting process and there is no ability
for a CA to “stop the clock” when an application is in the applicant’s hands. This typically
happens when insufficient technical information is provided by applicants or additional technical
information is required to enable adequate analysis by staff to determine if Board-approved
policies are being met, and a decision can be rendered. Applicants can intentionally “run down
the clock” and put the decision-making power in the hands of the Minister or LPAT. If legislative
timelines are to be imposed, CAs must have the ability to “stop the clock” to better reflect actual
time that an application is in for CA review.
Finally, the proposed changes will result in increased legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers,
municipalities (municipal levy) and/or all permit applicants. Instead of spending time processing
permit applications, more CA staff time would go to preparing for and attending unnecessary
LPAT hearings that will lead to a more burdensome process.
Historically, individuals have been able to access the Mining and Lands Tribunal to adjudicate
decisions of the conservation authority at no cost to them, unless they chose to provide support
for their application with technical experts and/or legal counsel. The LPAT has a filing fee which
may exceed the cost of the permit for individuals. While the development community may be
familiar with LPAT, the Mining and Lands Tribunal has the history and experience in adjudicating
Conservation Authorities Act cases. One can expect significant delays at LPAT and potentially
decisions that are inconsistently determined and applied.
4. Land Use Planning
Key Changes
a. A proposed amendment of the Planning Act to include conservation authorities to
subsection 1 (2) of the Planning Act. This will remove CAs as a public body and
specifically name CAs under the one window approach of MMAH for the purposes of
appeals only. This may remove conservations authorities, who are private landowners,
from the right of appeal.
Comments
Changes to section 2(1) of the Planning Act specifically removes the ability to appeal municipal
planning decisions, unless it is through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Not being
involved could result in planning decisions that fail to consider hazard risks and for which CA
permits cannot be approved.
With the proposed change in Section 2(1) of the Planning Act, it is unclear whether or how
municipalities will circulate municipal planning applications to the CA. The implications for
LPRCA’s plan review and permitting programs are concerning. Applicants may be unaware of
the need for an LPRCA permit until the Building Department stage when their plans are set,
causing delay, additional costs for both the applicant and LPRCA, and increasing LPRCA’s
costs for enforcement. This is contrary to the Province’s streamlining objectives. LPRCA meets
the municipal timelines for plan review and has not caused delays municipal planning approvals.
The 2019 Provincial Flood Advisor’s report noted the important role that CAs play in the land
use planning process. The main legislative tools used to manage flood risk, the report states,
include the Planning Act together with the PPS and the Conservation Authorities Act. As a result
of the Flood Advisor’s recommendations, the 2020 PPS was revised to state that mitigating
natural hazard risks, including those associated with climate change, will require the province,
planning authorities, and conservation authorities to work together. Similarly, the Made in
Ontario Environment Plan asserts that within the context of environmental planning,
conservation authorities’ core mandate is the protection from natural hazards and conserving
natural resources.
5. Regulatory Enforcement
Key Changes
a. Eliminates the (not yet proclaimed) powers for officers appointed by conservation authorities
to issue stop orders (CA Act provision 30.4)
b. Clarifies conditions for officers appointed by conservation authorities to enter lands without a
warrant for the purposes of:
determining whether to issue a permit (amendment to unproclaimed CA Act provision
30.2(1))
ensuring compliance with the prohibitions, regulations, or permit conditions, only when
the officer has “reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention” (new CA Act
provision 30.2(1.1)).
Comments
Changes to Section 30.4 of the Conservation Authorities Act removes the power of CAs to issue
stop orders to persons carrying out activities that could contravene or are contravening the Act.
This tool was recently added to the legislation (2019), after years of debate, to enable CAs to
immediately stop activities which could cause high risk to life and property and environmental
damage and allow time for a negotiated resolution of the matter. The removal of this tool and
narrowing of the powers of entry (Sect. 28(20) and 30.2) curtails a CAs ability to “prevent or
reduce the effects or risks” associated with illegal and egregious activities, such as illegal
placement of fill, wetland destruction, etc., and puts the onus on an authority to engage in a time
consuming and costly injunction process. It shifts the legal instrument to another agency and
increases administrative burden on both conservation authority and municipality or other
agencies.
6. Other
Key Changes
a. Requirement for a transition plan to be developed and implemented to ensure compliance
with the regulations for mandatory programs and services and agreements or MOUs with
municipal partners.
Comments
In a briefing with Ministry staff, it was noted that the expected transition period for the
implementation of MOUs would be one year, such that the changes would take effect January
2022 budget year.
It is LPRCA’s experience with existing MOUs that they can take many months to finalize given
that there may be multiple municipalities involved. The development and implementation of a
transition plan will require a change to the budget model, an assessment of all programs and
services to ensure compliance with the regulations and development and negotiation with
municipalities for MOU’s for non-mandatory programs and services.
It is unknown when regulations will be posted for public input and approved. This transition
period is not realistic given the complexities of the changes required.
Schedule 6 should be removed from Bill 229 until a more thorough analysis of the appropriate
solutions can take place, the regulations are created and communicated to address the issue
identified through the consultation process.
The following is a summary of specific areas of concern for LPRCA.
Summary of LPRCA Response to Proposed Amendments to the CA Act
LPRCA requests that the clause be edited to remove the ability for a Minister to
prescribe standards and requirements for non-mandatory, municipal and local programs
and services.
LPRCA requests that the amendment to the Planning Act be removed from Schedule 6
of Bill 229.
LPRCA requests that Bill 229 schedule 6 clauses in S.28 be amended by removing
references to LPAT and replacing it with the Mining and Lands Tribunal.
LPRCA requests that the wording for fiduciary responsibilities in the CA Act be amended
back to: “Every member of an authority shall act honestly and in good faith with a view to
furthering the objects of the authority.”
LPRCA requests that a future regulation regarding the transition plan have an
implementation date that is 18-24 months after the regulation is approved.
A draft letter is attached as Appendix 2 of LPRCA’s response to the Premier as well as Ministers
of Environment Conservation and Parks, Natural Resources and Forestry, Municipal Affairs and
Housing, and Finance.
Financial Implications:
Without the details of the proposed regulations, it is difficult to determine the financial
implications for the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act.
Prepared and submitted by:
Judy Maxwell CPA, CGA
General Manager
Appendix 1
Conservation Ontario’s Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Conservation
Authorities Act & Planning Act through Bill 229 and Implications
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
Existing aboriginal or treaty rights
Section 1 is amended to include a non-
abrogation clause with respect to aboriginal
and treaty rights.
No concern.
Members of authority
Section 14 is amended to ensure that the
members of a conservation authority that are
appointed by participating municipalities are
municipal councillors. The Minister is given
the authority to appoint an additional member
to a conservation authority to represent the
agricultural sector. The powers to define in
regulation the composition, appointment or
minimum qualifications for a member of the
Board have been repealed. The duties of a
member are amended, every member is to
act honestly and in good faith and shall
generally act on behalf of their respective
municipalities.
There may be a municipal concern. Municipalities
will no longer be able to appoint a member of the
public to the Board and the specification of
‘municipal councillor’ rather than “municipally
elected official” may exclude Mayors.
There may be a municipal concern. Should the
Minister choose to appoint a member to represent
the agricultural sector it is assumed that
candidates would apply through the Public
Appointments Secretariat. It is also assumed that
these appointments would have the same voting
privileges as all members and would be entitled to
receive per diems and to be appointed as the chair
or vice-chair.
There may be a municipal concern. There is no
opportunity to manage these legislative
amendments through the regulations process as
Bill 229 has removed the ability to prescribe by
regulation, the composition, appointment, or
qualifications of members of CAs.
Significant concern. The amendment that would
require members to act on behalf of their
respective municipalities contradicts the fiduciary
duty of a Board Member to represent the best
interests of the corporation they are overseeing. It
puts an individual municipal interest above the
broader watershed interests further to the purpose
of the Act.
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
Meetings of authorities
Section 15 is amended to require that
meeting agendas be available to the public
before a meeting takes place and that
minutes of meetings be available to the public
within 30 days after a meeting. They are to
be made available to the public online.
No concern. CA Administrative By-Laws were
completed by the December 2018 legislated
deadline and, as a best practice, should already
address making key documents publicly available;
including meeting agendas and meeting minutes.
Chair/vice-chair
Section 17 is amended to clarify that the term
of appointment for a chair or vice-chair is one
year and they cannot serve for more than two
consecutive terms.
There may be a municipal concern. Municipal
Councillor interest and availability regarding this
requirement is to be determined.
Objects
Section 20 objects of a conservation authority
are to provide the mandatory, municipal or
other programs and services required or
permitted under the Act and regulations.
No concern. Previously the objects of an authority
were to undertake programs and services
designed to further the conservation, restoration,
development and management of natural
resources. This is still reflected in the Purpose of
the Act. The objects now reference the mandatory
and non-mandatory programs and services to be
delivered. The “other programs and services”
clause indicates that “an authority may provide
within its area of jurisdiction such other programs
and services as the authority determines are
advisable to further the purposes of this Act”.
Powers of authorities
Section 21 amendments to the powers of an
Authority including altering the power to enter
onto land without the permission of the owner
and removing the power to expropriate land.
No concern
Programs and Services
Section 21.1 requires an authority to provide
mandatory programs and services that are
prescribed by regulation and meet the
requirements set out in that section. Section
Significant concern. The basic framework of
mandatory, municipal and other program and
services has not changed from the previously
adopted but not yet proclaimed amendments to the
legislation. What has now changed is that
municipal programs and services and other
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
21.1.1 allows authorities to enter into
agreements with participating municipalities
to provide programs and services on behalf
of the municipalities, subject to the
regulations. Section 21.1.2 would allow
authorities to provide such other programs
and services as it determines are advisable
to further the purposes of the Act, subject to
the regulations.
programs and services are subject to such
standards and requirements as may be prescribed
by regulation. Potentially the regulations could
restrict what the Authority is able to do for its
member municipalities or to further the purpose of
the Act.
Agreements for ‘other programs and services’
An authority is required to enter into
agreements with the participating
municipalities in its jurisdiction if any
municipal funding is needed to recover costs
for the programs or services provided under
section 21.1.2 (i.e. other program and
services). A transition plan shall be
developed by an authority to prepare for
entering into agreements relating to the
recovery of costs. *All programs and services
must be provided in accordance with any
prescribed standards and requirements. *
NOTE- this new addition is addressed as a
significant concern under Programs and
Services above.
Potential concern. This appears to be a
continuation of an amendment previously adopted
but not yet proclaimed. MECP staff indicate that
the current expectation is that the plan in the roll-
out of consultations on regulations is that the
Mandatory programs and services regulation is to
be posted in the next few weeks. It is noted that
this will set the framework for what is then non-
mandatory and requiring agreements and
transition periods. MECP staff further indicated
“changes would be implemented in the CA 2022
budgets” which is interpreted to mean that the
Transition period is proposed to end December
2021. Subject to the availability of the prescribed
regulations this date is anticipated to be
challenging for coordination with CA and municipal
budget processes.
Fees for programs and services
Section 21.2 of the Act allows a person who
is charged a fee for a program or service
provided by an authority to apply to the
authority to reconsider the fee. Section 21.2
is amended to require the authority to make a
decision upon reconsideration of a fee within
30 days. Further, the amendments allow a
person to appeal the decision to the Local
Planning Appeal Tribunal or to bring the
Some concern. Multiple appeals of fees have the
potential to undermine CA Board direction with
regard to cost recovery and to divert both financial
and staff resources away from the primary work of
the conservation authority.
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
matter directly to the Tribunal if the authority
fails to render a decision within 30 days.
Provincial oversight
New sections 23.2 and 23.3 of the Act would
allow the Minister to take certain actions after
reviewing a report on an investigation into an
authority’s operations. The Minister may
order the authority to do anything to prevent
or remedy non-compliance with the Act. The
Minister may also recommend that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council appoint an
administrator to take over the control and
operations of the authority.
No concern. This appears to be an expansion of
powers previously provided to the Minister.
Ministerial Review of Permit Decisions
Subsection 28.1 (8) of the Act currently
allows a person who applied to a
conservation authority for a permit under
subsection 28.1 (1) to appeal that decision to
the Minister if the authority has refused the
permit or issued it subject to conditions.
Subsection 28.1 (8) is repealed and replaced
with provisions that allow the applicant to
choose to seek a review of the authority’s
decision by the Minister or, if the Minister
does not conduct such a review, to appeal
the decision to the Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal within 90 days after the decision is
made. Furthermore, if the authority fails to
make a decision with respect to an
application within 120 days after the
application is submitted, the applicant may
appeal the application directly to the Tribunal.
Significant concern. These amendments provide
two pathways for an applicant to appeal a decision
of an Authority to deny a permit or the conditions
on a permit. One is to ask the Minister to review
the decision; the other is to appeal directly to the
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Appeals brought
through these processes will create additional
workload for the Authority and increase the amount
of time that a permit appeal process takes.
New guidelines will need to be created to support
the Minister and the LPAT in their decision-making
processes. There is no reference to a complete
application being submitted prior to the 120 day
“clock” being started.
Minister’s Order Re. S. 28 Permit
New section 28.1.1 of the Act allows the
Minister to order a conservation authority not
to issue a permit to engage in an activity that,
Significant concern. These powers appear to be
similar to a Minister Zoning Order provided for
under the Planning Act. Should the Minister decide
to use these powers it is appears that the CA may
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
without the permit, would be prohibited under
section 28 of the Act. After making such an
order the Minister may issue the permit
instead of the conservation authority.
be required to ensure compliance with the
Minister’s permit.
Cancellation of Permits
Section 28.3 of the Act is amended to allow a
decision of a conservation authority to cancel
a permit or to make another decision under
subsection 28.3 (5) to be appealed by the
permit holder to the Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal.
Some concern. Some conservation authorities use
the cancellation of a permit as part of their
compliance approach; the ability to appeal to the
LPAT will add 90 days to the process prior to a
LPAT hearing taking place. Renders the tool
ineffective if the permit holder decides to appeal.
Entry Without Warrant, Permit Application
Subsection 30.2 (permit application) of the
Act sets out circumstances in which an officer
may enter land within the area of jurisdictions
of an authority. Those circumstances are
revised.
Some concern. The changes are to amendments
previously adopted but not proclaimed. For
considering a permit application, the officer is now
required to give reasonable notice to the owner
and to the occupier of the property, which may
result in increased administrative burden for the
CA. It also appears to remove the ability to bring
experts onto the site.
Entry Without Warrant, Compliance
Subsection 30.2 (compliance) of the Act sets
out circumstances in which an officer may
enter land within the area of jurisdictions of
an authority. Those circumstances are
revised.
Significant/Some concern. The revisions
essentially undo any enhanced powers of entry
found within the yet to be proclaimed enforcement
and offences section of the Act. The result is that
CAs essentially maintain their existing powers of
entry, which are quite limited. Conservation
authorities will likely have to rely on search
warrants to gain entry to a property where
compliance is a concern. Reasonable grounds for
obtaining a search warrant cannot be obtained
where the activity cannot be viewed without entry
onto the property (i.e. from the road).
Stop (work) Order
Section 30.4 of the Act is repealed. That
section, which has not yet been proclaimed
and which would have given officers the
power to issue stop orders to persons
Significant concern. This is an important
enforcement tool that conservation authorities
have been requesting for years. Without this tool,
conservation authorities must obtain an injunction
Description of Proposed Amendments Implications to Conservation Authorities
carrying on activities that could contravene or
are contravening the Act, is repealed.
to stop unauthorized activities which represents a
significant cost to the taxpayers.
Regulations Made by Minister and LGIC
The regulation making authority in section 40
is re-enacted to reflect amendments in the
Schedule.
No concern.
Throughout the legislation all references to
the Mining and Lands Commissioner has
been replaced with the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal
Some concern. The LPAT lacks the specialized
knowledge that the MLT has with regard to S. 28
applications. There is also a significant backlog of
cases at the LPAT.
Planning Act – Exclusion of CAs as Public
Body
Subsection 1(2) of the Planning Act is
amended to remove Conservation Authorities
as a public body under the legislation.
Conservation authorities will not be able to
independently appeal or become a party to
an appeal as a public body at the LPAT.
Significant concern. There is lack of clarity on the
implications of this amendment.
The intent of the amendment is to remove from
conservation authorities the ability to appeal to
LPAT any Planning Act decisions as a public body
or to become a party to an appeal. Conservation
authorities will instead be required to operate
through the provincial one window approach, with
comments and appeals coordinated through
MMAH. Note that the one window planning system
is typically enacted for the review of Official Plans
and Official Plan Amendments. It is expected that
conservation authorities will retain the ability to
appeal a decision that adversely affects land that it
owns however that has not been confirmed.
LINKING ONTARIO’S FARMERS
www.ontariofarmersnetwork.ca
For Immediate Release
ONTARIO FARMERS NETWORK SUPPORTS SCHEDULE 6 OF
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT’S BUDGET ACT
Changes to the Conservation Authority needed, could go further, and signal a good first step
November 30, 2020
WEST LORNE, ON - The Ontario Farmers Network, a farmer-advocate organization established in
January 2020, announced today its formal support of the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act,
1990 proposed in Schedule 6 of the Ontario government’s 2020 budget.
“The proposed changes are long overdue,” stated OFN President John Watterworth a grain farmer in
Elgin County, Ontario. “In fact, OFN wishes they went further to curtail the outright attack on agriculture.
Farmers are Ontario’s best conservationists.”
OFN has received many enquiries and complaints from farmers across all regions of the province
regarding costly and unreadable conflicts involving conservation authorities.
OFN participated in several of the multi-stakeholder consultations conducted by the Ministry of
Environment Conservation. OFN is pleased to observe that the warrantless entry provisions passed but
not proclaimed by the previous government will not be acted upon.
Further, the OFN supports the appeals avenues requirements, timelines for conservation authorities to
receive applications and issue decisions, and for the clarity that as municipalities are the biggest funding
‘shareholders’ of a conservation authority, they should be driving the focus on core mandate.
OFN continues to express concern regarding the negative and partisan advocacy campaigns engaged in
by Conservation Ontario and several if not all of the province’s thirty-six (36) conservation authorities
vigorously opposing the changes.
“The conservation authorities think they’re independent and not subject to direction from the province,”
said Pete Archer, an OFN member from Northumberland County. “How taxpayer funded public agencies
believe they can oppose government policy using public dollars is beyond the pale.”
Consultation was extensive prior the inclusion of Schedule 6 in the Budget Act. OFN understands from
the fall of 2019 into 2020 that all conservation authorities were individually consulted. Further, in the
same multi-stakeholder consultations OFN attended, municipalities were well represented including their
municipal advocacy groups. There have been multiple avenues for the public and these same interests
to express their ideas to the government.
“In the farming world, when something becomes untamed you deal with. OFN is relieved the government
is finally taming CAs that have been out-of-control for years,” concluded Watterworth.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
John Watterworth - OFN President
(519) 933-1657 or ontfarmersn@gmail.com
24688 Carroll Line
West Lorne, ON N0L 2P0
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2020-091 A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM TAX LEVY WHEREAS Section 317 of The Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, S.O. 2001, as amended, provides for an interim levy for 2020 on the assessment of property in the municipality rateable for local municipal purposes, subject to certain restrictions; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable and expedient that such a levy should be made; THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1. That for the year 2021, the interim tax levying amounts to be levied, raised and collected on all real property taxable within the residential, farmland, pipeline, multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes, and liable to pay the same according to the last revised assessment roll, shall be fifty (50) percent (%) of the
total amount of annualised taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on the property for the previous year, that is for the year 2020. 2. The said interim tax levying amounts shall be due and payable in two instalments at the Municipality of Bayham Office at 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, on or
before the following dates: FIRST INSTALMENT February 26, 2021 SECOND INSTALMENT May 28, 2021
Notice of such taxes due shall be sent by first class mail by the Tax Collector to those persons or firms liable for the payment of taxes. 5. That a charge as a penalty of one and one-quarter per cent on the amount of any outstanding taxes levied in 2021 shall be made on the first day of each calendar
month thereafter in which default continues, until December 31st 2021, and any such additional amount shall be levied and collected in the same manner as if it had been originally imposed with and formed part of such levy. 6. That interest of one and one-quarter per cent on the amount of any taxes due
and unpaid after December 31, 2021, shall be charged on the first day of each calendar month thereafter in which the default continues. 7. That taxes may be levied, in accordance with the provisions of this by-law on the assessment of property that is added to the assessment roll after this by-law is
passed.
By-law 2020-091 -2-
8. That the provisions of the Municipal Act with respect to the levy of the yearly rates and the collection of taxes apply mutatis mutandis to the levy of rates and collection of taxes under this by-law.
9. That this by-law shall become effective as of the 1st day of January 2021. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME this 17th day of December, 2020. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this 17th day of December 2020.
___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2020-092 BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE BORROWING FROM TIME TO TIME TO MEET CURRENT EXPENDITURES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2021. WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, s.407, provides authority for a council by-law to authorize temporary borrowing, until taxes are collected, and until other revenues are received, to meet the current expenditures of the municipality for the year,
AND WHEREAS the total amount which may be borrowed from all sources at any one time to meet the current expenditures of the municipality, except with the approval of the Ontario
Municipal Board, is limited by Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Borrowing 1) The head of Council and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to Authority borrow from time to time by way of promissory note or bankers’ acceptance during the year 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the current year) such sums as may be necessary to meet, until the taxes are collected, and until other revenues are received, the current expenditures of the municipality and the other amounts that are set out in section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Instruments 2) A promissory note or bankers’ acceptance made under Section 1
shall be signed by the head of Council or such other person as is authorized by by-law to sign it and by the Treasurer. Lenders 3) The lenders from whom amounts may be borrowed under authority of this by-law shall be the Royal Bank of Canada and such other lender(s) and reserve funds of the municipality as may be determined from time to time by resolution of the Council. Limit on 4) The total amount which may be borrowed at any one time under Borrowing this by-law, together with the total of any similar borrowings that have not been repaid, shall not exceed, from January 1st until September 30th of the current year, 50 percent of the estimated revenues of the municipality as set forth in the estimates adopted for that year. Such borrowing shall not exceed, from October 1st
until December 31st of the current year, 25 percent of the said estimated revenues of the municipality as set forth in the estimates adopted for that year. For purposes of this by-law, the
estimated revenues of the municipality shall not include revenues derivable or derived from
B/L 2020-092 -2- (a) borrowings or issues of debentures, or (b) a surplus, including arrears of levies, or (c) a transfer from the capital fund, reserve funds or reserves. Borrowing 5) The Treasurer shall, at the time when any amount is borrowed Documents under this by-law, ensure that the lender is or has been furnished Required with a certified copy of this by-law, a certified copy of the resolution mentioned in Section 3 determining the lender if applicable and a copy of the estimates of the corporation adopted for the current year and also showing the total of any other
amounts borrowed from any and all sources under authority of Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001 that have not been repaid. When 6) If the estimates for the current year have not been adopted at the Estimates Not time an amount is borrowed under this by-law. Adopted (a) the limitation on total borrowing shall be calculated for the time being upon the estimated revenues of the municipality as set forth in the estimates adopted for the previous year. The 2020 estimated amount of revenues applicable to the limitation on total borrowing is $9.5m.
Charge on 7) All or any sums borrowed under this by-law shall, with interest Revenues thereon, be a charge upon the whole of the revenues of the municipality for the current year and for any preceding years as and when such revenues are received but such charge does not defeat or affect and is subject to any prior charge then subsisting in favour of any other lender. Directive to 8) The Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to apply in Treasurer payment of all or any sums borrowed under this by-law, together with interest thereon, all or any of the money hereafter collected or
received, either on account of or realized in respect of the taxes levied for the current year and preceding years or from any other source, which may lawfully be applied for such purpose. Effective Date 9) This by-law shall come into full force and effect the 1st day of January, 2021. Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 17th day of December 2020. MAYOR CLERK
AMENDMENT NUMBER 26
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
SUBJECT: Municipality of Bayham
Partial Services in the Village of Straffordville and
Hamlet of Eden
The following text constitutes
Amendment Number 26 to the Official
Plan of the Municipality of Bayham
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
THIS Amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
by By-law No. 2020-093, in accordance with Section 17 of the PLANNING ACT, on the 17th
day of December 2020.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2020-093
THE Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham, in accordance with the provisions
of the PLANNING ACT, hereby enacts as follows:
1) THAT Amendment No. 26 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby
adopted.
2) THAT the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make an application to the County
of Elgin for approval of the aforementioned Amendment No. 26 to the Official Plan of the
Municipality of Bayham.
3) THAT no part of this By-law shall come into force and take effect until approved by Elgin
County.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 17th day of December 2020.
MAYOR CLERK
CERTIFIED that the above is a true copy of By-law No. 2020-093 as enacted and passed by the
Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham.
CLERK
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
AMENDMENT NO. 26
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to permit subdivision development in the
Village of Straffordville and Hamlet of Eden on municipal sanitary sewers and private on-
site wells, until such time as municipal water services are available. The amendment will
also establish the criteria for development on partially serviced lands. The criteria will
include the submission of studies assessing the availability of water quantity and quality
sufficient to service the long-term needs of the subdivision; studies assessing the potential
impacts of new wells on the water quantity and quality for existing and approved
development in the same aquifer, and development agreements for future connection of
subdivision lots to a municipal water system
2. LOCATION
The Official Plan Amendment will be applicable to the Village of Straffordville and the
Hamlet of Eden.
3. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The Municipality has received inquiries from property owners in specific Settlement and
Hamlet areas, the Village of Straffordville and the Hamlet of Eden, who would like to
develop plans of subdivision on municipal sanitary services and private on-site water
services. In recognition of the cost and logistics associated with extending the water
services to new areas within the Municipality of Bayham, the intention of the Official Plan
Amendment is to facilitate more efficient development within the Settlement Areas of the
Village of Straffordville and Hamlet of Eden.
Currently, any major residential, commercial, or industrial development proposed in the
Village of Straffordville or Hamlet of Eden on lands not serviced with municipal water is
required to submit an Official Plan Amendment. Major development is generally defined
by the Official Plan as any plans of subdivision with more than five (5) lots. This Official
Plan Amendment would permit subdivision development in the Village of Straffordville
and the Hamlet of Eden on municipal sanitary sewers and private on-site wells, until
such time as municipal water services are available. The amendment would also
establish development criteria to ensure long-term water supply and protection for
existing ground water users. The criteria will include the submission of studies
assessing the availability of water quantity and quality, sufficient to service the long-term
needs of the subdivision; studies assessing the potential individual and cumulative
impact of new wells on the water quantity and quality for existing and approved
development drawing water from the same aquifer; and development agreements for
future connection of subdivision lots to a municipal water system.
4. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
a) Section 4.2.1.3 of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby amended to
add the following subtext:
4.2.1.4: Notwithstanding Section 4.2.1.3 or any other Plan policy, any major residential,
commercial or industrial development, generally defined as infilling through
plans of subdivision with more than five (5) lots, may be permitted on lands
within the Village of Straffordville and Hamlet of Eden which are not serviced by
municipal water services, without an Official Plan amendment in accordance
with the following criteria:
a) The developer must enter into an Agreement with the Municipality as to the
design and cost apportionment of any future public works required to bring
these services or facilities up to the appropriate standard, which complies
with all regulatory requirements, and protects human health and the natural
environment.
a) Hydrogeological and/or geotechnical reports must be submitted to the
satisfaction of the Municipality, which demonstrate that no long-term
negative impacts to water quantity and quality will be produced by the
development and there is sufficient long-term water quantity and quality
available for the development.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2020-094 BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AND FROESE EXCAVATING LTD. FOR THE PROVISION OF DRAINAGE WORKS FOR THE REIMER DRAIN IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, CHAPTER D.17, R.S.O. 1990 AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality of Bayham deems it expedient to authorize
the Mayor and Clerk to enter into and execute a contract on behalf of the Municipality, for the provision of drainage works of the Reimer Drain based on and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender accepted;
AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham (the “Municipality”) desires to enter into an agreement with Froese Excavating Ltd. for construction of the
Reimer Drain in accordance with the Contract as prepared by Spriet Associates; THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as
follows: 1. THAT the Municipality enter into and execute an agreement with Froese Excavating Ltd. for construction of the Reimer Drain in accordance with the Contract attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this By-Law; 2. THAT the Mayor and the Clerk of the Municipality are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the Municipality to execute all documents as may be required to give effect to these presents; 3. THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 167H DAY OF DECEMBER 2020.
_____________________________ Mayor
_____________________________ Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2020-095 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 17, 2020 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of
a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other
action by the Council at the Council meeting held December 17, 2020 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby
authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 17th day of December, 2020.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK