HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 07, 2016 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, January 7, 2016
7:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m. - Public Meeting Drainage
1. CALLTO ORDER
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. DELEGATIONS
A. 7:05 p.m. – Long Point Region Conservation Authority General Manager / Secretary
Treasurer Cliff Evanitski re LPRCA 2016 Budget
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Meeting of Council held December 17, 2015
B. Public Meeting held December 17, 2015 re Wells
C. Public Meeting held December 17, 2015 re Country View Estates – A & E Peters
7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
8. RECREATION, CUSTURE, TOURISM AND EDONOMIC 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
2016 Council Agenda January 7, 2016
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.1.3 PUBLIC MEETING
A. 8:00 p.m. – Baynor Road Drain – to consider Spriet Associates Engineer’s
Report #213376 dated November 19, 2015
10.1.4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
10.1.5 Staff Presentation
A. Report DS-72/15 by Bill Knifton, Chief Building Official/Drainage
Superintendent re Baynor Road Drain
10.1.6 Public Comments
10.1.7 Council Comments and Questions
10.1.8 Adjournment
10.1.9 Disposition of Item
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-01/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re
Rezoning Application - Wells
11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Museums Bayham minutes of meeting held December 9, 2015
B. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing re The Smart Growth for Our
Communities Act, 2015
C. City of Kingston re Kingston City Council Meeting, December 15, 2015 – New
Motion 2
D. Township of Madawaska Valley resolution re Physician Recruitment and Retention
E. Municipality of Port Hope resolution re Energy from Waste facilities
F. Elgin County re By-Law to Authorize Speed Limits
G. Ministry of Transportation / Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change re
Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario grant program
2016 Council Agenda January 7, 2016
11.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Advisory Board & Committee Resolution from Harbourfront Committee
B. Barry Wade Design Construction and Management re Acceptance of Strategic Plan
for Port Burwell Beach/Waterfront Proposal
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report TR-02/16 by Lorne James, Treasurer re Interim Tax Levy and Borrowing By-
Law
B. Report TR-04/16 by Lorne James, Treasurer re Elgincentives CIP & Tax Incentives
Programs
12. BY-LAWS
A. By-Law Z646-2016 Being a By-law to further amend By-law Z456-2003
B. By-Law 2015-124 Being a Provisional By-law to provide for drainage works
known as the Baynor Road Drain (first and second reading only)
C. By-Law 2016-001 Being a By-law to provide for an Interim Tax Levy for 2016
D. By-Law 2016-002 Being a By-law to authorize borrowing from time to time to
meet current expenditures during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. OTHER BUSINESS
15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A By-Law 2016-005 Being a By-law to confirm all actions of Council
16 ADJOURNMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MIMUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC MEETING – Planning / Zoning 7:42 p.m. - Wells
PUBLIC MEETING – Planning / Zoning 7:44 p.m. - Country View Estates – A & E Peters
The regular meeting of the Council of the Municipality of Bayham was held on Thursday,
December 17, 2015 in the Council Chambers. Present were Mayor Paul Ens, Deputy Mayor
Tom Southwick, Councillors Randy Breyer, Wayne Casier and Ed Ketchabaw, CAO Paul
Shipway and Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator Margaret Underhill.
1. CALLTO ORDER
Mayor Ens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
A. Report CAO 94/15 re RFT 15-08 Surplus Equipment be added as Item 11.2-F
B. Town of Tillsonburg re Maintenance of Bayham Drive be added as item 9.1.2 A
C. By-Law 2015-128 be added as Item 12 D
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Councillor Breyer informed Council of the Christmas Wish Tree at the Bayham Family Table
where the public can assist in ensuring all children within Bayham have a happy holiday
season with the assistance of community members through the provision of gifts for those
without.
5. DELEGATIONS
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular meeting of Council held December 3, 2015
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Ketchabaw
THAT the minutes of the regular meeting held December 3, 2015 be adopted.
CARRIED
7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
8. RECREATION, CUSTURE, TOURISM AND EDONOMIC 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
A. Town of Tillsonburg re Maintenance of Bayham Drive
Moved by: Councillor Casier
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT Town of Tillsonburg correspondence re Maintenance of Bayham Drive be
received for information;
AND THAT staff be directed to bring forward a by-law to authorize the execution of a
Boundary Road Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg.
CARRIED
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 re Wells Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment
B. Notice of Public Meeting re Country View Estates (Peters) Draft Plan of Subdivision
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT correspondence items 10.1.1 A-B be received for information.
CARRIED
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
10.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Elgin-St. Thomas Healthy Communities Partnership re Outdoor Ice Rinks
Moved by: Councillor Casier
Seconded by: Councillor Ketchabaw
THAT the Municipality of Bayham partner with Elgin-St.Thomas Healthy
Communities Partners to offer a volunteer coordinated outdoor ice rink in the
Municipality of Bayham;
AND THAT the Municipality of Bayham recognizes they will be responsible for the
liability insurance, assisting with identification of volunteers and provision of a
location for the rink.
AND THAT the rink be located at the Port Burwell Tennis Court;
AND THAT water be provided by the Municipality of Bayham Fire Department;
AND THAT staff be directed to place a call for volunteers to undergo training and
maintain the rink.
CARRIED
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-73/15 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Consent
Application E122/15
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT Report DS-73/15 be received for information;
AND THAT Council recommend to the Elgin County Land Division Committee that
Consent Application E122/15, being a resubmission of Consent Application E65/13,
submitted by 571515 Ontario Inc., be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. copy of the final survey (paper and digital) be provided to the municipality
2. Letter of Undertaking providing for the merger of the severed parcel with
adjacent parcel as per the consent application
CARRIED
11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
A. Ministry of Energy re the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 (Bill 135)
B. Capstone Power Development re Update on the IESO’s Large Renewable Procurement
1 (LRP I) and the Erie Shores Wind Farm 2 proposal
C. MSC E-Letter
D. United Way News Letter
E. Long Point Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Minutes of meeting held
November 4, 2015
F. Ontario Energy Board notice to NRG customers
G. Township of Montague re Bill 100, Supporting Ontario Trails Act
H. 2016 Budget Open House Notice
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT correspondence items 11.1.1 A-H be received for information.
CARRIED
11.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Otter Valley Naturalists request
Moved by: Councillor Casier
Seconded by: Councillor Ketchabaw
THAT the Otter Valley Naturalists request be received for information;
AND THAT Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham approve
installation of the snow fence as requested;
AND THAT the request for installation of a public bench be forwarded to the
Harbourfront Committee for review and comment to be returned to Council.
CARRIED
B. Harbourfront Committee Resolution for Council Consideration
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT Harbourfront Committee Resolution be received for information;
AND THAT Council require all beach related works and improvements be
coordinated and approved by Council;
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
AND THAT at the discretion of Council matters will be referred to the Harbourfront
Committee for review and comment to be returned to Council.
CARRIED
C. Elgin County resolution re property tax assessment appeal process
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham supports the process for the
County of Elgin Treasurer to take the lead role in managing the consulting firms
during the property tax assessment appeal process and bill the local municipality
50% of the incurred appeal costs.
CARRIED
D. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re 2016 Draft LPRCA Budget
Moved by: Councillor Breyer
Seconded: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT the Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2016 Draft LPRCA Budget be
received for information;
AND THAT Council provide staff direction to send correspondence to LPRCA
outlining the following comments on the proposed budget:
i. That the Municipality request the levy be lowered;
ii. That LPRCA staff determine if capital projects can be deferred to lower the
levy;
iii. That LPRCA continue to explore all projects to lower the overall levy.
CARRIED
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-89/15 by Paul Shipway, CAO re 2016 Insurance Renewal
Moved by: Councillor Breyer
Seconded by: Councillor Casier
THAT Report CAO-89/15 re 2016 Insurance Renewal, as amended, be received for
information.
AND THAT the 2016 Municipal insurance program be obtained from Frank Cowan
Company Limited in accordance with the offer to renew dated November 24, 2015, at
a total premium of $111,241 plus applicable taxes;
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
AND THAT staff be directed to amend the Council ‘Accident Coverage’.
CARRIED
B. Report CAO-90/15 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Bill 8 – Accountability & Transparency Act
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT Report CAO-90/15 re Bill 8 – Accountability & Transparency Act be received
for information.
AND THAT Council direct staff to continue to review and implement written
policies that will adhere to the requirements in Bill 8 the Public Sector and MPP
Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014;
AND THAT Council direct staff to bring forward a Closed Meeting Investigator By-
law for Council consideration;
AND THAT Mr. John Maddux continue as Municipality of Bayham Closed Meeting
Investigator until such time as By-law No. 2007-093 is repealed in its entirety.
CARRIED
C. Report CAO-91/15 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Renewable Energy
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT Report CAO-91/15 re Renewable Energy be received for information.
AND THAT staff be directed to negotiate a draft renewable energy agreement for
Council consideration;
AND THAT staff be directed to bring back a report, following the draft agreement,
outlining steps to move forward with potential renewable energy projects.
CARRIED
D. Report CAO-92/15 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Community Energy Plan – FCM
Milestones Framework
Moved by: Councillor Casier
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT Report CAO-92/15 re Community Energy Plan – FCM Milestones Framework
be received for information.
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
AND THAT staff be directed to further investigate a combined Community Energy
Plan – FCM Milestones Framework and report back to Council with potential
costing and a plan forward.
CARRIED
E. Report CAO-93/15 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service
Carried by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT Report CAO-93/15 re Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service be received
for information;
AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham approve
the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy
attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’;
AND THAT Council direct staff to bring forward a by-law to repeal By-law No
2009-047 in its entirety.
CARRIED
F. Report CAO 94/15 by Paul shipway, CAO re RFT 15-08 Surplus Equipment
Carried by: Councillor Casier
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT Report CAO 94/15 re RFT 15-08 Surplus Equipment be received for
information;
AND THAT Staff be directed to award surplus equipment to the highest individual
bidder on each piece of equipment in the ‘as is, where is’ condition;
AND THAT the 8FT Slide in Sander with Motor not be awarded as the bid amount
is insufficient.
AND THAT if the high bidder does not complete the transaction staff be delegated
authority to award or not award the same to the next highest bidder in the ‘as is
where is’ condition.
AND THAT the proceeds of sale be allocated to the Public Works Equipment
Reserve;
AND THAT staff be given delegated authority to surplus the remaining equipment
at the sole discretion of the Roads Operations Supervisor.
CARRIED
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
12. BY-LAWS
A. By-Law 2015-123 Being a By-law to establish a Policy Respecting Municipal Closed
Meeting Investigations
B. By-Law 2015-125 Being a By-law to repeal By-law 2009-047 establishing a policy for
Winter Control for the Municipality of Bayham
C. By-Law 2015-126 Being a By-law to assume and establish lands in the Municipality
of Bayham as part of the Open Public Highway System (Creek Road)
D. By-Law 2015-128 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a Boundary Road
Agreement between the Town of Tillsonburg and the Municipality of Bayham
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT By-Laws 2015-123, 2015-125, 2015-126 and 2015-128 be read a first, second
and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. OTHER BUSINESS
14.1 In Camera
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Breyer
THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session of Committee
of the Whole at 8:45 p.m. to discuss:
Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals,
affecting the municipality or local board;
Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications
necessary for that purpose
A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or
local board
CARRIED
A. Confidential Item regarding litigation or potential litigation, including matters before
administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board (Ojibwa)
B. Confidential item regarding advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose (Edison Museum)
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
C. Confidential Item regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by
the municipality or local board (Eden Community Centre);
14.2 Out of Camera
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Councillor Casier
THAT the Committee of the Whole do now rise from the “In Camera” session at
9:23 p.m. with nothing to report
CARRIED
14.3
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham call a closed
Council Education Session on Wednesday January 20, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Municipal Office a 9344 Plank Rd, Straffordville, ON for the general purpose of
receiving and being educated upon matters pertaining to the Straffordville
Community Centre.
CARRIED
15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A By-Law 2015-127 Being a By-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
THAT confirming By-Law 2015-127 be read a first, second and third time and
finally passed.
CARRIED
16 ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Casier
Carried by: Councillor Breyer
THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
CLERK MAYOR
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
STATUTORY PLANNING MEETING DRAFT MINUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, December 17, 2015
7:42 p.m. – Wells
Present were Mayor Paul Ens, Deputy Mayor Tom Southwick, Councillors Randy Breyer,
Wayne Casier and Ed Ketchabaw, CAO Paul Shipway and Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Margaret Underhill.
Signed in Attendees: None
1. CALLTO ORDER
Mayor Ens called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
A. Application submitted by Teresa Wells
The purpose of the public meeting is to consider an application to change the zoning on
a parcel from the Rural Industrial (M2) Zone to a site-specific Rural Residential (RR##)
Zone
The effect of the by-law will be to permit the existing single detached residential
dwelling and accessory uses and recognize the existing lot frontage of 44 m whereas
50 m is required and the existing accessory building setback on the westerly lot line of
0.9 meters whereas 3.0 meters is required in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was none.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
No written comments were received.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Casier
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
CLERK MAYOR
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
STATUTORY PLANNING MEETING DRAFT MINUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, December 17, 2015
7:44 p.m. – Country View Estates – A & E Peters
Present were Mayor Paul Ens, Deputy Mayor Tom Southwick, Councillors Randy Breyer,
Wayne Casier and Ed Ketchabaw, CAO Paul Shipway and Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Margaret Underhill.
Signed in Attendees: David Row, Abe Peters, Doug and Barb Patterson and Eric Klassen.
1. CALLTO ORDER
Mayor Ens called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosure of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
A. Application submitted by Abraham and Emma Peters
The purpose of the public meeting is to consider a proposed Plan of Subdivision under
Section 51 of the Planning Act.
The effect of the Plan of Subdivision would be the creation of five (5) single detached
residential dwelling lots serviced by a 20 metre wide street, Peters Court, in the form of
a cul-de-sac accessed from Eden Line.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. David Roe, Planning Consultant for the applicant provided a historic overview of the
development to date and the process moving forward.
Mr. Doug Patterson, 54459 Eden Line, stated he was concerned about the effect the
development may have on his well.
Councillor Ketchabaw questioned Mr. Roe on the well concern and Mr. Roe explained the wells
are at different depths and as a result draw from separate aquifers.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
No written comments were received.
2015 Council Agenda December 17, 2015
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Southwick
Seconded by: Councillor Casier
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
CLERK MAYOR
MUSEUMS BAYHAM
Minutes of December 9, 2015 Meeting
Bayham Municipal Office, Straffordville, Ontario
Present: Vice Chair- Chuck Buchanan, Secretary- Lynn Acre, Mat Schafer, Susan Start, Albert
White, Ron Bradfield, Kimberly Legg, Ray Maddox, Ally Shelley.
Regrets: Chair-Bev Hickey
CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm and welcomed and
introduced our newest committee member Ally Shelley. Ally is the secretary of the Port Burwell
Historical Society and is employed by the Elgin Military Museum, managing HMCS Ojibwa.
1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: None
2. AGENDA: It was moved by Albert White and seconded by Ray Maddox that the agenda
be approved with no additions. Motion Carried.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
a) Vice-Chairman Chuck noted that a big crowd came out to view the annual Port
Burwell Santa Claus parade on Saturday December 5, 2015 at 6 pm.
b) Vice-Chairman Chuck reminded all about the up-coming Straffordville Santa Claus
parade on Saturday Dec.12, 2015 at 10:30 am. This parade starts at the school and ends at
the firehall.
4. MINUTES: It was moved by L.Acre and seconded by Mat Schafer that the
minutes of the November 11, 2015 meeting be approved. Motion Carried.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Information Items: Ontario is now
accepting applications for the 2016 Seniors Community Grant Program to
help more seniors stay active and engaged in their communities. The
province is investing $2 million to support not-for-profit community
projects that increase volunteerism, social inclusion and community
engagement for seniors.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
a) Ontario Service Awards: Vice-Chairman Chuck confirmed which
members of this committee are eligible to receive 5 year awards from the
Province.
b) New Secretary Appointment: Kimberley Legg has agreed to replace
Lynn Acre as secretary beginning January 13, 2016.
Museums Bayham Minutes
December 9, 2015
-2-
c) Up-date on Legal Proceedings: Mat Schafer reported that CAO
Shipway has advised that municipal lawyers are still dealing with
complications pertaining to the sale of the former Edison Museum.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a) London Boat Show: February 19 – 21, 2016. Our booth has been
changed to the west wall of the building, booth #120. Volunteers to work at
this show will be determined at the January 2016 meeting.
b) Edison Dinner & Fundraiser: Lynn Acre was pleased to announce that
the November 14, 2015 Edison Dinner “Let’s Go Hawaiian” Fundraiser
netted profits of $4,445.27.
8. FINANCES (Budget): Council will hold public discussions on the
Operating Budget on Tuesday January 5, 2016 at 6:30 pm. If necessary,
discussions will continue on Wednesday January 6, 2016 at 6:30 pm. An Open
House on the proposed 2016 Draft Budget will be held on Thursday January 7,
2016 at 6 pm prior to the regular Council Meeting at which time the Budget
will be voted on.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
a) Farewell to Retiring Member/Secretary Lynn Acre: Vice-Chairman
Chuck officially thanked retiring secretary/member Lynn Acre for her years
of service on this committee, both as a Council rep and as a community
member. During an informal social time and refreshments, committee
members expressed their gratitude and best wishes to Lynn.
10. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:00 pm at the
Municipal office.
11. ADJOURNMENT: It was Moved by R.Bradfield that the meeting be
adjourned at 7:57 pm.
___________________________________ __________________________
Vice-Chairman Chuck Buchanan Secretary Lynn Acre
Ministry of Ministère des
Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales
and Housing et du Logement
Local Government and Planning Policy Division Division des administrations locales et des politiques d’aménagement
777 Bay Street, 13th Floor 777, Rue Bay, 13e étage
Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Phone: (416) 585-6320 Téléphone: (416) 585-6320
Fax: (416) 585-6463 Télécopieur: (416) 585-6463
December 18, 2015
Dear: Chief Administrative Officer
RE: The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015
The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, which makes a number of
changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the Planning Act, passed in the
Ontario legislature and received Royal Assent on December 3, 2015.
The majority of changes to both the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the
Planning Act will come into force on a day to be named by proclamation. However,
the following provisions relating to the Planning Act have already come into force
through Royal Assent.
Subsection 1(2) of the Planning Act has been amended to restrict the ability of
ministries other than the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to be added
as a party to an Ontario Municipal Board appeal.
Subsection 3(10) of the Planning Act has been amended to extend the review
cycle of the Provincial Policy Statement from 5 to 10 years.
Subsections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Planning Act have been amended to remove
the references to “referral”, as the Minister does not have delegation powers
for site plan.
Subsection 22.1 has been added to the Planning Act to provide certainty that
when new policies or laws come into effect, applications for official plan
amendments are subject to the previous policies or laws only if the required
supporting material (i.e. complete application) has been submitted prior to the
transition date.
This legislation provides for enhanced tools and processes for communities and
residents to determine how their neighbourhoods grow, and to plan and pay for
growth. The legislation aims to help municipalities recover more costs for growth -
related infrastructure, give residents more say in how their communities grow, protect
and promote greenspaces, enhance transparency and accountability, set clearer
rules for land use planning, give municipalities more independence to make local
decisions and make it easier to resolve disputes.
Some examples of important improvements to the development charges and planning
systems introduced by the new Act include:
Increasing Funding for Growth-Related Infrastructure by:
removing the mandatory 10 per cent discount required when levying a charge
for transit services
creating an authority to identify services for which a planned service level
calculation would replace the historic 10 year average service le vel
creating an authority to identify ineligible services exclusively through
regulation (a commitment to bring forward regulatory changes to make waste
diversion as a service for which development charges can be collected has
already been announced)
Enhancing Municipal Transparency by:
requiring detailed reporting for municipal collection of density bonusing and
parkland fees
changing the alternative parkland dedication rate for cash-in-lieu payments to
incent the acquisition of physical parkland
requiring some municipalities, in consultation with school boards and the
public, to prepare parks plans to help plan for parkland, greenspace, and park
facilities
requiring municipalities to reflect capital projects funded through development
charges in a detailed report
strengthening the language in relation to ‘voluntary payments’, not permitted
under the Development Charges Act
Increasing Predictability and Accountability by:
linking development charge background studies to municipal asset
management planning
requiring development charges for individual buildings to be set as of the date
an initial building permit is issued, and for development charges to be payable
on that date (there is an exception for multi-phase developments)
Enhancing Citizen Engagement by:
requiring explanation of how public input affected a municipal planning
decision
ensuring consideration of public input at the municipal level by approval
authorities and the Ontario Municipal Board
requiring locally designed public consultation policies
facilitating the modernization of the giving of notice through additional methods
(e.g. email)
increasing use and ensuring citizen membership on planning advisory
committees
Increasing Certainty, Stability and Reducing Costs by:
limiting requests for amendments to new official plans and/or new
comprehensive zoning by-laws for 2 years after documents are approved,
unless council authorizes the application(s) to proceed
providing regulation-making authority to limit requests for amendments to the
renamed community planning permit system policy (official plan) and by-law for
5 years after documents are approved, unless council authorizes the
application(s) to proceed
removing the ability to apply for a minor variance for 2 years after a site
specific rezoning, unless council authorize the application(s) to proceed
limiting approvals and appeals of lower-tier official plans, unless in conformity
with upper-tier plans
removing requirements to review employment land policies
Resolving Disputes, Improving Local Decision-Making and Accountability by:
allowing time to be added to planning decision timelines to resolve disputes
prior to appeals (90-day “timeout”)
restricting appeals of specific provincially-approved matters (e.g. Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change approved source water protection
boundaries)
removing appeal of second unit residential policies at official plan updates
requiring clearer reasons for appeals
removing the ability to appeal entire new official plans
providing enhanced opportunities for alternative dispute resolution
A copy of the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 can be viewed online at:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?BillID=3176.
Please visit the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s website periodically for
further updates: ontario.ca/municipalaffairsandhousing.
If you have any questions related to the Planning Act, please conta ct Luke Fraser at
(416) 585-6088 or send an e-mail to PlanningConsultation@ontario.ca.
If you have any questions related to the Development Charges Act, 1997, please
contact John Ballantine at (416) 585-6348 or send an e-mail to
DCAConsultation@ontario.ca.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank municipalities for your efforts, input
and advice in helping us to reform the land use planning system.
Sincerely,
Kate Manson-Smith
Assistant Deputy Minister
cc. Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario
Municipal Clerk, Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Planning Official
Good Afternoon: Please find below a Resolution that was passed by Council for the Municipality of Port
Hope at their regular Council meeting held on December 15, 2015 for your Council’s consideration and
support;
Resolution 129/2015
Moved by Councillor Hickey
Seconded by Councillor Polutnik
WHEREAS Council of the Municipality of Port Hope passed Resolution 95/2014 to deny an Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendment application from a company wishing to locate a power generation
facility utilizing the incineration of waste due to numerous concerns including associated health risks;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Municipality of Port Hope requests that the Ontario
Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Ontario Minister of Energy prohibit incineration
and related means of waste disposal, including "Energy from Waste" facilities, as these facilities result in
significant release of toxic substances and greenhouse gases, and thus their use is in conflict with the
Province’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Municipality of Port Hope submits to the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Energy the attached document prepared by Dr.
Stan R. Blecher, which addresses his review of the Environmental Screening Report process, his critique of
this process, and his suggestions for improvements to this process to protect communities from harmful
and dirty industries;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Municipality of Port Hope request a meeting together with the
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Energy to discuss issues
surrounding our opposition to incineration facilities; to discuss the opposing positions being taken by
these Ministries with respect to Energy From Waste facilities; to discuss the promotion of clean waste
management practices with emphasis on recycling; and to discuss our interest in exploring the
establishment in the Municipality of Port Hope, of a Centre of Excellence in Recycling, with focus on
attracting recycling industries to the area, and establishing, in collaboration with neighbouring
institutions, a Learning and Research Hub in Recycling Technologies;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this motion be presented to Northumberland County Council to
seek their support in opposing incineration and the banning of “Energy From Waste” facilities in the
waste management strategies of Northumberland County;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this motion be circulated to all Municipalities in the Province of
Ontario for their support;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this motion be forwarded to the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario to inform them of the Municipality of Port Hope’s opposition to incineration, and to request that
the AMO advise the Standing Committee on Social Policy (currently reviewing Bill 73) that the
Municipality of Port Hope does not support the AMO’s position on supporting “Energy From Waste”
facilities, but does support expanding options to improve on strategies to divert waste from landfills by
reducing, reusing, and recycling.
1
Memo to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change:
Dear Minister Murray:
The residents of Port Hope, Ontario, recently won a heroic battle to prevent a major potential source of
pollution, an incinerator, being constructed in our idyllic, historic, rural community. The heroes of this
battle were the members of a grass-roots group of concerned citizens. I volunteered as medical and
scientific advisor to this group.
This battle was won at a high cost of many hundreds of person hours of very hard work and much
significant stress. We, the environmentally concerned citizens, found ourselves battling not only a corrupt
potential polluter of our environment, but also the entangled web of bureaucracy of government agencies
at various levels, including that of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.
I realise, of course, that your Ministry's regulations were put in place before your time as Minister, and that
it can not be expected that you should be familiar with all the details of these regulations. It is for this
reason that I here respectfully bring to your attention that the existing structure of the bureaucracy
functions in effect as a support system for the potential polluter, and as an almost insuperable obstruction
for concerned citizens who attempt to uphold your Ministry's admirable declared objectives to protect the
environment.
I respectfully submit below a Statement in which I document the issues mentioned above, and, in green
text, I make the case for positive changes which I respectfully request that the MOECC consider
implementing. These include replacing a tradition of pollution that has stigmatised Port Hope in the past,
with a new image as a Centre of Excellence in Environmental Recycling, including development of core
recycling industries and a School of Recycling Sciences.
I urge you to read what follows carefully and in its entirety, as its message goes to the essence of your
Ministry's role, and I appeal to you to take the necessary steps to remediate the problems I identify.
I respectfully request the opportunity to meet with you to further clarify the medical and scientific concerns
for the environment that I have expressed in this Statement.
Your sincerely,
Dr. Stan R. Blecher MD, FCCMG (Fellow of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists)
Port Hope
20 August, 2015
2
To:
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray <gmurray.mpp@liberal.ola.org>
c.c.
Premier Kathleen Wynne <premier@ontario.ca>;
Minister of Health and Long Term Care Eric Hoskins <ccu.moh@ontario.ca>;
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ted McMeekin <minister.mah@ontario.ca>;
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Jeff Leal <minister.mra@ontario.ca>;
MPH Councillors <mayor@porthope.ca>; <gburns@porthope.ca>; <landrews@porthope.ca>; <lferrie-
blecher@porthope.ca>; <thickey@porthope.ca>; <jlees@porthope.ca>; <rpolutnik@porthope.ca>
Northumberland County Councillors <coombsm@northumberlandcounty.ca>;
<BrocanierG@northumberlandcounty.ca>; <LogelJ@northumberlandcounty.ca>;
<WalasM@northumberlandcounty.ca>; <lovshinm@northumberlandcounty.ca>;
<sandersonb@northumberlandcounty.ca>; <Macmillanh@northumberlandcounty.ca>
Lou Rinaldi, MPP Northumberland-Quinte West <lrinaldi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>
John McKay, MP, Federal Liberal Spokesperson on Environment <mckayj@parl.gc.ca>
Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, Medical officer of Health, Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit
<info@hkpr.on.ca>; <ctremblay@hkpr.on.ca>
Kim Rudd, Liberal Candidate for Federal Election <kim.rudd@eagle.ca>
Adam Moulton, Conservative Candidate for Federal Election <campaign@adammoulton.ca>
Russ Christianson, NDP Candidate for Federal Election <russchristianson@ndp.ca>
Patricia Sinnott, Green Party Candidate for Federal Election < patricia.sinnott@greenparty.ca>
Liz Benneian, Ontario Zero Waste Coalition <lizcdn@yahoo.com>
Linda Gasser gasserlinda@gmail.com
Chief of Staff to Minister of the Environment Moira McIntyre <Moira.McIntyre@ontario.ca>
Director, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment Agatha Garcia-
Wright <agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca>
Senior Policy Advisor Greg Seniuk <greg.seniuk@ontariio.ca>
Solange Desautels <Solange.Desautels@ontario.ca>
Ross Lashbrook <Ross.Lashbrook@ontario.ca>
Dawnett Allen <Dawnett.Allen@ontario.ca>
Hollee Kew <Hollee.Kew@ontario.ca>
Executive Director of Policy, Office of the Premier: Karim Bardeesy <Karim.Bardeesy@ontario.ca>
3
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Procedures Favour Polluters: A Plea for Change
Statement by Dr. Stan R. Blecher MD, FCCMG
SUMMARY
The MOECC's Web-site contains powerful statements about environmental protection of air quality, but the
Ministry's practice does not live up to its noble stated intentions. In the paradigm case described below, in
which an incinerator company targeted the Municipality of Port Hope (MPH), repeated examples came to
light of how MOECC Regulations explicitly favour the polluter rather than concerned citizens opposed to the
pollution. The MOECC's basic position in such cases is that the process is Proponent driven. This starting
point provides a framework within which a polluting industry is able to get away with egregious dishonesty
and misuse of privilege.
The Company was allowed to employ and pay a non-independent agent to perform a so-called
Environmental Screening Process (ESP). The resulting Environmental Screening Report (ESR), and in
particular the section entitled Human Health Risk Evaluation (HHRE) was, not unexpectedly, profoundly
flawed and biased. A so-called "Peer Review" of the ESR including the HHRE was done by another non-
independent company, again paid by the incinerator company, and, again unsurprisingly, the "Peer Review"
was characterised by errors and bias.
A more complete Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) was requested by the local
Medical Officer of Health, but again the incinerator company was allowed to employ and pay the same non-
independent company to do the HHERA as had done the ESR including HHRE. The HHERA was not
produced by the date it was due; indefinite extensions were granted by the MOECC. Submissions from
citizens in opposition to the incinerator had the same deadline, but no extensions were given to citizens.
The Proponent incinerator company repeatedly put out false information in its promotional material, in
statements to the MOECC and to the MPH, in public and press releases, and even in a formal statement to a
House of Commons Standing Committee. The MOECC was repeatedly informed that the Proponent had
been promoting falsity, but no action appeared to be taken.
This attempt by a polluting industry to impose its activities on an unwilling citizenry and municipality was
defeated through a grass roots effort by citizens, but at the cost of hundreds of person-hours of citizens'
hard work and much stress.
Plea for change:
The kind of situation experienced during our battle against the incinerator could be avoided if the MOECC
were to ensure protection of the environment and the public by passing legislation making incinerators
and similarly polluting industrial activities illegal.
The Ministry's policy on so-called "Guidelines" for allowable amounts of pollution by cancer- and other
disease-causing poisons also requires revision to accord with modern scientific information. It is now
known that there is no safe limit for cancer-producing molecules, and accordingly we propose that the
"limits" should in general be zero. This should include the emission of nanoparticles, heretofore not
restricted by any legislation. In the interim, while allowable "limits" or "guidelines" do currently exist,
these should be enforced, with ongoing monitoring of emissions by plants and, in the event of infractions,
appropriate correctional measures including close-down of facilities. We propose that existing plants
such as cement kilns should not be granted permission to incinerate waste and thus increase their
emissions while preventing establishment of recycling programmes.
Port Hope has been the unwilling victim of environmental pollution since the era of the Eldorado radium
and uranium plants. The attempt to place a polluting incinerator in our municipality was successfully
deflected by people power. A fitting future goal, and one appropriate for MOECC support, would be the
development in Port Hope of a Centre of Excellence for development of Environmental Recycling
Industries, and a School of Recycling Sciences.
4
PREAMBLE
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Web-site states: The quality of our air
directly impacts our health and the natural environment, so we want our air to be as clean as possible.
The Ministry of the Environment works to protect and improve air quality.
It is curious, in light of this, that MOECC rules and regulations, procedures, staff interpretations of the
regulations, and the resulting bureaucratic practice, all appear to strongly favour polluters, and appear to
place obstacles in the way of concerned citizens who attempt to support and promote the Ministry's
stated objectives of protecting and improving air quality.
This conclusion emerges from experience in having battled against a major threat of serious pollution of the
atmosphere and the environment that was created by the efforts of the incinerator company ENTECH-REM
to force its incinerator on an unwilling host, the citizenry of the Municipality of Port Hope (MPH). In the
following I use this battle as the paradigm to document the statement above, concerning MOECC
procedures. The objective of this exercise is to bring this situation to the attention of the decision makers
in the MOECC, and to provide information that might help the MOECC make positive changes in the
system.
The battle I refer to was waged against the potential polluter, ENTECH-REM, by an incorporated, voluntary,
grass-roots organisation of concerned citizens, the Port Hope Residents 4 Managing Waste Responsibly
(PHR4MWR). This small group of citizens worked with a bare minimum of financial resources, derived form
small personal contributions by members, battling the substantial financial might of a well-established
industrial company.
I volunteered as medical and scientific consultant to PHR4MWR. PHR4MWR was initially formed to oppose
ENTECH-REM, but it soon found itself having to also confront various official and quasi-official agencies
supporting ENTECH-REM, including the then Mayor of MPH, most of the then incumbent Councillors (with
one vocal exception - Councillor Greg Burns), ENTECH-REM's paid support companies Conestoga Rovers and
Associates (CRA) and Hardy Stevenson and Associates (HSA) and, most significantly, the above-mentioned
procedures of the then Ministry of the Environment (MOE), now renamed the MOECC.
I list and discuss below, in 13 sections, some of the important MOECC-based issues which constituted
obstacles in the battle against ENTECH-REM, and which cause ongoing concern for the future. By MOECC-
based I mean issues that directly arose or now arise from MOECC regulations, or issues that affected or still
affect the course of events through official authorisation by MOECC or through apparent tacit acceptance
by MOECC staff. In various of the sections of this document I respectfully suggest solutions to the
perceived problems that could be implemented by the MOECC, and in Section 13 I make a specific
proposal of how the Municipality of Port Hope's historical pollution image could be turned around to
create a positive example of environmentally sound management of waste issues for the rest of Ontario.
5
1. MOECC REGULATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING PROCESS FAVOUR THE POLLUTER
Right up front, the concerned citizen is confronted with the statement, in MOECC documents, that the
Ministry's Environmental Screening Process (ESP) is a Proponent-driven process.
This immediately sets the stage for what one as a concerned citizen will come to experience: that the
default position adopted by the MOECC is evidently that the Proponent is right; is telling the truth; is
providing reliable information; is responsible and trustworthy; has the requisite expertise to carry out the
project it proposes; and has the requisite expertise and integrity to correctly and honestly answer all
questions and challenges from concerned citizens.
The fact that the process is Proponent driven ALLOWS THE PROPONENT TO CHOOSE, EMPLOY AND PAY
ITS OWN EVALUATOR TO PREPARE ITS OWN ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT, THEREWITH
ALLOWING THAT THE PROCESS IS NEITHER OPEN NOR INDEPENDENT, NOR THAT TRUE SCIENTIFIC
EXPERTISE WILL NECESSARILY COME TO BEAR. The default assumption appears to be that the
Proponent's proposal WILL, AFTER THE ESP HAS RUN ITS COURSE, ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED, albeit
possibly with minor restrictions or modifications, thus completing a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In keeping with the statement from the MOECC that the process is Proponent driven, the public is
informed that citizens who may have any concerns about the Proponent's proposal are required in the
first instance to contact the Proponent, in an attempt to resolve any such concerns.
Applying this to the paradigm case of the proposed ENTECH-REM Port Hope incinerator, the problematic
nature of this requirement is immediately evident: The Proponent wishes to construct a plant that would
pour out into the atmosphere deadly poisons, which would potentially bio-accumulate in unlimited
quantities. Concerned citizens object to the fact that this possibility is even allowed under existing
legislation, and accordingly have only one thing to say to the Proponent: Go Away. It could be predicted,
and experience confirmed, that when the concerned citizens dutifully attempted to "contact the
Proponent" with this statement, it failed to "resolve any concerns".
Despite this, members of PHR4MWR conformed to the MOECC requirements and consistently contacted
the Proponent with concerns and numerous questions, but these approaches were regularly ignored by the
Company. Nevertheless the Company evidently gave MOECC the impression that it was responding to
these approaches. MOECC appeared to accept these assurances without any documentation. The
concerned citizens of PHR4MWR were unable to find any stipulations in the MOECC regulations that
actually required the Proponent to take any cognisance of the concerns brought to it by concerned citizens.
As mentioned, MOECC regulations require concerned citizens to NOT contact the MOECC without having
first contacted the Proponent. However, if citizens nevertheless, after having conformed with this
requirement, still do wish to contact the MOECC, they are required to copy to the Proponent any
comments, information or material that they send to the MOECC. The Proponent is to be informed of any
contact between a concerned citizen and the MOECC, and is to be briefed on the submission of any material
to the MOECC. But the Proponent is NOT required to inform the concerned citizens of any response that
they (the Proponent) may make to the MOECC, or any correspondence they may have with the MOECC,
nor will the MOECC copy any such information to the concerned citizens.
Similarly, any person or agency who may be acting in support of or lobbying for or promoting the case of
the Proponent viv-a-vis the MOECC is likewise evidently under no obligation to make such activities
known to concerned citizens or the public. In our paradigm case, for example, we ascertained through
6
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests that the then Mayor of Port Hope, Ms. Linda Thompson, was
covertly lobbying in support of the Proponent, in writing and in at least one meeting with MOECC
officials, while holding this activity secret from the citizens of Port Hope and publicly claiming that she
was remaining neutral. This appears to have been within MOECC rules and regulations, as it evidently
elicited no negative response from the MOECC.
I respectfully submit that removal of the concept "Proponent driven" from MOECC procedures for the
Environmental Screening Process (ESP) would go a long way to resolving many if not most of the issues
that I bring to your attention in this document. In our case, our grass-roots movement was powered
entirely by hard-working citizens, with virtually no financial resources, using their "spare time" to oppose
a well-funded polluting company in a David-and-Goliath battle, in which Goliath appeared to be
supported by government agencies. In the sections that follow I indicate specifically how removal of the
"Proponent driven" status of the ESP could improve the process.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
Conestoga Rovers and Associates (CRA) is a private company that was hired by ENTECH-REM to prepare the
Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was required by MOECC regulations. The ESR prepared by CRA
included a so-called Human Health Risk Evaluation (HHRE), though ENTECH-REM, through CRA, stated that
this had not been required by the MOECC regulations. Subsequently, the same company, CRA, was
employed by ENTECH-REM to prepare a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) that was
requested by the local Medical Officer of Health (MOH). There are several concerns about these
occurrences. [The HHERA document never materialised - see below].
The concerns with the above are as follows:
a) CRA was selected by and paid by ENTECH-REM to do the ESR including HHRE, and the requested
HHERA; this alone disqualified any report by CRA on ENTECH-REM's then proposed incinerator from being
perceived as being unbiased and independent.
b) As it transpired (see below), the HHRE contained in the ESR was shown, in a Review done by me,
to be replete with scientific errors and misunderstandings. It was apparent that CRA did not possess, or at
least did not apply to the preparation of this document, any appropriate scientific expertise. See below for
further details on the HHRE and my Review of it.
c) ENTECH-REM again employed CRA to prepare a HHERA, even though it had been shown in my
Review that CRA was not qualified to prepare such a document.
e) In preparing a HHERA, CRA would have been in effect also evaluating their own previously
written and previously debunked HHRE. From an ethical viewpoint, CRA should have for this reason, even if
not for the other reasons already mentioned, recused itself from preparation of a HHERA.
Because of the above points a) - e), it is puzzling that MOECC appears to have tacitly approved ENTECH-
REM's employment of CRA for the stated purposes, and to have tacitly accepted that material prepared
by CRA would be admissible for the purposes of the Proponent's ESP.
As mentioned above, removal of the "Proponent driven" status of the Environmental Screening Process
would improve the process. I respectfully submit that the Proponent should not itself select the agency
that will manage the ESP. Instead, the MOECC could, without any input from the Proponent, select an
agency, for example a Department of Environmental Sciences in a prestigious university, that is
independent and has personnel with the prerequisite expertise, and where necessary could additionally
sub-contract further experts. Of course the Proponent would pay the entire cost of the process, but as
7
mentioned would not have any say in choice of the agency or people that would do the work. The same
process and criteria should be applied to appointment of a "Peer Review" agency to offer a second
opinion. Re "Peer Review", please see Section 4. "PEER REVIEW", below.
3. THE ORIGINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK EVALUATION (HHRE) IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
REPORT (ESR)
As mentioned above, the ESR contained a so-called HHRE. I wrote a Review of the HHRE. My full Review
can be found at the PHR4MWR Web-site, www.phr4mwr.ca. Some of the following comments are in part
cited from my Review.
The ESR HHRE was a meagre and inadequate document that was rife with factual error, scientific
misunderstanding, flawed methodology and false conclusions. It provided very scant documentation by
way of references (in total 4 footnotes), none of which are from the peer reviewed scientific literature. In
my Review I refuted claims made in the ESR HHRE, and I documented all of my statements with, in all, over
60 references, including over 45 articles from the peer reviewed literature.
The HHRE purported to predict the concentration of toxic emissions at "Point of Impingement". For any
such prediction it is necessary to know what the concentration of actual emissions would be, but, as I
document extensively in my review, ENTECH-REM had no data from past experience to draw on: its claim of
a relevant track record was false. (The rather intriguing issue of how the Company falsified its track record
is described below - see section 6. ENTECH-REM MISLED THE DECISION MAKERS WITH FALSIFICATIONS).
"Modelling", the use of abstract numbers to make calculations, is, as I also document, notoriously
unreliable. However, in listing purported "Total Facility Emission Rates" the HHRE did not even provide
"modelling" information to explain how these figures were derived. Thus, for the only really important data
relating to "risk assessment", namely emission rates, the HHRE's claims were based on entirely fictitious
figures.
The scientific literature indicates that incinerators may produce at least 250 toxic chemical emissions. In
listing expected emissions from the proposed ENTECH-REM incinerator, the HHRE admitted to only 18. Of
the 18 named noxious chemicals that the HHRE listed as possible emissions, it falsely declared only 4 of
those to be carcinogenic (cancer producing). However, as I documented in detail, with scientific
references, in fact 16 of the 18 are carcinogens. The HHRE falsely declared that the 4 they admitted to
being carcinogens would be present in "air concentrations that are protective of a cancer risk level".
Carcinogens can not be "protective" of cancer risk, at any concentration. The author(s) was or were
evidently unaware of the fact, or they knowingly failed to state, that cancers are the result of genetic
mutations, and that there is no level of a mutation-causing and cancer-causing poison that is safe.
Furthermore, the document makes no mention of the lethal nanoparticles that this incinerator would emit,
and no mention of the accumulation of emitted toxins in the food chain.
Unsurprisingly, for a document paid for by the Company, the HHRE concluded that if an incinerator were to
be built by ENTECH-REM, "potential risks through the dermal and ingestion pathways are expected to be
negligible". This conclusion was, as I fully documented in my review, and in even greater detail in a letter to
the then Ontario Minister of the Environment, (also available at www.phr4mwr.ca) totally and blatantly
false.
The HHRE was evidently produced unsolicited by ENTECH-REM (CRA). It had evidently not initially been
required by the then Ministry of the Environment (MOE), and when produced it evidently did not
undergo any scrutiny by the MOE, or in any event none that was made public. The HHERA that was to
8
have superseded the HHRE was also not formally required by the MOE or, later, the MOECC.
Furthermore, as far as we could ascertain there was evidently also no formal procedure in place for the
HHERA, had it materialised, to be critically scrutinised by MOE(CC)-appointed medical scientists.
Accordingly, had I as PHR4MWR's medical and scientific advisor not undertaken a Review of the HHRE,
that badly flawed document (and/or, if it had materialised, the also problematic HHERA) might have
ended up being de facto the only existing statement(s) on the health issues related to the proposed
incinerator, and therefore, by default, would likely then have been perceived as being the "official"
information on the subject. This is because ENTECH-REM vigorously promoted the fallacy that the
expected HHERA, when produced, would be the "official" health risk document, and the Company indeed
succeeded in planting this false perception. For example:
During the course of consideration of the Company's application, members of the MPH Council
commented that a decision on the application should await the arrival of the HHERA.
Individual citizens who wrote to the MOE expressing opposition to the project and requesting elevation
("bump-up") to full Environmental Assessment (EA) received notices stating, amongst other information,
the following:
"Please be advised that an Environmental Screening has been prepared for the Project under Ontario
Regulation 101/07 - Waste Management Projects (Wastes Regulation). The project is exempt from Part II
of the Environmental Assessment Act on the condition that this Environmental Screening is completed".
(Emphasis added by me).
In response to a letter written by me to the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Jim Bradley, in which I
raised many of the concerns mentioned in this document, I was informed by an MOE official that "The
Environmental Screening Process is a proponent driven, self-assessment process." "The proponent
evaluates the potential for environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, consults with
the public and review agencies (such as the ministry), and prepares documentation which must be
available for a 60 day public review period". "The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) does play an
important role during the Environmental Screening Process as a government review agency. MOE Staff
review the technical information submitted by the proponent and comment on issues such as impacts to
air quality" (Emphasis added by me).
These items of information from the MOE did not appear to indicate that there was any formal
requirement for an MOE-initiated, detailed scientific evaluation of the application. A full EA is not
undertaken unless granted in response to elevation requests. We were informed that not all elevation
requests are granted and in fact few are.
MOE officials whom we (PHR4MWR) were able to meet with in Toronto also led us to believe that
consideration of the Company's application and our opposition to it would have to await the expected
HHERA. On hearing our statements on the problematic nature of the Company's proposal, the officials
did indicate that (an) MOE-appointed scientist(s) would review the application and our objections to it,
for which we were grateful, but it was our impression that this comment was in response to our
expressions of concern. As indicated, as far as we could ascertain, in the absence of actual elevation to
EA there appeared to be no formal requirement for the MOE to itself initiate a detailed medical-scientific
evaluation of health consequences of the application.
9
Finally, (re "official" status of the HHERA), at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Prehearing on 17
March, 2015 the OMB adjudicator expressed the tacit understanding that ENTECH-REM's expected
HHERA would have been considered as "official" documentation, had it been available.
The problems with the Environmental Screening Report's HHRE identified in this section were errors of
science that were committed by the company hired by ENTECH-REM. That company appears to have
been trying to present a report that would satisfy the leadership of the Proponent ENTECH-REM, who had
presumably engaged them under specific terms of employment. The scientific problems and clear
evidence of bias would probably not have arisen had the ESP and ESR been done by an independent and
expertly qualified agency appointed not by the Proponent but by the MOECC.
4. "PEER REVIEW"
Hardy Stevenson and Associates (HSA) is a company that was periodically hired by the former Mayor and
Council of the MPH, to perform what the company and the then Mayor referred to as "Peer Review". In
this instance, HSA was hired by the MPH to perform a so-called "peer review" of CRA's ESR, including the
HHRE. HSA's bill to the MPH for this service was to be paid by ENTECH-REM.
The term "peer review" originates from the academic and scientific world. It refers to a very rigorous
process. It is arm's length and anonymous. Criteria for selecting the peer reviewers include: their
internationally acknowledged, demonstrated expertise in the subject-matter being evaluated; their having
no known connection or relationship with the author of the material that could bias their judgement; and
their having no possible motive for being less than totally objective. The author of materials being peer
reviewed has no choice in selection of reviewers, is not told who they are, and has no input to the reviewers
before or after submission of the work.
In this instance, the proponent of the project (ENTECH-REM), the author of the ESR document (CRA) and
the initiator and agency of prime interest in the project (the MPH Mayor, Council and Staff) were all known
to the so-called "peer-reviewer", HSA. It was also well known publicly, and therefore also to HSA, that all of
these members of the MPH (except for one councillor) were at that time all either openly or apparently in
favour of the incinerator proposal. In addition, HSA had a long-standing relationship with the Mayor and
MPH, as a company repeatedly employed by the MPH. Finally, both CRA and HSA were being paid by the
Proponent, for respectively the ESR and the so-called "Peer-Review" of it. Furthermore, at least with
respect to human health issues, HSA does not meet the criterion of possessing "internationally
acknowledged expertise in the subject matter being evaluated".
This situation did not create conditions that could be seen to be likely to produce "expertly qualified", and
"independent", "unbiased", and "uninfluenced" statements on the potential effects on human health and
the environment of the proposed incinerator. The perception of the review not being arm's length was
confirmed by the following:
Through FOI Requests we were able to ascertain that, in the period leading up to the release of CRA's ESR
and HSA's so-called "Peer Review" of the ESR, at least one meeting had been held between representatives
of CRA and HSA, and then incumbent MPH Staff who were, on the then Mayor's behalf, supportive of the
ENTECH-REM proposal.
Unsurprisingly, the HSA so-called "peer review" Report was riddled with scientific error and
misunderstanding, misinformation and false conclusions, as the ESR and specifically its HHRE had also been,
and, also unsurprisingly, the HSA "peer review" concluded by endorsing the conclusions of the ESR. In a
10
written exchange with Mr. Hardy of HSA I pointed out the most egregious of the errors of his Report. My
Comments are available in the PHR4MWR website, www.phr4mwr.ca.
The process of "Peer Review" would be, and would be seen to be, open and scientifically valid if the
selection of a "Peer Review" agency to provide a second opinion on the Environmental Screening Report
(ESR) were to be made by the MOECC, as with appointment of the agency that would produce the ESR
itself. In both cases the agency would be selected by the MOECC without input from the Proponent or
other parties with vested or political interest in the process, but of course the Proponent would cover all
costs.
5. HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (HHERA)
The HHERA was a proposed document that was to have been prepared by CRA on behalf of the Proponent.
It had at the outset no official status - its inception was due to a request by the local Medical Officer of
Health, not the MOECC. However, by skilled use of spin the Proponent succeeded in creating the
impression in the minds of many, unfortunately including some members of and representatives of
government agencies, that this document would have official and authoritative status.
The so-called HHERA was, as mentioned, requested by the MOH. Citizens including PHR4MWR had no
opportunity to comment on the procedure, and unfortunately the MOH failed to specify that any Health
Assessment should be INDEPENDENT. The MOECC evidently also did not demand that any health study
should be independent, and, without any further requirements or conditions, MOECC officials whom we
(PHR4MWR) were in contact with appeared to tacitly accept the potential authenticity and authority of
this highly compromised endeavour.
The endeavour was highly compromised, right from the outset, because:
1. It was not originally requested by the MOECC.
2. In requesting this Assessment the MOH had failed to specify that it should be done by an
independent, scientifically qualified agency.
3. MOECC also did not intervene to demand that it should be done by an independent,
scientifically qualified agency. It is not clear why the MOECC officials would accept the MOH's suggestion
that the Proponent should be allowed to commission a HHERA that would not be independent, and done by
a company that did not have documented scientific expertise in the health arena.
4. As a result, the agency that was employed to do this Assessment (CRA) was NOT an
independent, scientifically qualified agency.
5. The agency so approved, CRA, was employed by and was to be paid by the Proponent.
6. CRA had already produced the HHRE. With the HHERA, CRA was therefore evaluating its own
previous document on the subject.
7. That previous document (the HHRE) had been shown, in a Review of the HHRE by a qualified
medical scientist (me), to be riddled with error, false and erroneous statements which demonstrated
misunderstanding and ignorance of fundamental medical science, and false conclusions. Statements made
in the document were backed up by zero peer-reviewed references. Every statement in my Review was
documented by references (in all over 60 references, of which over 45 were from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature).
8. CRA had not acknowledged the authenticity of the latter Review, and had not withdrawn its
erroneous original document, the HHRE.
11
9. It was therefore not feasible that an HHERA, also done by CRA, would contradict the findings of
the HHRE, nor could it feasibly come to any other conclusions than those of the HHRE, which had been
shown to be false.
The above are reasons why the declared intention by ENTECH-REM to deliver an HHERA that was to have
been prepared by CRA was fatally flawed at the outset, but it appears that the MOE/MOECC did not
intervene. Having apparently been given permission, or what the Company evidently perceived as
approval to produce this document, the Proponent proceeded to perpetrate further abuses of the
system, as follows.
The release date of the HHERA was originally expected to be in November 2013, but it kept getting
postponed, first to early 2014, then to April, then till "the summer", then "the Fall", then "by Xmas". Finally,
individuals and groups who had submitted formal requests to MOECC for elevation of the ESP to a full
Environmental Assessment (EA) were informed by the MOECC that on 1 December 2014 the MOECC had
received a letter from ENTECH-REM stating that the Company had withdrawn its Notice of Completion of
the ESR. It was stated that this was for the purpose of, amongst other things, completing the HHERA and
to make revisions on its Environmental Screening Report. Recipients of this information from the MOECC
were informed that the ESP herewith was terminated.
MOECC regulations evidently allowed and condoned that the Proponent had yet again, and now formally,
demanded extensions of its time limits, and had now, evidently unilaterally, declared its ongoing revisions
of its ESR and the ongoing delay of the compromised HHERA to be open-ended, i.e. with indeterminate
deadline.
The MOECC informed us that as a result of this development, the Environmental Screening Process was
accordingly no longer active. ENTECH-REM was evidently not given any new deadline by the MOECC; the
Ministry had evidently accepted the Company's unilateral declaration that the expected date for the
HHERA was now INDETERMINATE.
Furthermore, the MOECC also informed us that as a result of this development THE MINISTRY WAS NO
LONGER REQUIRED TO CONSIDER SO-CALLED "BUMP-UP" REQUESTS, i.e. requests for the MOECC to
elevate its ESP requirements for the Proponent from just an ESR to a full Environmental Assessment (EA).
Concerned citizens who had submitted "bump-up" requests were told that, when the Proponent finally
did submit their HHERA, they (the citizens) would be allowed to submit new "bump-up" requests.
PHR4MWR had submitted a very extensive elevation request that had represented hundreds of person-
hours of work, and included expert witness testimony from British and American experts whose
statements had been commissioned at major expense, a heavy burden on a grass-roots group of citizens
with no corporate financial resources. Several individuals citizens had similarly spent many hours
submitting personal elevation requests.
MOECC informed concerned citizens that anyone who had any questions could call in to the MOECC to
get further "information".
Throughout the prolonged process described above, the Proponent had repeatedly claimed that the
anticipated HHERA was the only legitimate source of information on health effects of the incinerator that
any decision-making body at any level of government could consider, and that accordingly there could be
no legitimacy in any decisions taken prior to the release of the HHERA.
12
The Proponent had used this argument to try to prevent the MPH Council from making a decision: the
Company had actually taken the presumptuous step of sending an "urgent" message to the Council, on the
day Council was scheduled to make a decision, implying that it could not legitimately make a decision, and
virtually demanding of the Council that it NOT make any decision, without the information that the HHERA
would provide. The Company again used this spurious assertion of the unique validity of the expected
HHERA in its submission to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) prior to the OMB Pre-Hearing of 17 March
2015.
As far as concerned citizens of Port Hope are aware, the MOECC evidently did not at any stage challenge
ENTECH-REM's unsubstantiated and obviously false claim of legitimacy, not to mention unique
legitimacy, for the mooted but ultimately non-existent HHERA. This lent weight to this claim in the public
perception and, early in the process, even to members of the MPH Council. Also, as mentioned above, at
the OMB Prehearing the OMB adjudicator indicated acceptance that this spurious report, if available,
would have been taken to be authoritative.
Citizens also find it inexplicable that MOECC condoned and fostered ENTECH-REM's behaviour in respect of
the repeated postponements and ultimately the indeterminate extension, demanded by the Company for
its HHERA.
In Summary, Re the HHERA:
1. The MOECC appeared to accept and condone the Proponent's false claim, and actions based on that
claim, that the anticipated HHERA would provide the only legitimate, and, ultimately, binding
statements, on the health effects of an ENTECH incinerator.
2. Despite the fact that the HHERA had no legitimacy, either in the way its preparation had been
authorised or in its potential content, MOECC allowed the deadlines for completion of the ESP to be
repeatedly, and ultimately indeterminately, extended. This indeterminate extension had the potential of
giving the Proponent the opportunity to try to "wait-out" public opposition to the incinerator.
As mentioned in Section 3, the probability of obtaining a scientifically valid and unbiased assessment in
the Environmental Screening Process would be much increased if the process were not deemed to be
"Proponent driven", and if instead the MOECC were to identify the agencies that are to be involved in
management of the ESP, without input from the Proponent or others. It is also possible that if the
process were not designated as "Proponent driven", other problems that were experienced vis-a-vis the
HHERA could have been avoided. These problems include the Proponent's explicit and implicit
declarations that no decisions on their application made before their HHERA was available would be
legitimate; and the Proponent's unilateral decision to indefinitely extend its deadline for the HHERA.
6. ENTECH-REM MISLED THE DECISION MAKERS WITH FALSIFICATIONS
Throughout the course of ENTECH-REM's Environmental Screening Process the Company repeatedly made
false statements to Port Hope Council, the MOECC, the public and even to a House of Commons Standing
Committee. Many examples of this were brought to the attention of the MOECC by PHR4MWR and/or
other sources.
In the following I list some of the more egregious falsities that the Company, its senior executives and its
agents promulgated during the course of its campaign in Port Hope.
13
1. On 24 June, 2014, the Company's Executive Vice-President (EV-P) stated, in a presentation to the
MPH Council, in the Port Hope Municipal Council Chamber and in the presence of a large audience that
included members of the local press, that the Ministry of the Environment had "endorsed" the Company's
proposal to build an incinerator in Port Hope. This statement was cited in the local newspaper
Northumberland Today, on 26 June, 2014. PHR4MWR suspected this statement to be false and so asked
the local Member of the Provincial Parliament, Mr. Lou Rinaldi of the Liberal Party, to obtain a clarification
from the MOECC on this. Mr. Rinaldi confirmed, as expected, that he was informed by representatives of
the Ministry that no such "endorsement" had been given. Thus the EV-P's public statement was false.
2. On 5 April, 2014 the Company's President and EV-P appeared in Ottawa as witnesses at a
meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. A
transcript of the proceedings of the meeting is available on line. The executives made presentations on the
incinerator they hoped to build in Port Hope. Following the EV-P's presentation he was asked by a
committee member, Mr. Bernard Trottier, MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, whether their incinerator would
put out any toxic emissions. The EV-P replied that only carbon dioxide and "water vapours" would be
emitted. This statement was made by the EV-P despite the fact that the Company's own ESR, prepared by
CRA, admitted in its HHRE (which, as indicated, is itself rife with falsity) that 18 toxic substances would be
emitted, 16 of which had been documented to be cancer-causing. This directly false statement to the
Parliamentary Committee was brought to the Committee's attention and I was invited to make a
presentation about this, and to correct the misinformation the Committee had been given.
3. As mentioned, the HHRE was rife with falsities. These falsities have been mentioned above
(section 3. The original HHRE in the ESR). A full and detailed critique of the untruths perpetrated in the
HHRE is given in my Review, available at PHR4MWR Web-site, www.phr4mwr.ca.
Briefly, these untruths included: a grossly incomplete list of toxins that the HHRE admitted would be
emitted; a blatantly false statement about which of the toxins are cancer causing; a ridiculous statement
claiming that cancer-causing toxins emitted would be "protective of a cancer risk level"; and many more.
4. The Company repeatedly stated in its promotional material that its proposed plant in Port Hope
would perform recycling, and the material to be incinerated would be the residue after the recyclable
materials had been removed. But the incineration process the Company was proposing to use,
"gasification", REQUIRES that recyclable materials are incinerated, in order to maintain the combustion
process. The floor plans for the plant showed no recycling facilities; there was neither the capability nor the
intention to do recycling in the Company's plans - the statement in their promotional material about
recycling was false.
5. ENTECH-REM made much of a claim to have an impressive track record, with numerous plants
to their credit in various parts of the world, including Australia, the home of the ENTECH technology, and
Hong Kong, a very large megalopolis and a former crown colony of the UK. In fact, the company ENTECH-
REM, and the parent Canadian company REM, had never built or managed an incinerator anywhere in the
world. The ENTECH technology had never been used anywhere in the Western world - neither the
Americas nor Western Europe nor anywhere in the British Commonwealth. The claims of plants in
Australia and Hong Kong appeared to be designed to offset this lack.
Due diligence done by PHR4MWR revealed that despite its explicit claims, the company had plants
NEITHER IN AUSTRALIA NOR IN HONG KONG. At the time the claims were made in their promotional
material they had an application to build a plant in Australia, but it had not been approved. The plant that
they claimed to have in Hong Kong featured prominently as the showpiece of their "track record" material,
14
including on page 1 of Appendix P of their ESR. But this plant did not exist. There had been an ENTECH
plant in Hong Kong, but it had been decommissioned in 2006, seven years before the Company was
flaunting it as the prime showcase example of their "track record", it in their 2013 ESR and in other
advertisements.
As other items in their "track Record", the Company also repeatedly claimed in their promotional
material that they had ongoing "projects" in California, and in Brant County, Ontario. These claims were
also false.
The MOECC was made aware of these and other false statements by the Company. It is of concern that
the apparent assumption that whatever the Proponent states is factual was evidently in no way
dislodged or challenged by the accumulation of evidence to the contrary that was provided to the
Ministry. To the outside observer, and specifically to the concerned citizens who opposed the
construction of the incinerator, it seemed curious that the Company's dishonesty in negotiation, including
falsification of credentials ("track record"), would not lead to instant dismissal of the Company's
application.
Based on our experience in communicating our concerns to senior members of MOE (MOECC) staff in the
course of this case, we respectfully submit that if the ESP were to no longer be deemed to be "Proponent
driven", it would make it easier for MOECC staff to take cognisance of concerns brought to their
attention, such as those mentioned here in Section 6.
7. THE MOECC CONDONES - I.E. HAS NOT YET BANNED - USE OF INCINERATORS
All types of incinerator produce cancer-causing poisons that can not be filtered out of the emissions that
are released in to the air. Modern methods of waste management have made environmentally toxic
procedures such as incineration totally redundant. Modern methods of waste management involve the Rs -
Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, Resource Recovery (including composting), Restrict and Refuse (i.e. governmental
restriction and refusal of permission to industries to produce un-recyclable materials, and to use un-
recyclable packaging).
For these reasons, we respectfully submit that no form of incineration of waste should be allowed to
occur. THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PORT HOPE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE MOECC TO ENACT
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BAN ALL FORMS OF INCINERATION OF WASTE IN ONTARIO.
8. THE "ALLOWABLE" LIMIT OF DEADLY POISONS SHOULD BE ZERO
Genetic research shows that a single molecule of a cancer-producing poison can cause the genetic mutation
that initiates cancer. There is no safe dose of such chemicals or of any cancer-causing agent. Research also
shows that incinerators of all kinds emit numerous such poisons - up to hundreds of different chemicals,
depending on the type of incineration - and research also shows that that there is no technology yet
invented that can totally filter out all such cancer-producing substances.
Furthermore, even the smallest amounts of toxic and cancer-causing poisons that are released into the air
can enter the human and animal food chain through the process of Bioaccumulation. The poisons reach
soil, river water and rain, and get absorbed from the air, soil or water into plants, including crops and
livestock feed. Thus the toxins enter vegetables as well as fish, cattle, poultry and other animal food-
sources, accumulate over time in these, and end up in significant concentrations in the food on the dinner
plates of the citizens.
15
I respectfully suggest that the default position of a government agency, the goals, objectives and
responsibilities of which are to protect the environment, should therefore be that:
1. The allowable levels of cancer-causing agents is in general zero.
2. Industrial activities that produce cancer-causing agents be disallowed, unless it can be shown that the
industry provides a service for which no safer alternative is known.
There are almost no known situations in which this latter case prevails. The one possible example that may
still exist, albeit temporarily, is use of medical x-rays. X-rays cause cancer and should be avoided unless
absolutely necessary for diagnosis or treatment. When absolutely necessary, the physician may order x-
rays knowing that this incurs the risk of causing cancer, but the physician may determine that the risk to the
patient's health of not doing the x-ray may be even higher, so doing the x-ray is deemed to be less harmful
than not doing it.
Even this example will soon be obsolete, as non-invasive forms of screening such as ultrasound, MRI and
others evolve to become more universally useful and more readily available.
This more or less unique situation where the risk to societal benefit of not doing the procedure may be
even higher than the risk of harm of the procedure itself, and where there is no alternative way to achieve
the benefit, is known as the Lesser Evil Principle. This principle does not apply to incinerators: they offer no
benefit to society, and more effective and safer alternatives are well known, i.e. through the Rs, which
achieve the objective of Waste Management without the deadly risks to human health and the
environment that incineration carries.
9. EXISTING GOVERNMENT "STANDARDS" ARE NOT ENFORCED
As mentioned in the previous section, the acceptable level for emissions of cancer-causing and other deadly
toxins should in general be zero. In practice it will take time to achieve this goal, but in the interim I
respectfully suggest that it is reasonable to expect that those "guidelines", "standards" or "limits" that
have historically been set by government agencies need to be enforced.
The level of air pollution in Northumberland County is at this time already egregiously high. With respect to
so-called fine particulate matter (PM2.5), background concentrations in the area were reported to be in
in the order of 20 μg/m3 as far back as in 2009.
This concentration was already then 33% above the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency
Guidelines level for PM2.5, which was 15 μg/m3, and this background pollution level will certainly have risen
to much higher levels in the years since 2009. These 2009 levels of course far preceded the advent of the
new Clarington incinerator as well as the additional pollution now being produced by St. Mary's Cement
plant in Bowmanville,
The Canadian Federal Government accepts that even at the reference level of 15 μg/m3 "there would be
some level of health effects associated with the standard" - a strikingly important admission - and that
"newer standards should come into effect over a staggered time frame". The National Environment
Protection Council of Australia has expressed the same view.
The California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resource Board gives a reference value for PM2.5 of 7
μg/m3. Thus the level of fine particulate pollution in our area is not only 33% above the existing so-called
local standard, it is also nearly three times the California Standard. Federal Government policy is said to
16
be that "newer standards should come into effect". It is widely understood that air quality criteria do not
provide an appropriate representation of the potential for adverse health effects from a facility.
It is very concerning that, notwithstanding the above documented information on the deplorable status
of the ambient air of the local environment, plants such as the new Clarington incinerator, St. Mary's
Cement Kiln, the Six Nations Disintegrator, and now new incinerators being considered in Hamilton and
in Peel County, still proceed without any apparent intervention from the MOECC.
10. MOECC REGULATIONS STATE NOTHING ABOUT NANOPARTICLES
The "Particulate Matter" pollution discussed above, in point 10, refers only to Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) and does not even consider Ultrafine or Nanoparticles, i.e. the particles that are a millionth the size
of a pinhead. A published study describing specifically the ENTECH technology reported that it produces
nanoparticles, that there is no known technology that can filter them out of the emissions, and that there is
no government regulation of nanoparticles. The medical scientific literature indicates that nanoparticles
uniquely get in to the brain, heart and all other human organs, carry the deadly cancer-producing poisons
with them, and can produce cancer and other lethal effects.
The fact that MOECC regulations make no specific mention of Nanoparticles was made good use of by the
Protagonist ENTECH-REM in its campaign in the MPH. The Company's representatives answered all
criticisms related to the above-mentioned information about release of deadly nanoparticles by ENTECH
technology, by stating that MOECC guidelines did not restrict their release of nanoparticles, that the issue
of nanoparticles was therefore not their problem, and that we the concerned citizens should address our
concerns to the MOECC.
It is not unusual for science progress to occur so rapidly that relevant updating of government legislation
can not keep pace. In the past this has been accepted as an inevitable fact of life. However, we are now
in an age of an expanding rate of pollution that is creating ever-increasing threats to the environment,
with concomitant health consequences. The science of the health risks of nanoparticles, and the lethal
cancer-producing chemicals that they carry with them, is new. WE RESPECTFULLY ARGUE, THOUGH,
THAT ATTENTION TO THESE NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CHARGED WITH
MONITORING THE ENVIRONMENT COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN DRAMATIC BENEFITS TO POPULATION
HEALTH.
11. REGULAR MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IS NEEDED
It was argued above that the existence of so-called Government "Guidelines" which allow incinerators and
other polluting plants to emit specific amounts of deadly emissions is an anachronism from a past era. In
this day and age it is known that a single molecule of a cancer-causing poison can cause cancer, and that
there is therefore no safe lower limit of such poisons. It is furthermore also known that minute amounts of
emitted poisons accumulate in crops, fish and livestock over time. Citizens concerned about the
environment believe therefore that the only safe, acceptable and ethically responsible regulation that
should apply is that the limit for such poisons should be zero.
It is disturbing that this logic has not pervaded most government bureaucracies yet, (though some, for
example in Australia, have recognised the need to move in this direction). By providing allowable limits in
the form of "Guidelines" or Standards" the MOECC and many other governments appear to continue to
condone release of cancer and other deadly disease-causing poisons in to the environment,.
17
This being the case, it is even more disturbing when the public learns that even existing Guidelines are
not sufficiently enforced. Daily monitoring of emissions of approved facilities is evidently not performed,
and on rare occasions when monitoring is done and transgression of guidelines is discovered, there
appear to be no consequences for the delinquent company. For example, the Durham Region online
newspaper Oshawa This Week reported on 23 May, 2013, that In 2012, the St. Mary's Cement plant
exceeded its allowed emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3455066-st-mary-s-cement-bowmanville-emissions-for-2012-
raise-questions/
The newsletter stated that "The Bowmanville plant released 5,082 tonnes of SO2 between Jan. 1 and Dec.
31, 2012. That's almost twice the company's annual limit of 2,808 tonnes. St. Mary's also released 3,291
tonnes of NOx in 2012, while the annual allowance is 2,553 tonnes".
No consequences by way of government intervention appear to have resulted, and on the contrary, as
indicated below, since that time the MOECC has evidently approved a request from this plant to be allowed
to burn garbage, including recyclable materials, which will lead to further egregiously great toxic emissions.
12. ST MARY'S CEMENT PLANT IS EVIDENTLY NOW ALLOWED TO FUNCTION AS AN INCINERATOR
Despite the well-reasoned and well-documented protests that the MOECC received from Liz Benneian and
twenty other signatories on behalf of the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition, the Ministry had evidently
proceeded in allowing St. Mary's Cement Plant in Bowmanville to burn "alternative fuels". That is, this and
other Cement Kilns are now allowed to function as incinerators, evidently without having to go through
the Ministry's nominal Environmental Screening Process, flawed as we believe that process is, as
described above. These plants are thus now allowed to burn valuable recyclable resources, frustrating
the purposes of "R programmes", and are licensed to pour out in to the atmosphere deadly toxic
substances that will bioaccumulate and contribute to the ever-increasing rate of cancer in the population.
I respectfully appeal to the MOECC to reverse its position on this issue. As mentioned above, all forms of
incineration of waste should be banned.
13. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE: PORT HOPE AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER
Dating back to the 1930s, Port Hope's reputation has been challenged by the stigma of the town being the
home of a radium and uranium refining plant, originally known as Eldorado, and the consequent issue of
radioactive contamination. When ENTECH-REM in 2009 launched its attempt to place an incinerator in the
municipality, environmentally concerned citizens were greatly disturbed at the prospect of a further assault
on the local environment, and the new and added threat to citizens' health. The town's reputation
appeared to be further threatened, and with that the prospect of attracting new industries further
encumbered.
As discussed above, the threat was averted through a concerted effort by a grass-roots association of
citizens, supported initially by a single outspoken municipal councillor and ultimately, after municipal
elections, by a new Mayor and counsellors. But all are all aware of the fact that this victory is fragile:
there has already been an intimation of a renewed attempt to build an incinerator in Port Hope.
Forward-looking people in the MPH wish to see the image of our beautiful and historic town turned
around, from one of historical contamination and a potential threat of new pollution, to that of a clean
and pristine community, LEADING THE COUNTRY IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND PRACTICES. And for
these objectives there could be no better way forward than to promote the development in our
18
municipality of a CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES, with support
for the establishment of a CORE OF RECYCLING INDUSTRIES and a SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RECYCLING SCIENCES in our town.
In support of this proposal I submit that:
The town is sorely in need of new industries, and we believe that RECYCLING INDUSTRIES would not only
be a perfect fit for our community, but also that they CONSTITUTE A SECTOR OF CERTAIN FUTURE
EXPANSION IN CANADA. To get in on the ground floor level with support of this sector, backed up by the
educational approach, would be a valuable contribution to the municipality's development. Support
from the MOECC for this thrust would be essential and invaluable.
To encourage the influx of new industries and in preparation for this, the MPH has already developed a
potential industrial park area, close to highway 401 and serviced with the necessary infrastructure to
allow of rapid access and settlement.
The thrust proposed here would have the whole-hearted support of the citizens of Port Hope. In our
battle to prevent the advent of the incinerator we canvassed the citizens of Port Hope, who showed their
overwhelming support of our campaign to deal with the waste disposal issue through the
environmentally friendly approach of the Rs.
The ideas expressed here have been tentatively and informally raised at various levels of local
government and been met with positive responses. In a question period at a MPH Council meeting the
idea of support for recycling industries was suggested and was well received. Also, the possibility of
finding a home for a School of Recycling Sciences has been raised.
The latter idea was broached inter alia at an informal level with Cobourg's Fleming College. Although the
idea of a school of this nature for this area is viewed positively, this discipline was not seen to be an
appropriate fit for that College's existing programme.
Other possible bases for an educational institution of this nature that might be worth exploring include,
for example, an outreach programme here in Port Hope for an existing School in the neighbourhood.
Possibilities might include e.g. The University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Trent University, or
others. The Liberal candidate for the upcoming Federal Election has been approached and has expressed
support for the idea of such a Centre in our region.
I respectfully commend these ideas on future development of Port Hope as a centre of environmental
excellence to your consideration, Minister Murray.
19
CONCLUSION
In this Statement I have documented how the battle by citizens of Port Hope to prevent a company to build
an incinerator in our town demonstrated an anomaly in the role the MOECC plays in the Environmental
Screening Process. This citizens' battle showed that the regulations, established procedures, and
interpretations of these exercised by the MOECC, appear to support potential industrial polluters and to
oppose and frustrate the efforts of people who strive to protect their environment.
I respectfully submit that the role of the Ministry that is formally in charge of defending the environment
should be to oppose polluting industries and to support citizens' attempts to protect the environment. I
respectfully urge you, Minister, to take steps to correct the obviously incongruous situation that currently
exists.
I further respectfully request your consideration of the possibility of MOECC support for the development
in Port Hope of a Centre of Excellence in Environmental Recycling Technologies.
Dr. Stan R. Blecher MD, FCCMG
Port Hope
7 September, 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f/n: Incinerator - MOECC PROCEDURES SUPPORT POLLUTERS.docx Update 13/9.15
Air, Water, Earth, Fire
The Background Story of The
Battle For Our Environment
Dr Stan R Blecher, MD, FCCMG
Summary
The problematic management of the Environment by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE; MOECC), and the outcome
The MOE’s admirable Mantra
The inadequate legislation on pollution
The bizarre rules for dealing with polluters
The Polluters and their pollution
The Solution:
Legislate Clean Air
Environmental Hub in Port Hope
Problematic MOE management of
Environment, and Outcome
Loopholes
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Decision
Pyrrhic Victory
OUTCOME: VULNERABLE TO REPEATED ATTEMPTS
Battle Against Incineration
We, the citizens
Port Hope Residents 4 Managing Waste Responsibly
(PHR4MWR)
vs
Incinerator company
Initially: Municipality of Port Hope – Past Leadership
Ministry of the Environment
To do:
Document problems with laws and rules
Formulate proposals for improvement
The Ministry’s Excellent Mantra
(as per the MOECC website)
“The quality of our air directly impacts our
health and the natural environment, so we
want our air to be as clean as possible. The
Ministry of the Environment works to protect
and improve air quality”
Problematic Legislation
Incinerators are allowed, despite fact they ALL
EMIT DEADLY POISONS
and
Emissions of deadly poisons are specifically
allowed in stated amounts, despite the fact that
THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE
“Proponents are expected to do the best they
can…….” (to meet guidelines)
MOE Rules and Procedures
“The environmental screening process is a
proponent-driven process”
The proponent therefore, inter alia, appoints and
employs its own environmental screening agent
There is no scrutiny to limit the proponent's
control of the screening process and outcome
MOE Rules and Procedures
“An environmental screening prepared under
Ontario Regulation 101/07 – Waste Management
Projects (Wastes Regulation) is exempt from Part II
of The Environmental Assessment Act on the
condition that this environmental screening is
completed”
MOE Rules and Procedures
Citizens who may have any concerns about the
Proponent's proposal are required in the first
instance to contact the Proponent, in an
attempt to resolve any such concerns
Assumed:
Proponent is knowledgeable, honest, and
trustworthy
The Proponent’s Worst falsities:
Green technology
Process is not incineration
Great track record
Project ‘endorsed’ by the MOE
Only few emissions, and
Most do not cause cancer, and
Those that do are ‘protective of cancer risk’
Statement to parliamentary committee: no toxins
I Respectfully Propose that the
MOECC be asked to:
Develop legislation to:
Ban incineration
Ban lethal emissions
Support the MPH in development of:
A recycling centre of excellence, which would
Attract recycling industries to Port Hope, and,
Develop an academy of recycling technology
Conclusion
In the battle against the incinerator we learned:
MOECC laws and rules have loopholes
Waste disposal issue requires a solution
I have respectfully suggested
Appropriate revisions to the legislation and rules
A long term solution that will benefit Port Hope:
Conclusion
The development in Port Hope of
A Centre of Excellence in Recycling
Thank You
December 11, 2015
Commander Brad Fishleigh
Elgin O.P.P. Detachment
42696 John Wise Line
St. Thomas, ON N5P 3S9
Dear Commander:
Please be advised that Elgin County Council passed By-Law 15-32 "Being a By-Law to
Authorize Speed Limits" at its meeting held on December 10, 2015 . This By-Law repeals
By-Laws 12-27, 12-20 , 14-25, and 15-14 . The attached By-Law indicates changes that
have been made .
These changes will take effect upon the erection of signage.
Yours truly,
:1{~ v/A-~~Ot\
Katherine Thompson,
Marketing and Communication Coordinator
Enclosure
cc Elgin County Municipalities
Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services, County of Elgin
County of Elgin
Administrative Services
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
Phone: 519-631-1460
www.elgincounty.ca
COUNTY OF ELGIN
By-Law No. 15-32
11 BE.IN G _A BY-LAW TO AU THORl·Z E SPEED LIM ITS''
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 128(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, being Chapter
H.8, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, the council of a municipality may by by-law prescribe a
different rate of speed for motor vehicles driven on a highway or portion of a highway
under its jurisdiction than is prescribed in Section 128(1 a); and
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the speed limit for motor vehicles on certain
highways in the County of Elgin be different from the rate as set out in said Subsection
(1 .a).
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin
enacts as follows:
1. THAT when any highway or portion of highway set out in Schedules "A" and "B",
appended hereto, is marked in compliance with the regulations under the Highway Traffic
Act the maximum rate of speed thereon shall be the rate of speed prescribed in the
Schedule.
2. THATthe penalties provided in Section 128(14) of the Highway Traffic Act shall
apply to offences against this by-law.
3. THAT this By-Law shall become effective once signage setting out the speed limit
has been duly posted .
4. THAT By-Laws No. 12-27, 13-20, 14-25, 15-14, and any by-law inconsistent with
this by-law be and the same are hereby repealed; and,
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND Fl NALLY PASSED THIS 101h DAY OF
DECEMBER 2015.
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer
;?~~Mu:L/
Bernie Wiehle
Warden
-2-
SCHEDULE "A"
By-Law No. 15-32
MAXIMUM RATE OF SPEED 50 KILOMETRES PER HOUR
1. County Road #2 (Pioneer Line)-From 1250 metres east of the south west property line
of Graham Road 1827 metres west of the south east property line of Graham Road, in
the Municipality of West Elgin.
2. County Road #3 (Talbot Line) -From the west property line of Sunset Road (Highway
#4) west 432 metres, in the Township of Southwold .
3. County Road #4 (Colborne Street) -From the south property limits of Bridge Street to
1692 metres north, in the geographic location of the Village of Port Stanley, in the
Municipality of Central Elgin.
4 . County Road #4 (Bridge Street) -From the west property line of Carlow Road to the
west property line of Colborne Street, in the geographic location of the Village of Port
Stanley, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
5. County Road #8 (Currie Road) -From 384 metres south of the north property line of
Shackleton Line to 1285 metres north of the north property line of Shackleton Line, in
the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.
6 . County Road #8 (Currie Road) -From 814 metres south of the south property line of
Talbot Line to 437 metres north of the south property line of Talbot Line, in the
Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.
7 . County Road #13 (Shackleton Line) -From the east property line of Currie Road to
1264 metres east, in the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.
8. County Road #15 (Miller Road) -From Pioneer Line to Currie Road, in the Municipality
of Dutton/Dunwich.
9'. County Road #16 (Fingal Line) -From 490 metres west of the west property line of
Union Road to 456 metres east of the west property line of Union Road, in the
Township of Southwold .
10. County Road #16 (Fingal Line) -From 64 metres east of the east property line of Lyle
Road to 716 metres east of the east property line of Lyle Road, in the Township of
Southwold .
11 . County Road #18 (Third Line) -From 630 metres east of the east property line of
Lawrence Road to 203 metres east of the east property line of Lawrence Road, in the
Township of Southwold.
12.. County Road #19 (Plank Road) -From 430 metres south of the north property line of
Eden Line to 334 metres north of the north property line of Eden Line, in the
Municipality of Bayham .
13 . County Road #19 (Plank Road) -From 828 metres south of the south property line of
Heritage Line to 866 metres north of the south property line of Heritage Line, in the
Municipality of Bayham .
14. County Road #19 (Plank Road) -From 1100 metres south of the south property line of
County Road #41 (Main Street) to 766 metres north of the south property line of County
Road #41 (Main Street), in the Municipality of Bayham .
15. County Road #19 (Robinson Street) -From the south property line of Wellington Street
to the west property line of Plank Road, in the Municipality of Bayham.
3-
16. County Road #20 (Union Road) -From 933 metres north of the north property line of
Talbot Line to 360 metres south of the north property line of Talbot Line, in the
Township of Southwold.
17. County Road #20 (Union Road) -From 775 metres north of the north property line of
Fingal Line to 393 metres south of the north property line of Fingal Line , in the
Township of Southwold.
18. County Road #20 (Carlow Road) -From the north property limits of Bridge Street to
north property limits of Warren Street, in the geographic location of the Village of Port
Stanley, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
19. County Road #21 (Warren Street) -From the west property line of Colborne Street to
the east property line of Carlow Road in the geographic location of the Village of Port
Stanley, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
20. County Road #23 (East Road) -From a point 510 meters north of the north property
limit of Joseph Street northerly to the south property limit of Dexter Line a distance of
786 meters, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
21. County Road #23 (Joseph Street) -From the east property line of Colborne Street to
the east property line of East Street in the geographic location of the Village of Port
Stanley, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
22. County Road #24 (Colin Street) -From the north property line of Hale Street to the west
property line of Dexter Line, in the Township of Malahide.
23. County Road #24 (Colin Street) -From the north limits of Hale Street to the west limit of
Dexter line, the Township of Malahide.
24. County Road #24 (Dexter Line) -From the north limits of Colin Street to the South limits
of Catfish Creek, in the Township of Malahide.
25 . County Road #24 (Dexter Line) -From the west property line of Imperial Road to 2,485
metres west, in the Township of Malahide.
26. County Road #25 (Wellington Road) -From the City of St. Thomas limits to the south
property limits of Highway #3, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
27. County Road #26 (St. George Street) -From the east property line of Wellington Road
to the City of St. Thomas limits, in the Municipality of Central Elgin .
28. County Road #27 (Sparta Line) -From the east property line of Quaker Road (south
side) to 1311 metres west, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
29. County Road #28 (Centennial Road) -From the north property line of Elm Street to the
south property line of Talbot Line (Highway #3), in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
30. Road #34 (Borden Avenue) -From the west property line of Belmont Road to 816
metres west, in the geographic location of the Village of Belmont, in the Municipality of
Central Elgin.
31. County Road #36 (Quaker Road) -From 665 metres north of south property line of
Sparta Line to 395 metres south of the south property line of Sparta Line, in the
Municipality of Central Elgin .
32. County Road #37 (Caesar Road) -From the east property line of Belmont Road to 640
metres east in the geographic Village of Belmont, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
33. County Road #37 (Avon Drive) -From the southeast property line of Putnam Road to
493 metres east, in the Township of Malahide.
-4-
34. County Road #37 (Avon Drive) -From the southwest property line of Putnam Road to
436m west, in the Township of Malahide.
35. County Road #38 (Heritage Line) -From 1525 metres east of the east property line of
Plank Road to 850 metres west of the east property line of Plank Road, in the
Municipality of Bayham.
36. County Road #38 (Heritage Line) -From 495 metres west of the east property line of
Richmond Road to 127 metres east of the east property line of Richmond Road, in the
Municipality of Bayham.
37. County Road #39 (Chatham Street) -From south property line of Nova Scotia Line to
the southern limits in the geographic location of the Village of Port Burwell , in the
Municipality of Bayham.
38. County Road #40 (Springfield Road) -From 686 metres south of the south property line
of Calton Line to 537 metres north of the south property line of Calton Line, in the
Township of Malahide.
39. County Road #40 (Springfield Road) -From the south property line of Ron McNeil Line
to 1100 metres south, in the Township of Malahide .
40. County Road #41 (Main Street and Fulton Street) -From the north property line of
Front Street northerly 183 metres and from the west property line of Main Street
westerly 492 metres, in the Municipality of Bayham.
41. County Road #42 (Lakeshore Line) -From east property line of Plank Road to 760
metres east , in the Municipality of Bayham .
42. County Road #42 (Nova Scotia Line) -From the west property line of Plank Road to
790 metres west, in the Municipality of Bayham.
43. County Road #43 (Richmond Road) -From 531 metres north of the north property line
of Calton Line to 390 metres south of the north property line of Calton Line, in the
Municipality of Bayham.
44. County Road #43 (Richmond Road) -From the south property line of Heritage Line to
440 metres south, in the Municipality of Bayham .
45. County Road #44 (Eden Line) -From the east property limits of Culloden Road to the
west property limits of Talbot Line (Highway #3).
46. County Road #45 (Calton Line) -From 647 metres west of the west property line of
Richmond Road to 300 metres east of the west property line of Richmond Road, in the
Municipality of Bayham .
47. County Road #45 (Calton Line) -From the east property line of Springfield Road to 959
meters east, in the Township of Malahide.
48. County Road #47 (Putnam Road) -From the south property line of Avon Drive to 431
metres south, in the Township of Malahide.
49. County Road #48 (Ferguson Line) -From the east property line of Wellington Road to
625 metres east, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
50. County Road #49 (Whittaker Road) -From the north property line of Ron McNeil Line
northerly a distance of 814 meters, in the Township of Malahide.
51 . County Road #50 (Victoria Street) -From the south property line of Plank Road to the
north property line of Lakeshore Line, in the geographic location of the Village of Port
Burwell, in the Municipality of Bayham.
-5-
52. County Road #52 (Ron McNeil Line) -From 1096 metres west of the east property line
of County Road #40 (Springfield Road) to 512 metres east of the east property line of
County Road #40 (Springfield Road), in the Township of Malahide .
53. County Road #53 (Beech Street) -From the west property line of John Street to the
west property line of Elm Street, in the Town of Aylmer.
54. County Road #53 (Elm Street) -From the north property line of Talbot Street to the
north property line to Beech Street, in the Town of Aylmer.
55. County Road #56 (Elm Line) -From the south property line of the City of St. Thomas
limits to 855 metres east, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
56. County Road #73 (Imperial Road) -From the north property line of Beech Street in the
geographic location of the Town of Aylmer to 700 metres north, in the Township of
Malahide.
57. County Road #73 (Imperial Road) -From the west property line of Levi Street to 1090
metres north of the north property line of Dexter Line, in the Township of Malahide.
58. County Road #73 (Imperial Road) -From 530 metres south of the south property line of
Nova Scotia Line to 517 meters north of the south property line of Nova Scotia Line in
the Township of Malahide .
59. County Road #73 (John Street) -From the south property line of Talbot Street to 1664
metres south, in the Township of Malahide.
60. County Road #73 (John Street) -From the north property limits of Talbot Street to 1505
metres north, in the Township of Malahide.
61. County Road #74 (Belmont Road) -From the north property line of Talbot Line
(Highway #3) to 850 metres north, in the Municipality of Central Elgin .
62. County Road# 74 (Belmont Road) -From 91 metres south of the south property limits
of Borden Street to 1529 meters north, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
63. County Road # 76 (Graham Road) -From the south property line of Pioneer Line, 1650
meters south, to the north limits of Marsh Line, in the Municipality of West Elgin.
64. County Road # 76 (Graham Road) -From the north property line of Pioneer Line to 708
metres north, in the Municipality of West Elgin .
65. County Road #103 (Furnival Road) -From 1493 metres north of the south property line
of Queens Line to 1847 metres south of the south property line of Queens Line, in the
Municipality of West Elgin .
66. County Road #103 (Furnival Road) -From 117 metres south of the south property line
of Gray Line, in the Municipality of West Elgin.
67. County Road #104 (Queens Line) -From west property line of Furnival Road to 610
metres west, in the Municipality of West Elgin .
-6 -
SCHEDULE "B"
By-Law No. 15-32
MAXIMUM RATE OF SPEED 60 KILOMETRES PER HOUR
1. County Road #2 (Pioneer Line) -From north-east property line of Furnival Road to 606
metres east, in the Municipality of West Elgin .
2. County Road #2 (Pioneer Line) -From the west property line of Currie Road westerly
870 metres, in the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.
3. County Road #3 (Talbot Line) -From 337 metres west of the west property line of
Graham Road to 338 metres east of the west property line of Graham Road, in the
Municipality of West Elgin .
4. County Road #3 (Talbot Line) -From 483 metres east of the east property line of Currie
Road to 550 metres west of the east property line of Currie Road, in the Municipality of
Dutton/Dunwich.
5. County Road #3 (Talbot Line) -From 550 metres east of the east property line of Union
Road to 508 metres west of the east property line of Union Road, in the Township of
Southwold.
6 . County Road #4 (Sunset Drive) -From 140 metres south of south property line to John
Wise Line to south of City of St. Thomas limits , in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
7 . County Road #4 (Sunset Drive) -From the south property line of Talbot Line (Highway
#3) to 400 metres south, in the Township of Southwold .
8. County Road #7 (Clachan Road) -From the south property line of Johnston Line to 154
metres south, in the Municipality of West Elgin.
9. County Road #7 (Clachan Road) -From the south property line of Johnston Line to 332
metres north, in the Municipality of West Elgin.
10. County Road #14 (Iona Road) -From 675 metres north of the north property line of
Sixth Line to 32 metres south of the north property line of Sixth Line, in the Township of
Southwold.
11. County Road #14 (Iona Road) -From south west property line of Talbot Line north 440
metres to 805 metres south of the south west property line of Talbot Line, in the
Township of Southwold.
12. County Road #18 (Third Line) -From 400 metres west of the centre of the main
entrance to Green Lane Landfill to 400 metres east of the entrance, being a total
distance of 800m, in the Township of Southwold
13. County Road #19 (Plank Road) -From 230 metres north of the north limits of Jackson
Line to 350 metres south of the north limits of Jackson Line, in the Municipality of
Bayham.
14. County Road #22 (Fairview Road) -From the south property line of Sparta Line to 770
metres south, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
15. County Road #23 (East Road) -From a point 510 metres north of the north property
line of Joseph Street northerly to the south property limit of Dexter Line a distance of
786 metres, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
16. County Road #24 (Dexter Line) -From the east property limits of East Road to 400
metres east, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
-7-
17. County Road #27 (Sparta Line) -From 744 metres east of the east property line of
Sunset Road to 3326 metres west of the east property line of Sunset Road, in the
Municipality of Central Elgin .
18. County Road #27(Sparta Line) -From 70 metres east of the south-west property line of
Fairview Road westerly 259 metres, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
19. County Road #28 (Centennial Road) -From the south property line of Elm Line to 810
metres south, in the Municipality of Central Elgin .
20. County Road #35 (Springwater Road) -From 517 metres north of the property line of
Glencolin Line to 923 metres north of the north property line of Glencolin Line, in the
Township of Malahide.
21. County Road #35 (Springwater Road) -From the north-east property line of Talbot Line
(Highway #3) to 902 metres north, in the Township of Malahide.
22. County Road #35 (Springwater Road) -From the south property line of Talbot Line
(Highway #3) to 752 metres south, in the Township of Malahide .
23. County Road #37 (Avon Drive) -From 578 metres east of the east property line of
Imperial Road, to 450 metres east, in the Township of Malahide.
24. County Road #40 (Springfield Road) -From south property line of Talbot Line (Highway
#3) to 400 metres south, in the Township of Malahide.
25. County Road #42 (Nova Scotia Line) -From east property line of Imperial Road to 445
metres east, in the Township of Malahide.
26. County Road #44 (Eden Line) -From west property line of Plank Road to 784 metres
west, in the Municipality of Bayham.
27. County Road #45 (John Wise Line) -From 223 metres south east of the east property
line of Springwater Road to 294 metres west of the east property line of Springwater
Road, in the Township of Malahide.
28. County Road #45 (Calton Line) -From the east property line of Springfield Road to 959
metres east, in the Township of Malahide.
29. County Road #45 (Calton Line) -From 177 metres west of the west property line of
Richmond Road to 2450 metres east of the west property line of Richmond Road, in the
Municipality of Bayham.
30. County Road #45 (John Wise Line) -From the west property line of Sunset Drive to
637 metres west of Sunset Drive, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
31. County Road #46 (Culloden Road) -From 500 metres south of the south property line
of Best Line to 235 metres north of the south property line of Best Line, in the
Municipality of Bayham.
32. County Road #46 (Culloden Road)-From 100 metres south of the south property limits
of Eden Line to 400 metres north of the north property limits of Eden Line, in the
Municipality of Bayham .
33. County Road #48 (Lyons Line) -From 317 metres east of the east property line of
Imperial Road to 335 metres west of the east property line of Imperial Road, in the
Township of Malahide.
34. County Road #48 (Ferguson Line) -From the southwest property line of Wellington
Road to 601 metres west, in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
35. County Road #52 (Ron McNeil Line) -From 225 metres west of the north west property
limits of Springwater Road to 517 metres east, in the Township of Malahide.
-8 -
36 . County Road #57 (Southdale Line) -From the east property line of Sunset Drive to the
City of St. Thomas limits, in the Municipality of Central Elgin
37 . County Road #73 (Imperial Road) -From 270 metres south of the north property line of
Lyons Line to 691 metres north of the north property line of Lyons Line, in the Township
of Malahide.
38. County Road #73 (Imperial Road) -From 326 metres south of the south property line of
Nova Scotia Line to 317 metres north of the south property line of Nova Scotia Line, in
the Township of Malahide _
39 . County Road #7 4 (Belmont Road) -From 169 metres south of the south east property
line of Mapleton Line to 778 metres north of the south east property line of Mapleton
Line, in the Municipality of Central Elgin .
40. County Road #76 (Graham Road) -From the north limits of Marsh Line, south 1,049
metres, in the Municipality of West Elgin.
ADVISORY BOARD &
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
Date: January 7, 2016
To: Mayor & Members of Council
From: Harbourfront Committee
On December 17, 2015 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
passed the following resolution:
THAT the Otter Valley Naturalists request be received for information;
AND THAT Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
approve installation of the snow fence as requested;
AND THAT the request for installation of a public bench be forwarded to the
Harbourfront Committee for review and comment to be returned to Council.
The Bayham Harbourfront Committee (HFC) is pleased to provide the following
comments to Council regarding a proposal from the Otter Valley Naturalists (OVN) to
purchase and install a HFC Bench for the Port Burwell East Beach.
The HFC has reviewed the submitted "Beach Photo/Plan” which describes the
installation of a Bench just north and adjacent to the Pond Naturalist Area. We are
agreeable to this proposal and wish to outline the following,
It is understood the OVN will purchase the Bench through the" HFC Bench Program"
and the OVN will be responsible for its installation at the designated site.
The HFC welcomes the continued installation of Benches for public use within the
Beach/Harbour area and will be pleased to provide any information for additional
purchases.
1
. . . . . . . . .
Barry Wade Design Construction Management
December 17, 2015
Letter to Council
Municipality of Bayham
Re: Acceptance of Strategic Plan for Port Burwell Beach/Waterfront Proposal
Attention: Mayor Paul Ens
Deputy Mayor Tom Southwick
Councilor Randy Brier
Councilor Ed Ketchabaw
Councilor Wayne Casier
CAO Paul Shipway
Clerk Lynda Millard
Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you may be aware, one of the 4 mission statements cited in The Municipality of Bayham's
2008 - 2013 Strategic Plan is to invest [Council’s] energies and resources in: "providing
recreation and waterfront amenities".
The last paragraph of the Strategic Plan states: "Although this Strategic Plan has a five year
life cycle, it is appropriate to conduct a review of the Plan at the beginning of each term of
the Bayham Council to ensure that the strategic direction is agreed by the new Council and
update the Plan according to current circumstances".
Strategic objectives are intended to articulate where the Municipality is headed in the next 20
years or so and help Council ensure that all of its efforts are directed to move the
Municipality closer to these ideals. The intention should be to use the Strategic Plan to guide
all actions at Council, particularly when it comes to developing operating and capital budgets.
As far as we are aware, our new Council has never discussed the Strategic Plan at a public
Council meeting thereby leaving the public in the dark as to what Council has accomplished
in the past and what this Council intends to accomplish during this term and beyond. Like
every responsible Council, we think it is time to revisit the Municipality’s Strategic Plan and
identify Strategic Directions that will help the Municipality move in the right direction.
As part of this renewed strategic planning process, we are requesting Council take action on
one of Bayham’s mission statements: to provide recreation and waterfront amenities through
enhancements to Port Burwell’s waterfront. The mandate for this project is to excite,
energize, unite and renew the community, solidifying this area as a leading tourist
destination. Port Burwell is currently lagging behind other beach communities in Ontario like
Port Stanley, Grand Bend, Goderich, Sauble and Wasaga beaches and is in need of both
enhancements to better serve the changing demographics of visitors and residents and a
restoration of the natural environment that has been lost from past development.
Municipal staff has made a concerted effort to meet this goal through the completion of the
2013 Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan. Through a comprehensive public engagement
process, this study revealed that the community highly values the recreational,
15 Jane St.
Dorchester, Ontario
N0L 1G2
2
environmental and commercial opportunities that the waterfront creates, and recognizes that
the Lake Erie shoreline, with its beaches, water-based activities, harbour, marinas and
natural areas, are an important strength of the community. The waterfront master plan
reflects the public’s vision and incorporates the community’s goals outlined in the previous
public engagement process with the Bayham Culture Plan.
The next step to create a vibrant and attractive waterfront includes the finalization of a
conceptual waterfront enhancement design for staff, council and public review. We have a
very enthusiastic, professional and dedicated group of local residents that are only too willing
to help finalize a vision for the waterfront area, help draw on resources and implement the
plan. As such, we are formally requesting that Staff and Council appoint a beachfront
enhancement committee or focus group to help Council and Staff finalize our waterfront
design, determine the financial implications and develop a phased implementation strategy
and specific actions we can take to get us to where we want to go. It would be the intent of
Council to adopt the Port Burwell Waterfront Enhancement Plan in support of the Strategic
Plan and aggressively pursue Staff to focus on finalizing the master plan and seek funding
from other agencies once a final plan has been accepted by Council.
Attached to this letter is a list of design parameters that we believe should be addressed
during the design process with Council and through public consultations and workshops. Our
guiding principles in the design process included the following criteria: environmental
preservation and conservation; safety and security; continuity and connectivity; seasonal
interest; and diversity of uses. A series of conceptual drawings of the proposed Port Burwell
Waterfront Enhancement Plan is included for review. These drawings are for discussion
purposes only and serve to assist Council and the public to visualize what our waterfront
could be.
Our hope is that this project will drive tourism to Port Burwell. We envision a beach
enhancement with a focus on the beachfront with playground structures, a splash pad and
picnic areas, improved parking and lighting, a pedestrian boardwalk, better traffic flow and
immense beautification of the area with the addition of gardens, dune restoration and other
native habitat.
All it takes is a little vision, with a lot of work.
Sincerely yours
Barry Wade
Barry Wade
President of 776497 Ontario Limited
o/a Barry Wade Design Construction Management
tel: 1-519-268-2995 / fax: 1-519-268-2694 / e-mail barry@barrywade.ca / www.barrywade.ca
3
DESIGN PARAMETERS
The following paragraphs discuss each of the parameters considered in the design process.
The design parameters were developed based on a combination of recommendations from
the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan and other successful beachfront enhancement
projects in southern Ontario.
The photos shown below to illustrate some design concepts are primarily taken from the
Grand Bend (Lambton Shores) Beach Enhancement Project. This phased project is a
successful model in which to emulate. In 2010, the Grand Bend Beach Enhancement project
was awarded the Parks and Recreation Ontario (PRO) Award of Excellence in Design. The
beach project also came with a message: Grand Bend’s waters are family-friendly and
environmentally safe. The beach is among a select group in Ontario that have earned the
Blue Flag designation for meeting strict water quality guidelines and other criteria, including
provisions for waste and recycling and environmental education. Grand Bend isn’t just
satisfied with a Blue Flag beach, however, the Grand Bend Marina, with 35 transient and 30
seasonal boat slips and a public boat launch, was the first in North America, and one of only
three in Canada, to be recognized as a Blue Flag marina.
Our guiding principles in creating the conceptual design for the Port Burwell Waterfront
Enhancement Plan are based on the following criteria:
environmental preservation and conservation;
safety and security;
continuity and connectivity;
seasonal interest; and
diversity of uses.
Naturally, this is only the beginning of a final waterfront enhancement plan based on public
and staff input.
1. Beach Enhancement and Blue Flag Designation
Our waterfront and beach areas are one of Bayham’s most valuable assets. Community
focus groups must be developed to assist Staff under the direction of Council in finalizing
and implementing Port Burwell’s Waterfront Enhancement Plan. The community has
identified the need to create a space that is family oriented and enhances the natural beauty
of the beach and the lake area. Proposed improvements include:
1) Improved parking and energy efficient lighting;
2) Accessible pedestrian boardwalk and look out areas;
3) Better traffic flow;
4) Better Emergency access to the beach by land or air;
5) Immense beautification with addition of gardens and other native habitats;
6) Fully accessible children’s play area;
7) Environmental education signage; and
8) Development towards a Blue Flag designation.
We as citizens of Bayham are fortunate to have such natural asset for enjoyment and we
believe that safety of the hundreds of people who visit the beach must be maintained as a
top priority. The improvement of emergency access to the beach, improved signage and
equipment and public education should be implemented.
What this means for the community is that the beach will be more welcoming, will be safer,
have more amenities for families and be a key focal point for growth.
4
2. Redesign of Teardrop Turnabout
The existing teardrop turnabout at the end of Robinson Street has been an issue for access
for emergency vehicles and winter maintenance vehicles, not to mention potential future
traffic flow. The Ministry of Transportation has changed their design standards since this
roundabout was constructed. It is recommended Council ask the MTO to review the design
of the turnabout to meet current standards for safety and servicing requirements.
Below are two aerial photos depicting the before and after of the Grand Bend Beach
roundabout. Note the original teardrop-shaped roundabout in Grand Bend is identical to Port
Burwell’s existing turnabout. In 2009, the Grand Bend roundabout at the beach was
reconstructed to improve traffic flow. The redesign is similar to the one proposed herein.
Grand Bend Beach Enhancement: Teardrop Turnabout
Grand Bend Beach Enhancement: Redesigned Roundabout
5
Port Burwell Beach existing emergency vehicle access/congestion
6
3. New Boardwalk
The Port Burwell beach encompasses four existing facilities: (1) the east bridge, which
crosses the existing drainage ditch; (2) public washrooms and change room facilities; (3)
parking facilities on the east and west side of Robinson Street; and (4) the Pier.
The planned new boardwalk is designed to connect these facilities to enhance the
pedestrian traffic flow along the beach front. The new boardwalk would also be accessible to
persons with disabilities and emergency responders.The boardwalk could also be the
starting point for future walking paths developed throughout the town to interconnect other
points of destination.
Grand Bend Beach Enhancement: New Boardwalk and Benches
7
4. Parking Lots and Storm Water Management
Stormwater management can be achieved through limited paving, the use of porous
materials in the parking lots, using stormwater for plantings, and limiting the use of
chlorinated water for plantings.The parking lots can be designed to utilized the natural
drainage properties of the sand they are built on, so rather than paving the lots, the lots
would be left with a sand base and light gravel overcoat to facilitate traffic movement. Paving
may be used, but only sparingly and where necessary. Strategically designed planting areas
and trees, including the reintroduction of natural species, will serve as a wind and sand
barrier between the water and the parking areas.
The Robinson Storm Drains can also be redeveloped to redirect the outlet pipe away from
the public beach and redirect the flows to Big Otter Creek. Through properly designed
interceptors the quality of runoff can be enhanced. This initiative may qualify for the Great
Lakes Guardian Community Fund, which offers grants to grass root community groups for
activities such as cleaning up a beach or shoreline, restoring a wetland, or creating a river
side trail.
Construction of a Parking Lot with Natural Drainage
8
5. Lighting
Energy efficient LED lighting fixtures need to be used extensively and where necessary.
Fixtures need to be incorporated along the boardwalk, parking lots and pier to enhance a
safe after hours beach front community.
9
6. Children’s Accessible Splash Pad and Play Area
An accessible splash pad can be developed for the use by children with and without
disabilities. Water used for the splash pad is collected in a large tank and redistributed to
the various planting areas throughout the beach facility. These water conservation measures
represent yet another green incentive program where grants and funding opportunities are
available.
10
7. Shade Structures
One of the important components of the enhancements includes the introduction of shade
structures. With the growing concern about the negative impact of the sun, steps need to be
taken to integrate numerous new shade structures on the beach. These shade structures
could include umbrella installations near the splash pad and Amphitheatre. Introduction of
new tree planting along with preserving existing trees thoughtout the walking paths could
also be a means of protection.
11
8. Sand Dunes and Dune Grass
Great effort needs to be made to reintroduce the natural landscape of the beach by creating
new dune grass planting areas (again, they serve as natural wind and sand breaks) and a
large area of dune restoration. This is intended to not only restore what once existed, but to
also serve as an educational tool for the public, and to serve as a catalyst for further dune
rein-introduction on other areas of the beach. The capture of drifting sand will elevate the
beaches and eliminate present ponding we experiencing at the moment. The need to
bulldoze sand up onto the beach from the shoreline will be eliminated enhancing the visual
appeal and quality of the beach, not to mention cost savings by the municipality. Off season
snow fencing of the beach will eliminate minimum loss of sand during our winter gales.
Grand Bend Beach Enhancement: Sand Dunes and Dune Grasses
9. Irrigation Systems
Irrigation systems could be designed to maximize the utilization of natural storm water flows
by using underground cisterns as a water source, and minimize the use of the municipal
chlorinated water system. It is better for the plants and has less impact of the lake.
12
10. Planting Areas and Trees
Planting of natural plant species throughout the beach areas provides aesthetic appeal, a
source of natural plant oxygen / carbon dioxide exchange and a habitat for birds and insects
and last to serve as a natural windbreak and sand fence. These natural barriers will reduce
the transmission of sand from the beach and reduce road maintenance costs.
11. Volleyball Courts
The existing volleyball courts have been maintained. Other such beach sporting activities
could be incorporated into the plans as well.
13
12. Amphitheatre
The length of the existing pier is excessive not to mention the height difference between the
pier and the public beach. The present (ditch) for a better word is presently draining
Robinson Street. The oil infested ditch is an eye sore and environmental hazard. This
elevation change gives an opportunity to develop an amphitheatre that would give the
opportunity to allow performers, bands and outdoor theatre performances to entertain
visitors that visit our community. The proposed location of the amphitheatre has a few
benefits: (1) it keeps the concert goers away from the children play area; (2)minimizes sound
generated by the performers, (3) it visually breaks up the length of the pier; and (4) it gives
the pier a purpose of destination.
14
13. Merchant Beach Shopping
Space has been allocated for venders to setup seasonal shopping booths by the east
parking lot. These booths would also be available for other festivals and their venders. This
is another avenue for all visitors to Port Burwell who have interests other than water or
beach activities.
14. Public Docks
The existing pier has been under utilized as a public dock. Boaters need destinations for
entertainment, fueling, and a place of refuge. The present harbour is not recognized as a
navigable harbour. Council needs to reinstate this harbour to be recognized by the Canadian
Coast Guard.
15
15. Dredging
In order for Port Burwell to benefit from commercial and recreational fishing, the harbour
needs to be maintained. All sources of funding must be made available to keep this harbour
open for business.
16. Connection to Future Developments
The recent sale of the coal yard flats should not be ignored. Future interconnections of public
and private lands need to be considered for better vehicle and pedestrian access.
16
17. Conclusion
Once again we have the opportunity to focus on capturing what the future of the Port Burwell
Beach area could be, without being short sighted. With the upcoming storm drainage
studies from Meritech and discussions with the MTO, we are requesting Council meet with
the MTO and Meritech to discuss the redesign of the teardrop turnabout. This would be the
first step towards implementing the Port Burwell Waterfront Enhancement Plan.
We are asking Council to formally adopt this proposal and move towards finalizing a
waterfront design based on the Port Burwell Master Plan. We are ask ing Council to identify
funding opportunities and develop a phased implementation strategy detailing specific
actions priorities.
BFBFBFBF EXISTING BEACHCHILDRENS WATERPARK ANDPLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT EXISTING CREEK
EXISTING PIER
O
T
T
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
LEGAL BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURTSOTTER CREEK AMPH
I
T
H
E
A
T
R
E
GREEN SPACE
G
R
E
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
E
R
EXISTING WATER EDGEBEACH MERCHANT BOOTHS EXISTINGWASHROOMS EXISTING BRIDGEBOARDWALKBOARDWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALK BOARDWALKBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESS
BE
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESSCONCRETE SIDEWALK
L
A
K
E
E
R
I
E
ACCESS TO FUTURECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS HATCHED AREAS ARENATURALIZATION BUFFERSPUBLIC DOCKS UMBRELLASS
T
A
G
E
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTEBEACH MAINTENANCEEQUIPMENT ACCESSVECHICLEACCESS FORFIREWORKSPARKING FOR 74 CARS DOUBLE LANE ROUND-ABOUTFOR EMERGENCY VECHILEACCESSROBINSONSTEEET PARKING FOR 47 CARSGREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE
A1
P
O
R
T
B
U
R
W
E
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
BFBFBFBF EXISTING BEACHCHILDRENS WATERPARK ANDPLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT EXISTING CREEK
EXISTING PIER
O
T
T
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
LEGAL BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURTSOTTER CREEK AMPH
I
T
H
E
A
T
R
E
GREEN SPACE
G
R
E
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
E
R
EXISTING WATER EDGEBEACH MERCHANT BOOTHS EXISTINGWASHROOMS EXISTING BRIDGEBOARDWALKBOARDWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALK BOARDWALKBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESS
BE
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESSCONCRETE SIDEWALK
L
A
K
E
E
R
I
E
ACCESS TO FUTURECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS HATCHED AREAS ARENATURALIZATION BUFFERSPUBLIC DOCKS UMBRELLASS
T
A
G
E
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTEBEACH MAINTENANCEEQUIPMENT ACCESSVECHICLEACCESS FORFIREWORKSPARKING FOR 74 CARS DOUBLE LANE ROUND-ABOUTFOR EMERGENCY VECHILEACCESSROBINSONSTEEET PARKING FOR 47 CARSGREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE
A2
P
O
R
T
B
U
R
W
E
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
B
F
B
F
BFBF
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
E
A
C
H
C
H
I
L
D
R
E
N
S
W
A
T
E
R
P
A
R
K
A
N
D
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
L
E
G
A
L
B
E
A
C
H
V
O
L
L
E
Y
B
A
L
L
C
O
U
R
T
S
OTTER CREEK
B
E
A
C
H
M
E
R
C
H
A
N
T
B
O
O
T
H
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
S
H
R
O
O
M
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
D
G
E
B
O
A
R
D
W
A
L
K
BOARDWALK
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
B
O
A
R
D
W
A
L
K
B
E
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
B
E
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
ACCESS TO FUTURECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
H
A
T
C
H
E
D
A
R
E
A
S
A
R
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
B
U
F
F
E
R
S
PUBLIC DOCKS
U
M
B
R
E
L
L
A
S
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
U
T
E
B
E
A
C
H
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
VECHICLEACCESS FORFIREWORKS PARKING FOR 74 CARS DOUBLE LANE ROUND-ABOUTFOR EMERGENCY VECHILEACCESS ROBINSONSTEEET
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
F
O
R
4
7
C
A
R
S
GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE
G
R
E
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
A3
P
O
R
T
B
U
R
W
E
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
B
F
B
F
BFBF
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
E
A
C
H
C
H
I
L
D
R
E
N
S
W
A
T
E
R
P
A
R
K
A
N
D
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
L
E
G
A
L
B
E
A
C
H
V
O
L
L
E
Y
B
A
L
L
C
O
U
R
T
S
OTTER CREEK
B
E
A
C
H
M
E
R
C
H
A
N
T
B
O
O
T
H
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
S
H
R
O
O
M
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
D
G
E
B
O
A
R
D
W
A
L
K
BOARDWALK
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
B
O
A
R
D
W
A
L
K
B
E
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
B
E
A
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
BEACH ACCESS
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
ACCESS TO FUTURECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
H
A
T
C
H
E
D
A
R
E
A
S
A
R
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
B
U
F
F
E
R
S
PUBLIC DOCKS
U
M
B
R
E
L
L
A
S
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
U
T
E
B
E
A
C
H
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
VECHICLEACCESS FORFIREWORKS PARKING FOR 74 CARS DOUBLE LANE ROUND-ABOUTFOR EMERGENCY VECHILEACCESS ROBINSONSTEEET
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
F
O
R
4
7
C
A
R
S
GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE
G
R
E
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
A4
P
O
R
T
B
U
R
W
E
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2015-124
A PROVISIONAL BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM IN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
KNOWN AS THE BAYNOR ROAD DRAIN
WHEREAS the Engineer Spriet Associates on behalf of the Municipality of Bayham in
accordance with Section #78(1) of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, requests that the following
lands and roads be drained by drainage works:
Part Lots 26 - 27, Concession 9, Municipality of Bayham
AND WHEREAS, the Council of the Municipality of Bayham has procured Engineer Report No.
213376, prepared by Spriet Associates, dated November 19, 2015, which is attached hereto as
Schedule “A”, and forms part of this By-Law.
AND WHEREAS the estimated total cost of constructing the drainage work is $95,700.00;
AND WHEREAS the Council is of the opinion that the drainage of the area is desirable;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1. Engineer Report No. 213376, dated November 19, 2015 and attached hereto, is hereby
adopted and the drainage works as therein indicated and set forth are hereby authorized and
shall be completed in accordance therewith.
2.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham may borrow, on the credit of the
Corporation, the amount of $95,700.00, being the amount necessary for construction of the
drainage works.
2.2 The Corporation may arrange for the issue of debentures on its behalf for the amount
borrowed less the total amount of,
(a) grants received under Section #85 of the Act;
(b) commuted payments made in respect of lands and roads assessed within the
municipality;
(c) monies paid under Subsection #61(3) of the Act; and
monies assessed in and payable by another municipality, and
such debentures shall be made payable within five (5) years from the date of the debenture and
shall bear interest at a rate not higher than the rate charged by a chartered bank of Canada.
A special equal rate sufficient to redeem the principal and interest on the debentures shall be
levied upon the lands and roads as set forth in the attached Schedule "A" to be collected in the
By-law No. 2015-124 - 2 -
same manner and at the same time as other taxes are collected in each year for five (5) years
after the passing of this by-law.
4. For paying the amount of $37,318.00 being the amount assessed upon the lands and
roads belonging to or controlled by the municipality, a special rate sufficient to pay the amount
assessed plus interest thereon shall be levied upon the whole rateable property in the
Municipality of Bayham in each year for five (5) years after the passing of this Provisional By-
law to be collected in the same manner and at the same time as other taxes are collected.
5. All assessments of $250.00 or less are payable in the first year in which the assessment
is imposed.
6. This By-law comes into force on the passing thereof and may be cited as the “Baynor
Road Municipal Drain”.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME this 7th day of January, 2016 and provisionally
adopted this 7th day of January, 2016.
________________________________
MAYOR CLERK
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this day of .
______________________________
MAYOR CLERK
COURT OF REVISION – MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
Take notice that the Court of Revision of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham for
considering and determining of Appeals to the said Court of Revision to the Assessment of
By-law #2015-124 will be held in Council Chambers at THE BAYHAM MUNICIPAL OFFICE in
Straffordville on February 4, 2016 at 8:00 p.m. All notices of assessment appeal by an owner
shall be served on the Clerk of the Municipality AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR to the first sitting of
the Court.
Date of mailing
CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2016-001
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 2016 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 2016, 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 2015.
2. The said interim tax levying amounts shall be due and payable in two instalments
at the Municipality of Bayham Office at 9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, on or
before the following dates:
FIRST INSTALMENT February 26, 2015
SECOND INSTALMENT May 27, 2015
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 2016 shall be made on the first day of each calendar
month thereafter in which default continues, until December 31 st 2016, 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, 2016, 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 2015-002 -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 2016.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME this 7th day of January 2016.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of January 2016.
___________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2016-002
BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE BORROWING
FROM TIME TO TIME TO MEET CURRENT
EXPENDITURES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2016.
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 2016 (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 2015-003 -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 2015 estimated amount of revenues applicable to the
limitation on total borrowing is $7.1m.
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 upon date of
passing.
Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of January 2016.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2016 – 005
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 7, 2016
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 regular meeting held January 7, 2016 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 7th day of
January 7, 2016.
____________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK