HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 18, 2022 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – SCC Main Hall Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Public Planning Meeting – 3 Applications
This Meeting will be held in person and
will not be live-streamed or recorded to YouTube. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Carolyn Krahn, County of Elgin Manager of Economic Development and Strategic Initiatives re Welcome Home Video and Economic Development Presentation 6. DELEGATIONS A. Laverne Kirkness, Rebecca Walker & Barry Wade re Beach House Lane Development 7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Regular Council Meeting held July 21, 2022 B. Statutory Planning Meeting held July 21, 2022 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM 10. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
11. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
11.1.2 Requiring Action
2022 Council Agenda August 18, 2022
2
11.2 Reports to Council
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting for Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-20/22 Zimak
B. Notice of Public Meeting for Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-21/22 Jiggins C. Notice of Public Meeting for Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-22/22 Municipality of Bayham – Housekeeping By-law
D. Notice of Public Meeting – Development Charges 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-45/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re Petition for Drainage
B. Report DS-46/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Rezoning Application ZBA-18/22 – Blatz
C. Report DS-47/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Official Plan Amendment OPA-02/22 and Zoning Amendment ZBA-04/22 – Vienna Farms D. Report DS-48/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Official Plan Amendment OPA-03/22 and Zoning Amendment ZBA-03/22 – Bonnefield
E. Report DS-49/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/22 and Zoning Amendment ZBA-02/22 – Barry Wade Homes 13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation re Voterlookup.ca B. Voyent Alert! re Register Today
C. Elgin County re August 9, 2022 Elgin County Council Highlights
D. Southwestern Public Health re 2021 Annual Report
E. Town of Mattawa re Draven Alert
F. Town of South Bruce Peninsula re Mandatory Firefighter Certification
2022 Council Agenda August 18, 2022
3
G. Town of Aylmer re Warming and Cooling Centre Policy
H. Township of Puslinch re Summary and Implications of Provincial Bill 109 13.1.2 Requiring Action
13.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-38/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Appointments to the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee B. Report CAO-39/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Public Comments Received – Comment Period for use of the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund 14. BY-LAWS
A. By-law No. 2022-056 Being a by-law to appoint members to the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election B. By-law No. 2022-057 Being a by-law to repeal By-law No. 2019-020 and By-law No. 2019-029
C. By-law No. 2022-058 Being a by-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 28 D. By-law No. 2022-059 Being a by-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 29
E. By-law No. 2022-060 Being a by-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 30 F. By-Law No Z748-2022 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended – Blatz 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 In Camera 16.2 Out of Camera 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-061 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council 18. ADJOURNMENT
ELGIN COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND TOURISM
Carolyn Krahn
Manager of Economic Development
and Strategic Initiatives
August 18, 2022
Economic Development and
Tourism Team
Carolyn Krahn
Manager of Economic Development
and Strategic Initiatives
Delany Leitch
Business Enterprise Facilitator
Lindsey Duncan
Tourism Officer
Re/Build
Create a new vision and experience for economic
development and investment in Elgin.
Re/Imagine
Reimagine how we spend our time and resources
to better support local entrepreneurs and to foster
an environment of prosperity and opportunity for
the County of Elgin, its residents and businesses.
Re/Engage
Engage local businesses, support services, and
municipalities by listening and learning about their
needs and working with them to become the place
where people want to live, work and play.
2022
Launch
2022
Data Review
2023
Strategy Refresh
2024
Strategy Review
2025
Next Strategy
Continuous Review and Evaluation
Re/Engage
Re/Imagine
Re/Build
Economic Development and
Tourism Strategy
2022-2025
Cultivate and maintain a network of direct contacts through
regular community visits and partner referrals. Provide
collaborative assistance in overcoming challenges and work
with other economic development agencies, local municipal
partners, and organizations to provide creative solutions.
Assist businesses in finding and applying for support resources.
This will include the Elgincentives program.
Leverage the County’s networks and online presence to
showcase Elgin’s business community and local opportunities;
and support operators with marketing and promotion.
With this new position, we will
Business Enterprise Facilitation
Elgin County Tourism works on a number of promotional and product
development campaigns including: The Official Visitor’s Guide,
Tourism Signage Program, Savour Elgin, Elgin Lakeshore, Cycle Elgin,
Fall for Elgin, Shop Elgin, Maple Syrup Trail, and others.
Throughout the year, staff attend community events and tradeshows
to promote Elgin County as a great place to live, work and play.
During the summer months, Tourism Assistants staff our two visitor
centres in Port Stanley and Port Burwell.
The department endeavours to increase communications with
businesses in all municipalities through in-person visits, e-blasts and
phone conversations. Shoulder season promotion is also a top priority
with increased awareness of Fall and Winter activities happening
throughout Elgin County, building on and creating new campaigns
such as Fall For Elgin, and Winter In Elgin.
Tourism
Welcome Home Video Campaign
Questions?
ELGIN COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND TOURISM
STRATEGY
2022-
2025
County of Elgin
www.progressivebynature.com
At the County of Elgin, we are working to re-evaluate how we spend our time and
resources so that we can better support our local entrepreneurs and foster an
environment of opportunity for the County, its residents and businesses. We will do
this by re-engaging our local business community to learn about their needs, let
them know about the services we offer, and connect them to other relevant
resources. We will champion the creation of a network of entrepreneurs that can
work together to grow their businesses and attract new investment to Elgin County.
Based on what we learn, we will re-imagine our services, and working in collaboration
with our Local Municipal Partners, we will re-build how we do economic
development in Elgin County.
The 2022-2025 Economic Development and Tourism Strategy will direct the efforts
of the department over the next four years. As we engage with our community, we
are committed to reviewing what we hear and improving our strategy to ensure that
we provide the best support that we can to our Local Municipal Partners and
business community.
Introduction
Strategic Planning Approach
Re/Build
Create a new vision and experience for economic
development and investment in Elgin.
Re/Imagine
Reimagine how we spend our time and resources
to better support local entrepreneurs and to foster
an environment of prosperity and opportunity for
the County of Elgin, its residents and businesses.
Re/Engage
Engage local businesses, support services, and
municipalities by listening and learning about their
needs and working with them to become the place
where people want to live, work and play.
Re/Engage, Re/Imagine, and Re/Build
Economic Development Strategy
2022-2025
2022
Launch
2022
Data Review
2023
Strategy Refresh
2024
Strategy Review
2025
Next Strategy
Continuous Review and Evaluation
Recruit and onboard a full-time Business Enterprise Facilitator to listen to the
needs of the entrepreneur and connect them with appropriate resources.
Implement a Business Retention and Expansion program to support local
businesses so they can grow, create jobs and stay in our community.
Meet with local entrepreneurs to collect business and market data to support
economic development planning.
After extensive consultation with the local business community, write and
implement an action plan to foster business development, investment and job
creation.
Priority 1.1: Meet with local entrepreneurs, listen to their needs, and develop a
good understanding of the local community’s market, assets, and needs.
Actions:
Re/Engage
Goal 1: Engage local businesses, support services, and municipalities by
listening and learning about their needs and working with them to become the
place where people want to live, work and play.
Create a business investment guide for each local municipality to promote our
community and to help attract investment to Elgin County.
Update and enhance business directory.
Leverage business directory to restart and promote an economic
development newsletter.
Start a “What’s New in Elgin County”/ “Welcome to Elgin County” feature in the
economic development newsletter to highlight new businesses in Elgin as
part of a "welcome to doing business in Elgin County" package.
Review website content and research economic development website best
practices to prepare for a website redevelopment.
Identify and attend relevant tradeshows and events to promote Elgin County.
Create and implement marketing campaigns to promote existing programs and
new opportunities.
Priority 1.2: Develop a communications strategy to regularly update economic
development stakeholders, and local municipalities on relevant news,
opportunities, events and initiatives.
Actions:
Re/Engage
Goal 1: Engage local businesses, support services, and municipalities by
listening and learning about their needs and working with them to become the
place where people want to live, work and play.
Continue partnership with the Small Business Enterprise Centre and the Elgin
Business Resource Centre and connect entrepreneurs to their resources.
Leverage partnerships with WOWC, Elgin Workforce Development Network, and
London and Area Works in an effort to retain, attract and build the workforce
needed to support economic prosperity across Elgin County.
Continue support of Local Municipal Partners and their Economic Development
Committees.
Strengthen partnership with the City of St. Thomas.
Partner with local real estate agencies and feature available commercial and
industrial real estate in online inventory. Work with local agencies to promote
Elgin County for investment and to streamline the site location process.
Work with local BIAs to promote the revitalization of downtown areas.
Priority 1.3: Leverage current partnerships and build new partnerships to
promote sustainable economic growth in Elgin County.
Actions:
Partner considerations:
City of St. Thomas, Small Business Enterprise Centre, Elgin Business Resource
Centre, St. Thomas Chamber of Commerce, Aylmer Chamber of Commerce, Western
Ontario Warden's Caucus, Elgin Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers
Federation of Ontario, Elgin Workforce Development Network, Local Municipal
Partners, local Business Improvement Associations, local Economic Development
Committees, South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation, St.
Thomas-Elgin Home Builders Association, Provincial and Federal Ministry partners,
Community Safety and Well-Being Integration Table, Ontario Southwest Tourism, St.
Thomas-Elgin Local Immigration Partnership and more
Develop regular networking opportunities to connect local entrepreneurs,
investors, and business supports.
Reimagine the Elgincentives program to support the revitalization of local
communities.
Reimagine the Conference Series and host workshops for the local business
community on relevant topics and using case studies from the community.
Priority 2.1: Champion an innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem
Actions:
Re/Imagine
Goal 2: Reimagine how we spend our time and resources to better support
local entrepreneurs and to foster an environment of prosperity and
opportunity for the County of Elgin, its residents and businesses.
Maintain vacant land inventory.
Overlay existing servicing gaps and future servicing needs onto land inventory
map.
Feature inventory on the economic development website.
Review status of available industrial lands and market accordingly.
Dialogue with industrial land owners in strategic employment areas.
Promote Site Readiness Program to industrial property owners. The Site
Readiness Program provides financial support to property owners to complete
site preparatory work for eligible industrial properties.
Priority 2.2: Develop a vacant land strategy to encourage the use of vacant sites
and to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and attract residents.
Actions:
Meet regularly with representatives from each municipality to discuss local
priorities and local trends and opportunities.
Start an ongoing discussion and partnership around revitalizing downtown areas.
Stay informed about what is happening in each community and promote local
events.
Priority 3.1: Develop a community approach to economic development that
energizes and empowers our local municipal partners to embrace and promote
the Elgin experience.
Actions:
Re/Build
Goal 3: Create a new vision and experience for economic development and
investment in Elgin.
Advocate on behalf of our local business community on emerging/current issues
affecting the economic vitality of Elgin, including:
Servicing,
Transportation,
Housing,
Broadband,
Childcare, and
Other issues as they arise.
Priority 3.2: Ensure that we have the infrastructure required to attract new
business and support workforce demands
Actions:
Promote and support unique investment opportunities, including:
Filming in Elgin
Agricultural and related local food initiatives
Extend the Elgin experience, including:
Facilitate the growth of the tourism sector’s shoulder season programming
Review accommodation assets and develop a strategy to increase options of
places for visitors to stay by reconsidering the Alternative Accommodation
Handbook.
In partnership with Community and Cultural Services, support creative
industries and cultural programming to generate economic growth and
enhance the tourism experience.
Priority 3.3: Promote investment opportunities as they relate to the Elgin
experience
Actions:
Re/Build
Create memorable and new Elgin experiences and
develop the County as a four-season destination.
Re/Imagine
Reimagine and market a destination experience
for Elgin County, including what it means to call
Elgin County home for business, investment and
recreation.
Re/Engage
Engage local businesses, support services, and
municipalities by listening and learning about their
needs and working with them to become the place
where people want to live, work and play.
Re/Engage, Re/Imagine, and Re/Build
Tourism Strategy
2022-2025
2022
Launch
2022
Data Review
2023
Strategy Refresh
2024
Strategy Review
2025
Next Strategy
Continuous Review and Evaluation
Attract new tourism operators by posting tourism related investment
opportunities on the economic development website and promote on social
media.
Continue email newsletter to tourism stakeholders (operators). Explore
opportunities to combine the stakeholder newsletter with the Economic
Development newsletter.
Update and grow visitor database. Use visitor database to restart and promote a
tourism newsletter.
Start a “What’s New in Elgin County”/ “Welcome to Elgin County” feature in both
the stakeholder and visitor newsletter to highlight new tourism businesses in
Elgin.
Work with realtors to develop and distribute “Welcome to Elgin” packages to new
homeowners in Elgin and St. Thomas.
Restart the events calendar on the tourism website. Engage local tourism
operators to add their events to the calendar.
Review website content and research tourism website best practices to prepare
for a website redevelopment.
Identify and attend relevant tradeshows and events to promote Elgin County.
Create dynamic social media content.
Priority 1.1: Develop a communications strategy to regularly update tourism
stakeholders, municipalities, and visitors on relevant news, opportunities, events
and initiatives.
Actions:
Re/Engage
Goal 1: Engage private and public partners by listening and learning about
their needs and working with them to become the place where people
want to live, work and play.
Identify businesses for Southwest Ontario Tourism Corporation (SWOTC)
product and workforce development programs, support applications and
participation
Identify signature experiences and destinations for SWOTC promotion.
Promote SWOTC and provincial programming to local operators.
Collaborate with Community and Cultural Services in developing experiential
programming.
Strengthen existing partnerships, and explore new partnerships.
Priority 1.2: Leverage current partnerships and build new partnerships to
promote the growth of tourism in Elgin County.
Actions:
Partner considerations:
SWOTC, Ontario by Bike, Ontario Trails, Elgin Federation of Agriculture, Community
and Cultural Services, Local Municipal Partners
Work with Engineering Services to support recommendations from the Cycling
Master Plan and promote existing cycling trails (maps, website, murals etc.).
Identify, enhance, and promote signature Elgin County experiences.
Water activities
Festivals and events
Family destinations
Dog friendly activities
Farm visits
Cycling trips
Work with the City of St. Thomas and the Heritage Centre to redevelop Elgin’s
Heritage Guide.
Priority 2.2: Work with local tourism operators and municipalities to strengthen
existing tourism experiences and connect them to the Elgin experience.
Re/Imagine
Goal 2: Create and market a destination experience for Elgin County,
including what it means to call Elgin County home for business,
investment and recreation.
Research current market trends and issues that affect tourism in Elgin County.
Develop an updated inventory of tourism assets in Elgin County.
Identify Elgin’s unique products and signature experiences.
Develop a marketing plan that will define and promote the Elgin experience.
Priority 2.1: Define the Elgin destination experience.
Actions:
Maintain and enhance annual visitor’s guide.
Develop a seasonal community-based event guide.
Continue to use tourism kiosks as information centres and promotional hubs.
Use tourism cruiser as a mobile information centre.
Continue to manage, promote, and enhance the tourism signage program.
Continue to identify, invite and host bloggers to tour and promote Elgin County.
Prepare sample itineraries for bloggers that tell Elgin’s story.
Use different media to promote Elgin’s story.
Welcome Home video campaign, Elgin Eats social media campaign, Fall for
Elgin, Shop Elgin, Maple Syrup Trail, Winter Experiences
Leverage user generated content. Encourage visitors to attend events and sign
up for the tourism newsletter. Encourage visitors to take/post photographs of
them engaging in activities in Elgin, using promoted hashtags.
Priority 2.3: Work with local tourism operators and municipalities to promote
tourism experiences and events.
Host/coordinate workshops on shoulder season programming (SWOTC).
Work with stakeholders to develop and promote suggested itineraries for
shoulder season getaways (promote via videos, website, brochures).
Develop marketing campaigns for each season.
Maple Syrup Trail
Fall for Elgin
Winter in Elgin
Shop Elgin
Active Elgin
Priority 3.1: Develop a four-season activities and events plan to feature core
tourism assets, which will help to build the County’s destination experience and
encourage year-round attractions to engage visitors and residents.
Actions:
Re/Build
Goal 3: Working with local tourism operators and municipalities, create
memorable/new Elgin experiences and develop the County as a four-
season destination.
Review membership package and membership criteria. Recruit new members for
the program.
Redevelop Savour Elgin subpage to make it more interactive and visually
appealing.
Develop and promote a video series highlighting Savour Elgin members.
Refresh the Savour Elgin guide and update photography for guide.
Priority 3.2: Build culinary tourism experience and enhance Savour Elgin
guide/program.
Actions:
Partner with the local municipalities and tourism operators to improve access to
businesses and other key destinations.
Partner with local municipalities and tourism operators to create a consistent
look and feel to community assets.
Priority 3.3: Enhance wayfinding and visitor services to improve the tourism
experience
Actions:
Elgin County Economic Development and Tourism
450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
519-631-1460 ext. 168
www.progressivebynature.com
www.elgintourist.com
economicdevelopment@elgin.ca
@ElginCounty
Beach House Lane
Port Burwell
by
Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Presentation for Public Meeting at Council
July 21, 2022
At Council Chambers
Municipality of Bayham
LOCATION AND ACCESS
•The subject lands are located at #2 Robinson Street and #3 Erieus
Street.Port Burwell.
•Robinson Street is a major north-south village road providing access
from the north (Bayham)to the Village Centre and southerly to the
Beach and Harbour.
•Two vehicular accesses are proposed to Robinson
•One vehicular access proposed to Erius
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
•19 townhouse dwelling units –down from 21 units
•3 buildings –shown as Blocks;
o Block A –4 dwelling units -3 storeys
o Block A,Living area per unit 2243 sq.ft.(208 m2)
o Block B –7 dwelling units -2 storeys with 2 parking spaces
o Block C –8 dwelling units -2 storeys with 2 parking spaces
o Blocks B and C,living area per unit -1529 sq.ft.(142 m2);
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2
•Each unit would have a large front deck to view Lake Erie –and front
observation decks
•Each unit would have two parking spaces and 6 additional parking
spaces for visitors;
•On full municipal services;
•A communal AMENITY AREA of 196 m2 ;
•Private garbage pick-up using the in-ground bin system for Blocks B
and C,and public on-street garbage pick-up for Block A;
SOME CHANGES THROUGHOUT the PROCESS TO DATE ………
1.DENSITY-Reduced to 19 units from 21 units
2.THE PATIOS on units of Block B and C have been increased to 19 m2.
3.ACCESS –The main access to Block B and C from Robinson within the property.
4.REVISED SIGHT-LINES AND SHADOWING analysis have been provided herein to
show existing and proposed situations, concluding no adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
5.FIRE SAFETY ON BLOCK A –grading revised to have 3-storey building. Basement
parking areas does not count as a storey.
6.AMENITY AREAS –have been enlarged, made more accessible and proposed to
contain BBQ stations/facilities.
PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
•Provincial Policy Statement –SETTLEMENT AREA with full Municipal Services
•County of Elgin Official Plan –designated a TIER 1 –SETTLEMENT
AREA
•Municipality of Bayham Official Plan –designated RESIDENTIAL, with
overlay of HAZARD LANDS and abutting to the south is an overlay
designation of SPECIAL POLICY AREA #2.
Provincial Policy Statement 1
•SETTLEMENT AREA with full Municipal Services
Consistency with PPS is based on:
•create healthy, livable and safe communities
•promoting efficient development and land use patterns
•Settlement Areas shall be the focus of growth and development
•Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of
land uses which:
a)efficiently use land and resources;
b)b) properly use infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or
available,
•provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities…..
•preference is for full municipal services
•Promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-
readiness
Provincial Policy Statement 2 continued
Section 3.1 sets out policies on Natural Hazards stating that:
•Development shall generally be directed, in accordance with guidance developed
by the Province (as amended from time to time), to areas outside of:
a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes …… which are
impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards;
Section 3.1.7 states that …
•…………. development and site alteration may be permitted in those portions of
hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety
are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where
all of the following are demonstrated and achieved:
a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing
standards, protection works standards, and access standards;
b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during
times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies;
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d) no adverse environmental impacts will result.
Supporting Studies submitted …
1.Barry Wade Design –Architecture and Urban Design with sightline
and shadow analysis.
2.LDS Consultants --Geotechnical engineering and slope stability with
hazard land analysis.
3.CJDL Consulting Engineers --Functional Servicing Study.
4.Kirkness Consulting Inc.--Planning Justification for OPA and ZBA.
Provincial Policy Statement 3 continued
Barry Wade Homes Inc.residential proposal would contribute to the achievement of the above
policies in terms of objectives and requirements.This is achieved by way of:
•Development within a designated Settlement Area
•Full Municipal Services available and proposed –through Functional Servicing Report
•Compact multi family development making efficient use of land
•Provision for family and non-family housing
•Contributes to the community in terms of housing choice and diversity,distinguished
and complimentary architectural and site design
•Compatible in terms of form,height and massing with adjacent properties
•Geotechnical study by LDS and Atkinson Davies reports protects safety and security of
developing on slope
The proposed development would be consistent with the PPS.
COUNTY of ELGIN OFFICIAL PLAN -Designated a TIER 1 –SETTLEMENT AREA
Conformity is based on:
•accommodate growth in a compact efficient form on full municipal
services
•addresses the character and identity of existing residential areas
•contributes to a range of housing types
•promote the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure
•encourage increases in density in new development areas
•ensure that residential areas permit a variety of complementary and
compatible land uses
•meets high standard of urban design
•fosters safe, functional and attractive community
•encourages higher densities to maximize the use of infrastructure.
MUNICIPALITY of BAYHAM OFFICIAL PLAN –designated
RESIDENTIAL, with overlay of HAZARD LANDS
Application is being made to amend the local OP to change the
designation from RESIDENTIAL to MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
The Municipality shall encourage the redevelopment and residential
intensification of lands from the “Residential” designation, to the
“Multi-Unit Residential” where such lands are being underutilized and
where they can be developed in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding development in the “Residential” designation. …………
Supporting Studies with Impact Analysis submitted …
1.Barry Wade Design –Architecture and Urban Design with sightline
and shadow analysis.
2.LDS Consultants --Geotechnical engineering and slope stability with
hazard land analysis.
3.CJDL Consulting Engineers --Functional Servicing Study.
4.Kirkness Consulting Inc.--Planning Justification for OPA and ZBA.
Conformity with MFR policies is based on:
• Constitutes the permitted uses of TOWNHOUSES
• On full municipal services
• Innovative design proposed in the form of townhouse of a high quality
architectural design and complimentary to the context of the Port
• Will have trees planted within the site with complimentary landscaping
• Will have 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and visitor parking
•Proper Sanitary, Storm, Water Services and Utilities are feasible
•Slope stability and shoreline hazard risks have been studied and resolved
(LDS and Atkinson Davies Reports)
•Traffic impact is minimal on Robinson
•Impacts on schools are expected to be positive to supplement enrolments.
REZONING -amendment to the ZB
•FROM R1 (GENERALLY) TO R2 WITH SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
1.Minimum Lot area –340 m2 per unit to 186 m2 per unit;
2.Front Yard depth –reduced from 6.9 m to 1.86 m
3.North Side Yard –reduced from 3 m to 2.77 m;
All other regulations such as Lot Coverage at 37%versus 50%required,
parking at 44 spaces versus 35 spaces required,landscaped area -38 %
and building heights at 8.7 and 10 m all meet existing zoning
regulations.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
•Barry Wade has personally discussed the development proposed with
the abutting neighbours.
•The impacts were identified and discussed. Issues of traffic, parking
and fencing that may block Lake Erie views were identified.
•The heights of the proposed residential buildings and the elevations
of which they are to be set at, all take into account the views of the
neighbours with the result that views would continue.
•The three cross sections labelled as SITE PROFILES of the
development, in the Appendix, illustrate the protection of views.
CONCLUSION ON PLANNING RATIONALE
1.To be a suitable use for the long-term use of the subject lands;
2.To be consistent with the PPS, in conformity with the County of Elgin Official Plan and
the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan general Planning Principles.
3.To be in compliance with the structure and standard regulations of the Zoning By-law
but recognize the uniqueness of the site boundaries, shape and slope thereby seeking
three minor special provisions;
4.To be compatible with surrounding residential land uses.
5.To be capable of being serviced with full Municipal Services
6.To be able to resolve constraints imposed by the slope feature.
7.To contribute to the economic prosperity of the Community.
Thank you ! Comments! Questions?
GEOTECHNICAL
SLOPE STABILITY
ASSESSMENT
3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street
Port Burwell
Municipality of bayham
SITE REVIEW
The site slopes down towards the waterfront (approximately 9 m),
with an overall slope inclination in the range of 18 to 28 degrees.
.
2
Armourstone block
retaining wall
Concrete block
retaining wall
Port Burwell Public Beach parking lot
Brock St.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Block A - 4-unit townhouse block located at the top of the existing slope, accessed from Robinson Street
Blocks B and C, 8 and 9-unit blocks, located at the base of the slope and serviced by a private access road.
3
NATURAL HAZARD CONSIDERATIONS
DIRECTION
PPS Section 3.1.7, states that development and
site alteration may be permitted in those portions of
hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the
effects and risk to public safety are minor, could be
mitigated in accordance with provincial standards,
and where all of the following are demonstrated and
achieved:
development and site alteration is carried out in
accordance with floodproofing standards,
protection works standards, and access
standards;
vehicles and people have a way of safely
entering and exiting the area during times of
flooding, erosion and other emergencies;
new hazards are not created and existing
hazards are not aggravated; and
no adverse environmental impacts will result.4
LDS REVIEW & COMMENTS
In accordance with this section of the PPS:
• the proposed development plans are outside of the
flooding hazard (including consideration for wave uprush),
• the plans incorporate vehicle access mid-slope and
across the toe of the slope, providing good access to the
site;
• fill placement can occur with imported materials in a safe
manner to establish and maintain stable founding soils,
• building foundations can be constructed into the existing
slope to accommodate the change in grades, reducing the
potential for rotational slope failures and improving upon
the existing conditions which currently exist at the site;
• The proposed development does not pose a significant
risk of environmental impact.
The proposed site development is not seeking to utilize
exceptional or extreme engineering solutions to
accommodate the development.
SLOPE STABILITY
Cross Section A - West end of site, in the area of the existing armourstone block retaining wall.
5
Factor of safety
ranges from 1.51 to
1.82 for shallow (blue)
medium (orange) and
deep (red) rotational
failures.
These exceed the
minimum factor of
safety of 1.4
prescribed by the
Ministry of Natural
Resources guidance
documents.
Lots fronting Robinson Street
SLOPE STABILITY
Cross Section B – Central part of site (no existing retaining walls).
6
Factor of safety ranges
from 1.63 to 2.17 for
shallow (blue) medium
(orange) and deep
(red) rotational failures.
These exceed the
minimum factor of
safety of 1.4 prescribed
by the Ministry of
Natural Resources
guidance documents.
SLOPE STABILITY
Cross Section C – West end of site, in the area of the existing cement block retaining wall.
7
Factor of safety
ranges from 2.01 to
2.56 for shallow (blue)
medium (orange) and
deep (red) rotational
failures.
These exceed the
minimum factor of
safety of 1.4
prescribed by the
Ministry of Natural
Resources guidance
documents.
FLOODING & EROSION HAZARDS
FLOODING HAZARD
The Lake Erie 100-year flood elevation is
identified as 175.70 m asl.
Big Otter Creek 100-year flood elevation is at
176.02 m asl.
These elevations are approximately 2.5 m and
2.2 m below the top of the proposed retaining
wall on the southern limit of the Site.
Based on this information, the flooding levels of
Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek do not pose a
flooding hazard for the site.
8
WAVE UPRUSH & EROSION HAZARD
In the ”Policies for the Administration of the Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shoreline and
Watercourses Regulation”, the erosion hazard along the
Shoreline is defined as the average annual rate of recession
extended over a 100-year period.
In Section 6.1.8 in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan,
the erosion hazard limit extends the following distance (D):
D = 3h +100r (or 30 metres, whichever is greater)
Where: h = height of the slope, 9 m
r = rate of erosion (conservative est. of 0.3 m/year)
The above calculation yields a result of 57 m. The southern
property limit is some 110 to 165 m from Lake Erie.
The erosion hazard is not considered a concern for the
proposed development.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The rear foundation walls will be designed as structural
retaining walls to support the existing slope.
Walls between the units provide additional lateral
support to the retaining wall along the rear of the
residential units.
Foundation drainage systems will incorporate vertical
drains and inspection ports.
9
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Proposed foundation installation will require removal of the existing
retaining wall structures, and some cut-fill activities to accommodate the
new building foundations.
Site grading activities, as well as backfilling of foundation walls will be
carried out under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer to ensure that
the overall stability of the existing soils is maintained.
There are methods to place and compact fill to limit disturbance and
vibrations to nearby buildings and structures.
Recommendations have been provided in the geotechnical report to
maintain and re-route any drains which currently daylight on the face of the
existing slope, or onto the subject lands.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – SCC Main Hall Thursday, July 21, 2022 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Public Planning Meeting – 4 Applications PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER COUNCILLORS C. VALERIE DONNELL DAN FROESE
SUSAN CHILCOTT STAFF PRESENT: CAO|CLERK THOMAS THAYER DEPUTY CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT DEPUTY CLERK|PLANNING COORDINATOR MARGARET UNDERHILL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS|DRAINAGE
SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS FIRE CHIEF|BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HARRY BARANIK 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 12.2 E Report DS-44/22 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re
Development Agreements Heutinck and Froese Excavating 13.1.2 A Elgin Group Police Services Board re OPP Agreement Amendment
13.2 E Report CAO-36/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Port Burwell Lighthouse RFP
13.2 F Report CAO-37/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Termination of Agreement 682 – MEU By-Law Enforcement Services
14. D By-Law No. 2022-050 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a development agreement between the Municipality and Andrew and
Kim Heutinck for the construction of a portion of Green Line 14. E By-Law No. 2022-051 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a construction agreement between the Municipality and Froese Excavating Ltd. for the construction of a portion of Green Line
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
2
14. F By-Law No. 2022-054 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an amending agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General for the provision of Police Services for
the Elgin Group Municipalities 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Donnell announced that the Beachfest Fireworks are coming up taking place on Sunday, July 31, 2022 at the Pier. Councillor Chilcott announced that the Bayham Historical Society is hosting the Mystery Cruise this Saturday, July 23, 2022 at Vienna Memorial Park. There will be 50/50 tickets available to purchase. Deputy Mayor Weisler announced that her AMO nomination was successful and she will be representing Elgin County. Weisler provided cupcakes to the Council and attending residents as a thank you. Mayor Ketchabaw announced the GOVAXX bus will be in Port Burwell on August 8th and that appointments are not necessary.
CAO Thayer reminded those interested in running for Council that nominations close on August 19th at 2 p.m.
5. PRESENTATIONS 6. DELEGATIONS
A. Charles Smith re Proposed Dennis Road Conveyance
Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the delegation from Charles Smith re Proposed Dennis Road Conveyance be
received for information. CARRIED 7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Special Council Meeting held June 15, 2022 B. Regular Council Meeting held June 16, 2022
C. Statutory Planning Meeting held June 16, 2022
D. Drainage Court of Revision Meeting held June 16, 2022 E. Special Council Meeting held July 6, 2022
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
3
Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the following minutes be approved as presented:
Special Council Meeting held June 15, 2022
Regular Council Meeting held June 16, 2022
Statutory Planning Meeting held June 16, 2022
Drainage Court of Revision Meeting held June 16, 2022
Special Council Meeting held July 6, 2022
CARRIED 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM One (1) member of the public spoke to item 12.2 A. Two (2) members of the public spoke to item 13.2 C. One (1) member of the public spoke to item 13.2 E.
10. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
11. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report PS-14/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re Vienna Community Park Safety Signage Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT Report PS-14/22 re Vienna Community Park Safety Signage be received for
information;
AND THAT staff be directed to install five (5) WC-3 Playground Ahead signs at the
locations provided within Report PS-14/22.
CARRIED
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
4
The Council Meeting recessed to host a Statutory Planning Public Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
The Council Meeting resumed at 10:47 p.m. Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT in accordance with Section 10.29 of By-law No. 2022-003, being a by-law to govern
the proceedings of the Council for the Municipality of Bayham, the proceedings of the Council Meeting held July 21, 2022 be permitted to proceed past 11:00 p.m. CARRIED
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Decision re Minor Variance A-06/22 Clarke B. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment – Wade
C. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment – Vienna Farms
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law
Amendment – Bonnefield
E. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment – Blatz
F. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Minor Variance – Klassen
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT correspondence items A – F be received for information. CARRIED 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-38/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Site Plan Agreement – Borm Capital Inc. Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT Report DS-38/22 regarding the Borm Capital Inc. Site Plan Agreement be received;
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
5
AND THAT By-law No. 2022-043 being a By-law to authorize the execution of a Site Plan
Agreement between Borm Capital Inc. and the Municipality of Bayham for development at the property known as 7288 Richmond Road be presented for enactment.
CARRIED B. Report DS-40/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re 2nd Quarter Report
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Staff Report DS-40/22 re 2nd Quarter Report be received for information.
CARRIED C. Report DS-42/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Consent Application E61-22 Martins, 32 Robinson Street and 19 Erieus Street, Port Burwell Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT Report DS-42/22 regarding Consent Application E61-22 for Martins be received for information; AND THAT Council recommend to the Elgin County Land Division Committee that Consent Application E61-22 be granted subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. That the applicants provide written legal confirmation that the lots are allowed to legally be separated. 2. Digital copy of the final survey provided to the municipality 3. Planning Report fee payable to the Municipality CARRIED
D. Report DS-43/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Rezoning Application ZBA-17/22 – AGinvest Farmland One Inc. Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Report DS-43/22 regarding the AGinvest Farmland One Inc. rezoning application
ZBA-17/22 be received for information;
AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities
Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held June 16, 2022
associated with this application, there were no written submissions and one oral presentation
received regarding this matter;
AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this
resolution;
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
6
AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing
the zoning on a property owned by AGinvest Farmland One Inc. located at 57905 Heritage
Line to Rural Residential (RR) Zone on the severed lands and Special Agricultural (A2) on
the retained lands to permit the severance of a surplus farm dwelling being Elgin County
Land Division Application E23-22;
AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z747-2022 be presented to Council for enactment.
CARRIED
E. Report DS-44/22 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Development Agreements Heutinck and Froese Excavating Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT Report DS-44/22 regarding the Heutinck Development Agreement and Froese
Excavating Ltd. Green Line Construction Agreement be received; AND THAT By-law No. 2022-050 being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Development Agreement between Andrew and Kimberly Heutinck and the Municipality of Bayham for Green Line road Construction be presented for enactment; AND THAT By-law No. 2022-051 being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Green Line Construction Agreement between Froese Excavating Ltd. and the Municipality of Bayham be presented for enactment. CARRIED 13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation re Voterlookup.ca B. Voyent Alert! re Register Today
C. Town of Cobourg re Amber Alert System
D. Bonfield Township re Amber Alert System
E. City of Mississauga re Amber Alert System F. Township of Perry re Bill C-233 “Keira’s Law”
G. Municipality of Grey Highlands re Voter’s List Information for Candidates
H. Township of Matatchewan re Voter’s List Information for Candidates
I. Township of Mulmur re Climate Emergency Declaration
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
7
J. Municipality of Tweed re Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program
K. Municipal Engineers Association re Retention of Professional Engineers at Ontario Municipalities
L. AHI-TDMH re Hospital Human Resource Pressures
M. County of Elgin re Council Highlights June 28, 2022
N. County of Elgin re Council Highlights July 12, 2022 Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT correspondence items A – N be received for information;
AND THAT Bayham Council supports item H, Township of Matachewan re Voter’s List Information for Candidates. CARRIED 13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Elgin Group Police Services Board re OPP Agreement Amendment Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the correspondence from the Elgin Group Police Services Board re OPP Agreement Amendment be received for information; AND THAT staff be directed to present the amending by-law for adoption.
CARRIED 13.2 Reports to Council
A. Report TR-12/22 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2022 Q2 Variance Report Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Staff Report TR-12/22 re 2022 Q2 Variance Report be received for information. CARRIED B. Report CAO-31/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Corporate Mileage Rate
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT Report CAO-31/22 re Corporate Mileage Rate be received for information;
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
8
AND THAT council establish CRA mileage rate for mileage rate for Bayham effective
August 1, 2022. CARRIED
C. Report CAO-32/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Trial of Open Forum – Procedural By-Law
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT Report CAO-32/22 re Trial of Open Forum be received for information;
AND THAT the Open Forum remain as a header in the Procedural By-law. CARRIED D. Report CAO-33/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Public Comments Received – Stop Up, Close, and Convey a Portion of Dennis Road and a Portion of Woodworth Road Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT Report CAO-33/22 re Public Comments Received – Stop-up, Close, and Convey of a
Portion of Dennis Road and a Portion of Woodworth Road be received for information. CARRIED
E. Report CAO-36/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Port Burwell Lighthouse RFP Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Report CAO-36/22 re Port Burwell Lighthouse RFP be received for information.
CARRIED F. Report CAO-37/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Termination of Agreement 682 – MEU By-Law Enforcement Services Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Report CAO-37/22 re Termination of Agreement No. 682 – MEU – By-law
Enforcement Services be received for information; AND THAT Council terminate Agreement No. 682, an agreement with MEU for the
provision of by-law enforcement services, effective immediately. CARRIED
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
9
14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. 2022-043 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a site plan agreement between Borm Capital Inc. and The Corporation of the Municipality of
Bayham B. By-law No. 2022-052 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement
between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Hillenaar Consulting Inc. (Paul Hillenaar)
C. By-Law No. Z747-2022 Being a by-law to amend By-Law No. Z456-2003 – AGinvest
D. By-Law No. 2022-050 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a development agreement between the Municipality and Andrew and Kim Heutinck for the construction of a portion of Green Line E. By-Law No. 2022-051 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a construction agreement between the Municipality and Froese Excavating Ltd. for the construction of a portion of Green Line F. By-Law No. 2022-054 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an
amending agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General for the provision of Police Services for the Elgin Group Municipalities
Moved by: Donnell Seconded by: Chilcott
THAT By-Law Nos. 2022-043, 2022-050, 2022-051, 2022-054 and Z747-2022 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED Moved by: Donnell Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT By-Law No. 2022-052 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 In Camera Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
10
THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 12:08 a.m. to
discuss: A. Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land (Dennis and Woodworth Roads)
B. Confidential Report re Information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by Canada, a Province or Territory or a Crown Agency of any of them (Southwest Tourism
Relief Fund) CARRIED 16.2 Out of Camera
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” session at 12:22 a.m. and report on Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land (Dennis and Woodworth Roads) and Confidential Report re Information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by Canada, a Province or Territory or a Crown Agency of any of them (Southwest Tourism
Relief Fund). CARRIED
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Confidential Report CAO-34/22 re Sale or Disposition of Land (Dennis and
Woodworth Roads) be received for information.
AND THAT staff proceed with the conveyance of Part 1 on Plan 11R-10884 and Parts 2 and 3 on Plan 11R-10885 by direct sale to landowner;
AND THAT the appropriate stop-up, close, and convey by-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration. CARRIED Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Confidential Report CAO-35/22 re Information Explicitly Supplied in Confidence to the Municipality by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them
(Southwest Tourism Relief Fund) be received for information. CARRIED
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT By-law No. 2022-055 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED
2022 Council Minutes July 21, 2022
11
17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-053 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT confirming By-Law No. 2022-053 be a read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 18. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 12:27 a.m. CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM STATUTORY PLANNING MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – SCC Main Hall Thursday, July 21, 2022 7:30 p.m. A. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-02/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/22 – Michael and Reta Glen C/O Barry Wade Homes Inc. B. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-03/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-03/22 – Bonnefield Canadian Farmland LP III C. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-04/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-02/22 – Vienna Farms Ltd. D. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-18/22 – Gerhard Blatz
PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER
COUNCILLORS C. VALERIE DONNELL DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT STAFF PRESENT: CAO|CLERK THOMAS THAYER DEPUTY CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT DEPUTY CLERK|PLANNING COORDINATOR MARGARET UNDERHILL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS STEVE ADAMS PUBLIC ATTENDEES A: LAVERNE KIRKNESS REBECCA WALKER HILARY UTTING DAN SEELEY-BEECHLER JOCELYN SEELEY-BEECHLER
KIM CATTRYSSE JOHN WYLIE BLAINE ROLLINS
KIM KIMBARK SCOTT BAKER BARRY WADE
DON TURNER JACKIE DITCHFIELD PUBLIC ATTENDEES B: DAVID ROE MARILYN DAVIES CHANTELLE BEAUNE
PUBLIC ATTENDEES C: RICK NEVILL JAMES HOWE DAVID ROE PUBLIC ATTENDEES D: GEORGE BLATZ LAUREENA SMITH JAMES HOWE DONNA SHARPE
2 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
JANE CARNEGIE
JACKIE DITCHFIELD APPLICATION A - Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-02/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/22 – Michael and Reta Glen C/O Barry Wade Homes Inc. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 amendments.
4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT A. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-02/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/22 – Michael and Reta Glen C/O Barry Wade Homes Inc. THE PURPOSE of these Amendments is to change the land use designation on lands with lot area
of 0.36 ha (0.89 acre) from “Residential” to “Site Specific Multi-Unit Residential” designation in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham to permit the development of a townhouse block with net density of 53 units per hectare whereas net density of 35 units per hectare is the permitted
maximum in the Official Plan. And furthermore, to change the zoning of the subject lands from Village Residential 1 (R1) and Holding Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) Zones to Site-specific Village Residential 2 (R2) Zone to
permit townhouse development and to permit lot area per unit of 181 m2 whereas 340 m2 is the permitted minimum, setback distance for a driveway to a street intersection of <1.0 m whereas 9.0 m is the permitted minimum, front yard setback of 1.86 m whereas 6.0 m is the permitted minimum, rear yard depth for “Block ‘A’” of 1.54 m and “Block ‘C’” of 4.58 m whereas the permitted minimum is 9.0 m, and to remove the ‘h2’ holding symbol by way of entering into a development agreement with the municipality, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located on the east side of Robinson Street, south of Brock Street in the village of Port Burwell and known as 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street. THE EFFECT of these Amendments will be to permit a site-specific townhouse development, either standard condominium or rentals, in the form of three (3) buildings with 19 total units, including increased maximum density, reduced driveway setback from an intersection, reduced front and rear setbacks, and removal of holding provisions requiring the applicant/owner enter into development or subdivision agreement with the municipality.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There were two (2) presentations made from representatives of the applicant: Laverne Kirkness, Kirkness Consulting, and Rebecca Walker, LDS Consultants.
3 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
After the presentations, Barry Wade, property owner and applicant, noted he would speak after all
those interested made their comments. The following members of the public spoke: Hilary Utting, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and voiced concerns
about the general aesthetic, maintenance, obstruction of view, privacy, the existing natural habitats and the sustainability of the slope to withstand construction.
Dan Seeley-Beechler, a new nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and voiced concerns about the number of amendments needed for this to happen and the overall biased approach from the developer’s presentations. Seeley noted further concerns of construction in hazard lands, increased traffic, obstruction of view, privacy and the precedent setting this may cause if approved. Jocelyn Seeley-Beechler, supported the opposing comments made by Dan Seeley-Beechler and added the desire for the community to not change to keep its charm. Kim Cattrysse, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and voiced concerns about increased traffic and the potential damage to her property through the construction process if approved. John Wylie is opposed to the proposed development and referenced a previous development
proposal from 1999 that the community spoke against and Council adhered to the community wishes. Wylie noted his hopes that this would be the case again. Wylie noted concerns with access and egress, garbage collection, fire protection, blue flag beach status, stability of the slope
and the potential negative impacts for nearby property owners on their property values. Blaine Rollins, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and noted he has the
same concerns as the previous speakers. Rollins inquired if Erius Street is going to be paved and connected to support this development and who would be paying for that if so. Kim Kimbark, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and read aloud his submitted correspondence outlining various concerns. Kimbark invited all members of Council to visit his property and surrounding area.
Scott Baker, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposed development and voiced concerns of obstructing the view, privacy and the potential change to the charm of the community. Don Turner is opposed to the proposed development and noted concerns with noise and potential change to the charm of the community. Barry Wade, applicant, thanked those for their comments and acknowledged that restricted
sightlines are a main concern and noted he will be working with the community and municipality to make this a success. General questions and conversations arose from the public. Mayor Ketchabaw asked those with additional questions to discuss with Mr. Wade outside.
6. CORRESPONDENCE Public Comments Received by July 14, 2022 and included in the agenda:
4 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
Anna Chibueze, June 30, 2022 email
Tracy Farmer, July 4, 2022 email
Marni Wolfe, July 4, 2022 email
Jodi Thibodeau, July 5, 2022 email
Faye & Symen Salverda, July 12, 2022 email
Anna Chibueze, website comment
Barbara Ball, website comment
Robert Griesbach, website comment Correspondence received after posting the agenda:
Kim & Michele Kimbark, July 18, 2022 letter
Mike Emberson, July 17, 2022 website comment
Dan Seeley-Baechler, July 18, 2022 letter
Scott & Laurie Baker, July 19, 2022 email
Debbie Hayward, July 19, 2022 email
Carolyn Baker, July 20, 2022 email
Blaine & Melissa Rollins, July 20, 2022 email
Robert & Kim Cattrysse, July 20, 2022 email
Marta Blatz, July 21, 2022 website
Dan Moody, July 21, 2022 website Planning Coordinator / Deputy Clerk Margaret Underhill read aloud comments received that were not included on the agenda and not addressed during the public participation. 7. OTHER BUSINESS No other business.
8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council; AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-02/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/22 is now complete at 9:41 p.m. CARRIED APPLICATION B - Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-03/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-03/22 – Bonnefield Canadian Farmland LP III 9. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 9:50 p.m.
5 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
10. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 11. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
12. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
B. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-03/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-03/22 – Bonnefield Canadian Farmland LP III THE PURPOSE of these Amendments is to change the land use designation on a 54 ha (134 acre) parcel of land from “Agriculture” to “Site Specific Agriculture” designation in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham to permit a permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling with gross floor area of 321 m2 (3,455 ft2) to seasonally house a maximum twenty-four (24) offshore farm labourers being transported to and from nine (9) leased farm parcels in the area; and to change the zoning on the same lands from Agricultural (A1-A) Zone to a Site Specific Agricultural (A1-A-xx) Zone to permit: a large scale supplementary farm dwelling use noted above; and minimum 2.3 ha (5.7 acres) farmland area worked per labourer, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The
subject lands are located on the south side of Chute Line, on the west side of Toll Gate Road and known as 56237 Chute Line. THE EFFECT of these Amendments will be to permit a site-specific large scale supplementary farm dwelling, which exceeds the preferred permanent building with maximum floor area of 167 m² (1,797 ft2) in the Official Plan and to recognize the labourers working on 9 separate leased farm
parcels, as part of a combined maximum one hundred and forty four (144) labourers living in four (4) existing and one (1) proposed (subject lands) supplementary farm dwelling on the leased farm parcels, in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION David Roe, agent for the applicant, gave an overview of the application and advised that a planning justification report was submitted with the application. Roe noted that certain community concerns will be addressed during the Site Plan process. Marilyn Davies, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposal and noted concerns of enjoying their property as traffic, noise and dust will increase. Davies noted the understanding that there needs to be workers and needs to be accommodations but does not want it here. Marilyn Davies read aloud letters submitted from Lena and John Knelsen, opposed to the proposal.
Chantelle Beaune, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposal and noted concerns of increased traffic, noise, dust and garbage. Beaune also noted a safety concern for those who walk along the road and the possible decrease in property value.
14. CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence received as of July 14, 2022 for inclusion to agenda.
6 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
Correspondence received after posting the agenda:
Judy and Randy Marlatt, July 18, 2022 letter
Chantelle Beaune and Phil Eastman, July 21, 2022 letter
Richard Bezzo, July 21, 2022 email
Marilyn Davies, July 21, 2022 letter
John Knelsen, July 21, 2022 letter
Lena Knelsen, July 21, 2022 letter Planning Coordinator / Deputy Clerk Margaret Underhill read aloud comments received that were
not included on the agenda and not addressed during the public participation. 15. OTHER BUSINESS No other business.
16. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Donnell THAT the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council; AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-03/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-03/22 is now complete at 10:14 p.m. CARRIED APPLICATION C - Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-04/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-02/22 – Vienna Farms Ltd. 17. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 10:15 p.m. 18. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 19. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment. 20. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT C. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-04/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-02/22 – Vienna Farms Ltd.
7 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
THE PURPOSE of these Amendments is to change the land use designation on a 2.48 ha (6 acre)
parcel of land from “Agriculture” to “Site Specific Agriculture” designation in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham to permit a permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling in an existing dwelling with gross floor area of 304.9 m2 (3,282 ft2) to seasonally house a maximum
twenty-nine (29) offshore farm labourers being transported to and from nine (9) leased farm parcels; and to change the zoning on the same lands from Agricultural (A1) Zone to a Site Specific Agricultural (A1-xx) Zone to permit: a large scale supplementary farm dwelling use noted above;
minimum 2.3 ha (5.7 acres) farmland area worked per labourer; reduced lot area; and, reduced building yard setbacks, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located on the west side of Plank Road, north of Glen Erie Line and known as 4964 and 4968 Plank Road. THE EFFECT of these Amendments will be to permit a site-specific large scale supplementary
farm dwelling, which exceeds the preferred permanent building with maximum floor area of 167 m² (1,797 ft2) in the Official Plan and to recognize the labourers working on 9 separate leased farm parcels, as part of a combined maximum one hundred and forty four (144) labourers living in four (4) existing and one (1) proposed supplementary farm dwellings on the leased farm parcels, in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Furthermore, the effect will be to permit existing undersized agricultural lot area and building locations within required yard setbacks. 21. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
David Roe, agent for the applicant, gave an overview of the application and advised that a planning justification report was submitted with the application. Roe noted that certain community concerns will be addressed during the Site Plan process.
Rick Nevill, a nearby resident, is opposed to the proposal and noted concerns of currently already using the property for this and questioning who will monitor what is approved vs what is happening
on the property. Nevill is concerned with loss of enjoyment of his property as there are already issues from the workers. James Howe supported Rick Nevill’s comments and concerns and noted he hopes the workers can be placed elsewhere.
22. CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence received as of July 14, 2022 for inclusion to agenda. Correspondence received after posting the agenda:
Bob Heimbuch, July 18, 2022 letter
Rick and Cheryl Nevill, July 20, 2022 letter Planning Coordinator / Deputy Clerk Margaret Underhill read aloud comments received that were not included on the agenda and not addressed during the public participation.
23. OTHER BUSINESS No other business.
8 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
24. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council;
AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-04/22 and Official Plan Amendment OPA-02/22 is now complete at 10:31 p.m. CARRIED
APPLICATION D - Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-18/22 – Gerhard Blatz 25. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 10:32 p.m. 26. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 27. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
28. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
D. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-18/22 – Gerhard Blatz THE PURPOSE of this By-law is amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 1.2 ha (2.97 acre) parcel of land to add an additional permitted use of a mobile home park manager residential dwelling unit in a portion of an existing accessory building, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located at 12 Elizabeth Street, east side, south of Wellington Street in the village of Port Burwell. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit one mobile home park site manager apartment in the second storey of an existing accessory building. 29. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Gerhard Blatz, owner, spoke to the proposal and noted there have been rumours for it to be a 3 bedroom apartment and noted this is not the intent. It is intended for a park manager residence as a bachelor apartment.
Laureena Smith, Grace Court Park resident, is opposed to the proposal and noted concerns with access to the barn and issues from a previous tenant using the barn. Smith noted she is not
completely opposed to the idea but hopes a different access to the barn can be established that is not outside her bedroom window.
9 Statutory Planning Minutes July 21, 2022
James Howe, nearby resident, supported Smith’s comments and supportive of granting access
across his property similar to what 2, 4, and 6 Elizabeth Street have presently. 30. CORRESPONDENCE Public Comments Received by July 14, 2022 included in the agenda:
Carl & Laureena Smith, July 6, 2022 letter
Correspondence received after posting the agenda:
David & Donna Bolt, July 18, 2022 letter
Carl & Laureena Smith, July 18, 2022 letter
Bob Smolders, July 18, 2022 letter
Dennis Babcode, July 18, 2022 letter
Home Owners of Grace Court Park Unit 7, July 18, 2022 letter
Planning Coordinator / Deputy Clerk Margaret Underhill read aloud comments received that were not included on the agenda and not addressed during the public participation.
31. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business.
32. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Zoning By-law be considered at a future meeting of Council; AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Zoning Application ZBA-18/22 is now complete at 10:47 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: BRADY AND ERIN ZIMAK
LOCATION: 54694 CALTON LINE
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA-20/22 Zimak.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting on Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers, 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to rezone the retained lands from an Agricultural (A1) zone to an Agricultural (A1-A) Zone to recognize agricultural uses in a lot with an area of 40 hectares or
greater; and to rezone the severed lands from an A1 zone to a Rural Residential (RR) Zone to recognize the change in land use from agricultural in nature to residential in nature, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The lands are located at 54694 Calton Line, Vienna.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to fulfill conditions of Consent E70-21 to rezone the retained lands to recognize agricultural use; and to rezone the severed lands from an agricultural zone to a residential zone, so that the severed lands may be added to the abutting lands with existing
single detached residential uses to the east.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Equal consideration is given to all written and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence. The deadline for written submissions to be
provided to the undersigned for inclusion in the public meeting agenda is Thursday,
August 11, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land
Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 22nd day of July 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: JIGGINS HOLDINGS INC.
(DAVE JIGGINS)
LOCATION: 54624 CALTON LINE
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law Amendment Application ZBA-21/22 Jiggins.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting on Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers,
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to rezone the lot addition lands to a Rural Residential (RR) Zone
to permit residential uses, to match the use of the lands to be severed and conveyed, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The lands are located at 54624 Calton Line, Vienna.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to fulfill conditions of Consent E70-21 to rezone lot addition
lands to match the residential zoning of the lands to be conveyed.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Equal consideration is given to all written
and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence. The deadline for written submissions to be
provided to the undersigned for inclusion in the public meeting agenda is Thursday,
August 11, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 22nd day of July 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW Z456-2003
APPLICATION: ZBA-22/22
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law amendment Application ZBA-22/22.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting on Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers,
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law amendment is to introduce changes to Zoning By-law Z456-2003
to clarify, improve and/or refine the zoning regulations. The proposed revisions are as follows, and further detailed on the “Draft Housekeeping Amendments” document available on the Municipality of Bayham website:
Section 2.0 Definitions:
o Replace the definition for “Agricultural Use”
o Revise definition for “Day Care Centre”
o Remove definition for “Farm”
o Add definition for “Large Scale Supplementary Farm Dwelling”
o Revise definition “Lot Lines”
o Add definition for “On-Farm Diversified Use”
o Add definition for “Parking Space, Accessible”
o Add definition for “Private Home Day Care”
o Add a definition for “Recreational Travel Vehicle”
Section 4.2 f) Accessory Uses – add maximum floor area permission for accessory use buildings accessory to a principal farm dwelling to maximum twenty-five (25%) of the size of the principal farm dwelling. The proposed provision does not apply to farm-related buildings such as barns, greenhouses, stables or driving sheds.
Section 4.4 Residential Accessory Uses:
o Remove first paragraph which was intended to be removed by way of previous Zoning By-law Amendment and which regulations were either removed or moved to subsections in Section 4.4.
o Modify Section 4.4.5 to remove locational criteria to provide flexibility to the location of required private amenity area for apartments accessory to commercial uses.
Section 4.5 Home Occupation:
o Add “private home day care” as an example of home occupation uses.
o Add permission for up to six (6) persons permitted as part of a provincially licensed
private home day care.
Section 4.16 Truck, Bus, and Coach Bodies or Travel Trailers, Truck Campers, Motor
Homes or Tents Used for Human Occupancy:
o Replace a portion of the title by removing “Truck, Bus, and Coach Bodies or Travel Trailers, Truck Campers, Motor Homes” with “Recreational Travel Vehicles”.
o Section 4.16.2 – replace the general provision to clarify Modify for truck campers, motor homes or tents used for temporary accommodations in residential zones by removing permission for such accommodations to continue up to thirty (30) consecutive days and to limit temporary use of such accommodations from seven (7) consecutive days to not more than one period of seven (7) consecutive days in one calendar year.
Section 4.31 a) Loading Spaces – Modify the required loading spaces for industrial uses to reduce the minimum loading space requirements.
Section 4.32 Parking Requirements
o add new subsection 4.32.3 to include size and minimum requirements to provide for accessible parking spaces.
o Add new subsection 4.32.4 for general access aisle or minimum and maximum
driveway widths, amount of and distance for such from a street intersection.
Section 4.32 Parking Requirements
o Add Mobile Home Parks to the minimum parking space requirement table row “Travel Trailer Parks”.
o Add visitor parking requirement to the parking space minimum requirement table
row for “Dwelling unit in a triplex, multiunit, linked, maisonette, rowhouse, or apartment dwelling, or a building containing both commercial and residential uses”
o Modify (reduce) the minimum parking requirement in the parking space requirement table row for “Industrial/Manufacturing”.
o Modify (reduce) the minimum parking requirement in the parking space requirement table row for “Warehouse Use”.
Section 4.34.1 – add minimum driveway width and maximum frontage occupied by a driveway for a residential use.
Section 4.58 – add additional regulations to clarify permissions for shipping containers used for storage purposes and for shipping containers for human habitation purposes.
Section 4.59 – in accordance with the Official Plan, add 10% maximum exterior alterations to existing dwellings for “Second Dwelling Units”.
Section 5.2 – remove “Farm;” and add “On-farm diversified use;” in listed permitted uses in the Agricultural (A1) zone.
Section 5.11.3 – limit commercial livestock uses to lots that have 2.0 ha or greater lot area in the Agricultural (A1) and clarify that livestock in the form of a hobby farm context is
permitted.
Section 7.11 – add maximum floor area for accessory buildings in the Rural Residential (RR) zone.
Section 8.10 – modify (increase) the maximum accessory building floor area in the Estate Residential (ER) zone.
Section 10.2 – add permission for two units of a semi-detached dwelling on one lot in the Village Residential 1 (R1) zone Permitted Buildings and Structures.
Section 10.3 – modify minimum lot area requirements in the Village Residential 1 (R1) zone to clarify for semi-detached dwellings and the type of water and sewer services available.
Section 10.4 – add 10.0 m minimum lot frontage for semi-detached dwellings.
Section 10.5 – add 7.0 m maximum height in the Village Residential 1 (R1) Zone.
Section 10.11 - modify (increase) the maximum accessory building floor area in the Village Residential 1 (R1) zone.
Section 11.1 – add “semi-detached dwelling” as a listed permitted use in the Village Residential 2 (R2) zone.
Section 11.6 – add 7.0 m maximum height in the Village Residential 2 (R2) Zone.
Section 12.2 – modify “mobile home site” minimum lot areas and clarify the type of sewer and water services.
Section 12.3 – modify (reduce) mobile home site minimum lot frontage and clarify the type of sewer and water services.
Section 12.8 – modify (reduce) minimum interior side yard setback and add minimum
exterior side yard setback for mobile home sites.
Section 12.11 b) – modify open deck requirements for mobile homes to clarify that open
decks are permitted per exterior door and to establish appropriate maximum floor areas permitted for such decks.
Section 12.11 – add the subsections to clarify accessory building setbacks and to add regulations for maximum width, floor area and height for private attached garages or carports for mobile home sites.
Section 17.10 – add clarification that additional lot area requirement for accessory residential uses only applies where the lands have access to municipal water services and
private water services (Straffordville) in the Central Business District (C1) zone.
No key map is provided as the proposed amendment applies to the entire Municipality.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to correct and clarify a number of items in Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003 in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Official Plan. There are no changes proposed to the Zoning By-law Schedules.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Equal consideration is given to all written and oral presentations provided to the municipality at a public meeting. When possible please consider utilizing written correspondence. The deadline for written submissions to be
provided to the undersigned for inclusion in the public meeting agenda is Thursday,
August 11, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained by contacting the Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 27th day of July 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
Municipality of Bayham Proposed Housekeeping Zoning By-law
Amendment – Draft Amendments July 28, 2022 The following “Draft Amendments” are proposed as part of a Municipality-led Zoning By-law Amendment, “Housekeeping” Amendment. The Statutory Public Meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2022 at 7:30 pm in the Municipal Council Chambers, and these Draft Amendments are intended to be read in conjunction with the Notice of the Public Meeting. Please contact Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator, by phone at 519-866-5521 Ext 222, by fax at 519-866-3884, or by email at munderhill@bayham.on.ca. A strikethrough denotes portions of text to be removed. An underline denotes portions of text to be added.
“ADD” denotes an entire new section of text. SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS
AGRICULTURAL USE, shall mean the cultivation of land, the production of crops, the breeding, raising and care of livestock and the selling of such crops/livestock or the product of
such crops/ livestock raised on the premises, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing includes animal husbandry, and the raising and harvesting of field, bush, tobacco, tree or vine crops, truck gardening, nurseries, greenhouses, mushroom farming and sod farming including the related sights, sounds, smells, and noises. ADD
AGRICULTURAL USE, shall mean the growing of crops, including nursery, biomass, and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures, including, but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value-retaining facilities, and accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size
and nature of the operation requires additional employment.”
DAY CARE CENTRE, means a premises that receives more than five children who are not of
common parentage, primarily for the purpose of providing temporary care and guidance, for a continuous period, not exceeding 24 hours, when the children are: a) Under 18 years of age in the case of a day nursery for children with a
developmental handicap; and b) Under 12 years of age in all other cases.
DAY CARE CENTRE, means a premises that receives more than five persons who are not of common parentage, primarily for the purpose of providing temporary care or guidance, or both temporary care and guidance, for a continuous period not exceeding 24 hours. Care may be provided for children, seniors and/or persons with disabilities.
FARM, shall mean one or more lots, held for the purpose of agricultural use by a single operation, together with or without its dependent buildings including one single detached dwelling with private garage as the principal farm dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling or modular home as supplementary housing to the farm operation, barns, pens, sheds, and similar accessory buildings except that in areas where buildings and structures are prohibited such use shall refer only to the land.
ADD
LARGE-SCALE SUPPLEMENTARY FARM DWELLINGS, shall mean a supplementary farm
dwelling, with a building floor area greater than 167 m2 or accommodation for ten (10) or more persons and shall comply with applicable requirements of the Ontario Building Code and the Health Unit.
LOT LINES
b) In the case of a through lot, the shorter boundary dividing the lot from the street shall be deemed to be the front lot line and the opposite longer boundary shall be
deemed to be the rear lot line or a side lot line, as the case may be. In case each of such lot lines should be of equal length, the front lot line shall be deemed to be the front lot line as established in the block by prior construction.
ADD
ON-FARM DIVERSIFIED USE, shall mean uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agritourism uses, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products. Ground-mounted solar facilities are permitted in prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, only as on-farm diversified uses. ADD
PARKING SPACE, ACCESSIBLE, shall mean a parking space designed, used or intended for the purpose of the temporary parking or storage of a motor vehicle by persons who require or use wheelchairs, canes, crutches, walkers or other mobility assistance devices and who may require additional aisle space to accommodate a lift or ramp. a) A ‘Type A’ Parking Space shall mean an accessible parking space intended to
accommodate a motor vehicle equipped with a mechanical lift and/or wheelchair ramp, and which incorporates a delineated space adjacent to the motor vehicle for the deployment of the lift and/or ramp.
b) A ‘Type B’ Parking Space shall mean an accessible parking space intended to accommodate a motor vehicle which does not require additional space to accommodate a lift and/or ramp.
ADD
PRIVATE HOME DAY CARE, means the temporary care and custody for reward or compensation of not more than six persons in a provincially licensed home day care outside a flood plain, or not more than five persons within a flood plain or in an unlicensed home day care in a private residence other than the home of a parent or guardian of any such person for a continuous period not exceeding 24 hours. Care may be provided for children, seniors and/or persons with disabilities. ADD
RECREATIONAL TRAVEL VEHICLE, shall mean a vehicle designed to provide temporary
living, sleeping or eating accommodation for travel, vacation, seasonal camping or recreational use and designed to be driven, towed, transported or relocated from time to time whether or not the vehicle is jacked up or its running gear is removed. A recreational vehicle
shall not be used as the principal place of residence of the occupant. A recreational vehicle shall include a motor home, camper trailer, motorized home, motorized camper, truck camper, pick-up coach, chassis-mounted camper, slide-in camper, tent trailer, fifth-wheel trailer, park
model trailer and similar mobile vehicles, watercraft, boats and marine craft, but excludes a mobile home.
Section 4 General Provisions Section 4.2 Accessory Uses
f) With the exception of buildings and structures for farm uses, shall not exceed
ten (10) percent coverage of the total lot area, except in the case of accessory
use buildings accessory to principal farm dwellings, the size of accessory
buildings is limited to 25% of the size of the principal farm dwelling excluding
main farm buildings such as barns, greenhouses, stables and driving sheds.
Section 4.4 Residential Accessory Uses Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, where one dwelling unit is permitted as an accessory use in a commercial, industrial, institutional, or open space zone, the minimum lot area shall be nine hundred and fifty (950.0) square metres over and above the minimum requirements of the zone in which it is
erected, and, in the case of a single detached dwelling, the maximum building
height for the dwelling unit shall be nine (9.0) metres, and the minimum floor area shall be eighty (80.0) square metres, and in the case of a dwelling unit permitted
as an accessory use in a commercial zone, it shall be contiguous to the main commercial use, be above or in the rear of the main commercial use, and be used as the residence of the owner or operator, or an employee of the owner or
operator, of the main commercial use. Section 4.4.5 Within any commercial zone that permits dwellings, a minimum of 19.0 m2 of open space shall be provided for the exclusive use of each dwelling unit either at ground level or on the roof of the first storey. Such open space shall not form part of any required parking area or loading space. Section 4.5 Home Occupations d) Shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total floor area of the dwelling unit including basement or cellar area used for home occupation or as living quarters, or forty (40.0) square metres whichever is the lesser. For greater clarity, such uses include the offices or consulting room for a profession such as a physician, dentist, chiropractor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, teacher or musical instructor,
the office for a trade such as a painter, plumber, carpenter, or electrician and the workroom for a dress-maker, milliner, private home daycare, or hairdresser, but does not include or permit a clinic, any retail shop, tea room, tourist home,
convalescent home, mortuary, funeral parlour, dancing school, rooming house, boarding house, hairdressing if more than two persons are engaged in the business, or any similar use or other commercial use or institutional use or a
workshop, storage yard, parking area or plant for any of the trades. m) No more than 5 persons permitted in dwelling at one time, or six persons in a provincially licensed Private Home Day Care, to receive treatment, services, or instructions; Section 4.16 Truck, Bus, and Coach Bodies or Travel Trailers, Truck Campers, Motor Homes Recreational Travel Vehicles or Tents Used for Human Occupancy 4.16.1 Except as expressly permitted by this By-law; no truck, travel trailer, bus, coach or streetcar body shall be used for human occupancy
within the Municipality whether or not the same is mounted on wheels; 4.16.2 No truck camper, motor home, or tent shall be used for the living, sleeping or eating accommodation of persons within the Municipality
unless accessory to a residential use for no longer than thirty (30) consecutive days, unless such truck camper, or motor home is located in a campground licensed by the Municipality, and provided, however,
that this provision shall not prevent the use of truck camper, motor home, or tent for children’s play or for picnics or for the occasional accommodation of guests for not more than seven (7) consecutive days in any Residential Zone. 4.16.1 Except as expressly permitted by this By-law; no recreational vehicle shall be used for human occupancy within the Municipality whether or
not the same is mounted on wheels, however, this provision shall not prevent, in a residential zone with an existing dwelling, the use of a truck camper, travel trailer, motor home, or tent for children’s play or for picnics or for the occasional accommodation of guests for not more than one seven (7) consecutive day period in one calendar year. Section 4.31 a) One (1) loading space shall be provided on the same premises for every 278 m² or
fraction thereof of the total floor area; One off-street loading space shall be provided for each 2,322 m2 or fraction
thereof of building floor area. Section 4.32.2
A parking stall is to be a minimum of 5.5 metres x 2.7 metres. A barrier-free
parking stall is to be a minimum of 5.5 metres x 3.9 metres. Section 4.32. 2
Type of Use Or Building Parking Required
Dwelling unit in a triplex, multi-unit, linked, maisonette, row-house, or apartment dwelling, or a building containing both commercial and residential uses
One and one-half (1.5) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) parking space for every four (4) units for visitor parking
Industrial uses/Manufacturing One (1) parking space per 50.0 m2 of gross floor area Two (2) spaces plus one (1) space per 140 m2 gross floor area
Travel trailer parks or Mobile Home Parks One (1) parking space per unit and one (1) parking space for every four (4) units for visitor parking
Warehouse use One (1) parking space per 100.0 m2 of gross floor area Two (2) spaces plus one (1) space per 140.0 m2 gross floor area
Section 4.32.3 - ADD 4.32.3 Accessible Parking Spaces Accessible parking spaces shall, in the case of a Type A parking space as
defined, have a minimum width of 3.4 metres and a minimum depth of 5.5 metres and, in the case of a Type B parking space as defined, have a minimum width of 2.4 metres and a minimum depth of 5.5 metres and shall be provided adjacent to
the primary entrance of the building they are intended to serve and clearly signed or marked as “Accessible Parking Spaces”.
To facilitate access to the motor vehicle, every accessible parking space shall be provided with an abutting access aisle, 1.5 metres in width, extending the full length of the accessible parking space and be clearly identifiable by high tonal contrast diagonal lines, concrete or other hard distinguishing surface treatment to discourage parking on or within them which access aisle may be shared by two accessible parking spaces. All designated accessible parking spaces shall be signed or marked in accordance with the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation and the Highway Traffic Act and, in the case of Type A parking spaces as defined, signed or marked as “Van Accessible”.
The number of accessible parking spaces required shall be part of the total parking requirement in accordance with the following:
Required Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Required
Type A Type B
1 - 50 1 1
51 - 75 1 2
76 -100 2 2
100+ 4 % of Required Parking Spaces, equally divided by Type A and Type B Spaces, where an odd number
of accessible parking spaces are required the additional odd numbered space can be a Type B space.
Section 4.32.4 – ADD
4.32.4 Driveway Standards
The following standards apply to driveways providing ingress and egress to parking spaces:
4.32.4.1 Minimum Width of One-Way Access Where the access to a parking space is provided directly by a driveway from a public street, the driveway must be at least three (3.0) metres in width and no more than nine (9.0) metres in width. 4.32.4.2 Width of Joint Access Where a joint ingress and egress driveway is provided to a parking aisle, the driveway width measured along the street line shall be at least 6.7 metres in width and no more than 9 metres in width. 4.32.4.3 Number of Driveways Permitted
Every lot shall be limited to not more than two (2) driveways up to the first thirty (30.0) metres of frontage; and not more than one (1) additional driveway for each additional thirty (30.0) metres of frontage, provided that
where a lot has more than one (1) driveway, a separation of at least nine (9.0) metres shall be maintained between each driveway, as measured along the street line between the said driveways. 4.32.4.4 Distance from an Intersection The minimum distance between a driveway and an intersection of street lines is nine (9.0) metres. Section 4.34.1
The maximum width of a driveway, measured along the street line shall be nine (9.0) metres. The minimum width of a driveway shall be three (3.0) metres and the maximum
width of a driveway shall be nine (9.0) metres, measured along the street line, and the driveway shall not occupy more than 50% of the front yard or exterior side yard.
Section 4.58 – ADD
d) A shipping container or truck trailer shall not be permitted as the sole structure on any property; e) A shipping container or truck trailer shall not be stacked one on top of the another;
f) A shipping container or truck trailer shall comply with the Ontario Building Code; g) A shipping container or any parts of a shipping container may be used for the purpose of human habitation by way of site-specific zoning that permits the residential use of a shipping container or part of the structure, in accordance with the following provisions: i) A shipping container may be permitted where mobile home or modular
home uses are permitted; ii) A shipping container shall be subject to the same requirements and
limitations as mobile home or modular home buildings;
iii) A shipping container shall comply with the Ontario Building Code.
Section 4.59 - ADD h) The exterior building or site changes to a dwelling to permit a second dwelling unit
in an existing primary dwelling building maximum floor area increase shall be 10%, and the changes should account for maintaining the general form and architectural character of the building where possible. Section 5.2 Farm; On-farm Diversified Use Section 5.11.3 – ADD
5.11.3 Livestock uses are prohibited where the land area of the lot is less than 2.0 hectares, however, the keeping of livestock in a hobby farm context is permitted providing the complement of livestock is small and can comply with the regulations of the Minimum Distance Separation II. Section 7.11.3 – ADD Maximum Floor Area: 95 m2 or 8% lot coverage, whichever is less
Section 8.10.2 55.0 m2 95 m2 or 8% lot coverage, whichever is less
Section 10.2 One dwelling on one lot or one or two unit(s) of a semi-detached dwelling on one lot; Section 10.3 - ADD
Semi-detached dwelling unit: 400 m2, or 695 m2 where no public water supply or sanitary sewage disposal service are available Section 10.4 - ADD 10.5 Minimum Lot Frontage Semi-detached Dwellings: 10.0 metres for an internal lot and 13.0 metres for a corner lot Section 10.5 – ADD 10.5 Maximum Building Height:
7.0 metres
Section 10.11 c)
Maximum Floor Area: 65.0 m2 75 m2 or 8% lot coverage, whichever is less Section 11.1 - ADD
Semi-detached dwelling; Section 11.6 – ADD Maximum Building Height: 7.0 metres Section 12.2 Mobile home park: 4.0 hectares Mobile home site without a public or communal water supply or sewer services: 1200.0m²
Mobile home site with either public or communal water supply or public or communal sewer services: 464.0m²
Mobile Home Site with both public or communal water and sewer services: 300.0 m2
Section 12.3 Mobile home site without a public or communal water supply or sewer services:
30.0 m 20.0m
Mobile home site with either public or communal water supply or sewer services:
19.0 m
15.0m
Mobile Home Site with both public or communal water and sewer services: 10.0 m
Section 12.8
Mobile home site, interior: 6.0 m 1.2 m
Mobile home site, exterior (corner site): 3.0 m
Section 12.11
Title -- Regulations for Accessory Buildings and Decks b) One (1) Open deck permitted per exterior door, one of which to a maximum 3.1 m width not to exceed mobile home length and the second to a maximum 1.2 metres in width and depth as a secondary egress.
ADD
e) Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than one (1.0) metre to any mobile home or mobile home site lot line.
f) Private garage or carport maximum width: 3.7 m g) Private Garage or carport maximum floor area: 30.0 m2
h) Private garage or carport maximum height: 4.5 m Section 17.10.1 Where the dwelling unit is in an area with municipal sewer services and private water services, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 460.0 m², in addition to the requirements established in Section 17.2;
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING – DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 the Council of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting, pursuant to section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, as
amended, to present and obtain public input on the municipality’s proposed development
charges (D.C.) by-law and underlying background study.
All interested parties are invited to attend the Public Meeting of Council and any person who attends the meeting may make representations relating to the proposed D.C. by-law and background study. The meeting is to be held:
Thursday, September 1, 2022 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville
In order that sufficient information is made available to the public, the background study which includes the draft by-law is available on the municipal website www.bayham.on.ca.
Interested persons may express their comments at the public meeting or in writing addressed to the Municipal Clerk by email to consultations@bayham.on.ca or delivered to the above noted address by 4:30 p.m. on August 25, 2022.
DATED at the Municipality of Bayham this 4th day of August, 2022.
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works, Drainage Superintendent
DATE: August 18, 2022
REPORT: DS-45/22 FILE NO. C-07/E09 SUBJECT: PETITION FOR DRAINAGE BACKGROUND:
This Report is to present Council the Petition filed with the Clerk, of the Municipality of Bayham,
on July 21, 2022. The petition is for a drainage works for lands owned by Community of Christ
signed by Pastor Cheryl Brooks known as Concession 9 S Pt Lot 6, Municipality of Bayham.
This land is situated on North East corner of Eden Line (County Road 44) at the intersecting
corner of Culloden Road (County Road 46).
Section 4(1) of the Drainage Act provides for a petition for the drainage by means of a drainage works of an area requiring drainage as described in the petition may be filed with the Clerk of the local municipality in which the area is situate by: (a) The majority in number of the owners, as shown by the last revised assessment roll of lands in the area, including the owners of any roads in the area: (b) The owner or owners, as shown by the last revised assessment roll, of lands in the area representing at least 60% of the hectarage in the area; (c) Where a drainage works is required for a road or part thereof, the engineer, road superintendent or person having jurisdiction over such road or part, despite subsection 61(5); (d) Where a drainage works is required for the drainage of lands used for agricultural
purposes, the Director. The Drainage Act provides that Council must give consideration to the petition and within thirty
days (Section 5.1.a) of the filing, decide whether or not it will proceed. If Council decides not to proceed then written notice of its decision must be sent to each petitioner. A petitioner may appeal to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal if Council decides not to proceed, or if Council does not
act on the petition within 30 days. It may be difficult for Council to make a decision on the validity of the petition as it is based on
definition of the “area requiring drainage”. Initially, the petitioner(s) define this area on the petition they submit, however the area must be defined by an engineer at the “on-site meeting” to determine the validity of the petition.
If the Municipality decides to proceed then written notice of its decision must be given to (Section 5.16):
(a) each petitioner; (b) the Clerk of each local municipality that may be affected; (c) the Conservation Authority that may be affected; (d) the Ministry of Natural Resources; (e) The Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs. The Municipality must appoint an engineer within sixty days (Section 8.3) of giving notice to proceed. The choice of engineer is the decision of Council. When appointed by Council to prepare a report on the drainage work, the engineer is to file said report within six (6) months (Section 39.1) of the appointment. Following the appointment, the engineer must (Section 9.1) cause the Municipal Clerk to send a written notice, specifying the time and place of an “on-site meeting”. The notice must be served
seven days prior to the proposed site meeting. DISCUSSION:
On behalf of the Community of Christ, Pastor Cheryl Brooks is in the process of creating
building lots on the subject parcel. The property is located on the North East corner of Eden
Line (County Road 44), at the intersecting corner of Culloden Road (County Road 46). These
lands are within the Peters Municipal Drain watershed. The continuation of the Peters Outlet on
the west side of Culloden Road beneath the road surface to the east side may be a viable outlet
to satisfy the condition of severance pending the report from the Municipal drainage engineer.
It is recommended that Council retains Spriet Associates to prepare a report for the required drainage. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Council of the Municipality of Bayham acknowledges the filing with the Clerk of the Petition for drainage works from Community of Christ Pastor Cheryl Brooks; 2. THAT Report DS-45/22 re Petition for Drainage be received; 3. AND THAT Council wishes to proceed with this matter and appoints Spriet Associates, Engineers, to prepare a report on the proposed drainage area pursuant to Section 5 and Section 8(1) of the Drainage Act, for Council’s consideration. Respectfully Submitted by:
_________________________________ _____________________________ Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO
Manager of Public Works| CAO|Clerk Drainage Superintendent
LDS CONSULTANTS INC. 15875 Robins Hill Road – Unit 1 London, Ontario N5V 0A5
February 7, 2022
File: GE-00480
Barry Wade Design Construction Management
776497 Ontario Ltd.
15 Jane St,
Dorchester, Ontario N0L 1G2
Reference: SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
3 ERIEUS STREET & 2 ROBINSON STREET
PORT BURWELL, MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
Introduction
LDS Consultants (LDS) has been retained by Barry Wade Design Construction Management to carry out a
Geotechnical Review of the Site, and prepare a Slope Stability Assessment Report in support of their
proposed development located at 3 Erieus Street and 2 Robinson Street, in Port Burwell. Development
plans include demolition of the existing cottage residence at 2 Robinson Street, and the creation of a 21-
unit condominium development.
It is understood that a Pre-Consultation Meeting was held with staff from the Municipality of Bayham, Elgin
County, and Long Point Conservation Authority on February 8, 2021. It is understood that this Slope
Assessment Report has been commissioned to address a requirement from Long Point Region
Conservation Authority, provide an updated geotechnical investigation. As such, this report has reviewed
the previous analysis carried out by Atkinson Davies, to confirm that the geotechnical comments and
recommendations from the aforementioned report are still valid for the proposed development, and to
update the assessment work to reflect on the current development plans which have been proposed at the
site.
Further, this report is prepared to satisfy the following requirements from the County of Elgin and
Municipality of Bayham:
County of Elgin, Official Plan (February 2015), Section D3; and,
Municipality of Bayham, Official Plan, Sections 6.1.7, 6.1.8 and 6.1.9.
The aforementioned Official Plan documents identify the requirements for assessment of slope hazards and
developments located along the Lake Erie shoreline.
In preparing this report, LDS has reviewed a previous Geotechnical Report which was prepared for the site
by Atkinson Davies Inc., dated May 12, 2005. That report was prepared for a proposed dingle family
residence, and although the scope of the proposed development has changed, the soils information
provided in that report is considered representative of the site conditions, and the relevant information has
been incorporated into this report. To facilitate our review, the client also provided LDS with copies of the
Foundation Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan Drawings which have been prepared for the proposed 21 unit
condominium development, along with the Functional Servicing Report prepared by Cyril J Demeyere
Limited (CJDL), dated December 2021.
Geotechnical Review December 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
2 | Page
Site Conditions and Proposed Development Plans
The Site is bounded to the south by the Port Burwell public beach parking lot, to the east by an unused
portion of the Erieus Street right-of-way (ROW), to the west by Robinson Street, and to the north by existing
cottages. An armourstone retaining wall and a concrete block retaining wall are located on the west and
eastern limits of the property respectively. The site slopes down towards the waterfront (approximately 9
m), with an overall slope inclination in the range of 18 to 28 degrees. A topographic plan is provided for
reference on Figure 1, along with an aerial photograph, which is provided on Figure 2, attached.
Based on the drawings which have been provided for review, one four-unit townhouse building fronting
Robinson Street (Block A) will be located at the top of the existing slope and two townhouses (Blocks B and
C), with 8 and 9 units respectively, will be located at the base of the slope and serviced by a private internal
access road. It is understood that the foundation walls of Blocks B and C at the base of the slope will be
designed as structural retaining walls to support the existing slope.
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Considerations
In May 2006, Ontario Regulation 178/06 came into effect in the Long Point Region Conservation Authority
(LPRCA) watershed area, which locally implements the Generic Regulation (Development, Interference
with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses). This regulation replaces the former Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways regulations, and is intended to ensure public safety, prevent
property damage and social disruption due to natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Ontario
Regulation 157/06 is implemented by the local Conservation Authority, by means of permit issuance for
works in or near watercourses, valleys, wetlands, or shorelines, when required.
The site is located within the Long Point Regulated lands, and the proposed development within the study
area will be subject to the above referenced Regulation. Property owners must obtain permission from
Long Point Region Conservation Authority before beginning any development, site alteration, construction,
or placement of fill within the regulated area.
It is understood that mapping from LPRCA indicates that the site is located within the Lake Erie erosion
hazard and flood hazard. This report addresses the Lake Erie flooding hazard, and includes the slope
stability analyses required to erosion hazard associated with the site.
Summarized Conditions
To assess the soil conditions at the site, Atkinson Davies advanced two boreholes and a test pit at the site.
Soils were described as surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural silty clay soils, which extend below
the depth of the boreholes (9.6 m). The natural subgrade soils are described as having a firm to very staff
consistency.
The natural soil conditions are consistent with the soils indicated in the geological mapping for the area,
which are described as glaciolucustrine silt deposits. An excerpt from the Quaternary Geology mapping for
the Port Burwell Area is provided on Figure 3.
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
3 | Page
Site Review
A site review was carried out by LDS on February 18, 2021. At the time of the site reconnaissance visit,
much of the site was snow-covered, however it appears that the site is generally grass-covered. The
vegetative cover throughout the site was verified through a review of aerial photographs. Although limited
areas were visible, no water seepage or signs of significant overland erosion were observed. The ground
surface appears to slope down approximately 8 to 9 m in the area with greatest topographic relief, measured
from the north to the south.
The Atkinson Davies Report makes note of several tiles which were observed to be outletting near the toe
of the slope, presumably tied to upgradient lots to the north. Although these tiles were not specifically
observed by LDS, the vacant lands are expected to still contain some portion of these drains.
During the site reconnaissance visit, LDS prepared a Slope Stability Rating Chart, consistent with the
guidance material prepared by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The Rating Chart
summarizes site observations and empirically scores various elements which contribute to slope stability,
to assess the potential for slope instabilities at the site. A copy of the chart is appended for reference. The
Slope Instability Rating is 25, indicating a slight potential for instability. This is marginally better than the
findings of the Slope Rating which was determined by Atkinson Davies, due to the presence of light
vegetative cover on the site.
Slope Stability & Flooding Hazard Analysis
The overall slope stability is considered to be in a stable condition, as indicated by the slope stability
analyses presented in the Atkinson Davies Report (2005). LDS has reviewed this analysis, and conducted
an independent review of the slope stability analysis, using the slope profile provided in their report.
Stable Slope Configuration
Predominant soil conditions are expected to be comprised surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural
silty clay soils. Based on the following soil parameters which may be considered representative of the
predominant and typical soil conditions in the area, and minor groundwater seepage which is expected to
occur under wet weather conditions from the weathered zone within the subgrade soils (within a typical
depth of 1.2 m below ground surface along the top of the slope). The soil parameters used in our analysis
are as follows:
Predominant Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m3) Angle of Internal Friction Cohesion (kPa)
Compact Clayey Silt 19.5 28 o 10
A minimum factor of safety of 1.4 is recommended as the threshold for an acceptable slope stability, as
indicated in the report “Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes” prepared for the Ministry of Natural
Resources. A number of potential failure types were assessed, including shallow slumping/sliding failures,
medium depth rotation failures near the crest of the slope, and deep rotational failures through the entire
height of the slope.
Slope stability calculations using Slope/W software indicate the following range of factors of safety:
Cross Section Shallow Sliding Failure Medium Depth Failure Deep Rotational Failure
Slope Profile A > 1.82 > 1.51 > 1.66
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
4 | Page
The slope stability analysis yields a minimum factor of safety of 1.51, which exceeds the minimum factor of safety
noted above, and as a result, the analysis indicates that the slope is in a stable condition. This is consistent with
the findings of the Atkinson Davies analysis.
Review of Flooding Hazard
The Lake Erie 100-year flood elevation is identified as 175.70 m asl, and the Big Otter Creek 100-year flood
elevation is at 176.02 m asl. These elevations are approximately 2.5 m and 2.2 m below the top of the
proposed retaining wall on the southern limit of the Site. Based on this information, the flooding levels of
Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek do not pose a flooding hazard for the site.
Erosion Hazard
LDS has also considered the effects of toe erosion and undercutting along the toe of the slope. As noted in the
”Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shoreline and
Watercourses Regulation”, the erosion hazard along the Lake Erie Shoreline is defined as the average annual
rate of recession extended over a 100-year period. As noted in Section 6.1.8 in the Municipality of Bayham Official
Plan, the erosion hazard limit extends the following distance (D):
D = 3h +100r (or 30 metres, whichever is greater)
where h = height of the slope, 9 m
r = rate of erosion (conservative estimate of 0.3 m/year)
The above calculation yields a result of 57 m. The southern property limit is some 110 to 165 m from Lake Erie,
and is separated from the lake by a public beach and parking area. As such, the erosion hazard is not considered
a concern for the proposed development.
Conclusions of Slope Assessment
From a geotechnical standpoint, development at the site, and construction into the existing slope can be
carried out without detrimental impact to the long-term slope stability, provided that some care is taken by
the contractors doing the work, and by adhering to the geotechnical comments provided in the Atkinson
Davies Report, and the comments provided below.
Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations
The owner has proposed the construction of 21 condominium units, as shown on Figure 4, appended. The
rear wall of the units which will be built into the slope will be constructed as structural retaining walls, to
support the loading of the slope, which continues northward from the proposed building area.
In addition, the following comments are provided to supplement the Atkinson Davies Report, and are
provided to help mitigate the occurrence of shallow sliding failures within the slope, and to help maintain
the overall stable slope configuration.
During the demolition of the existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs, all
construction materials and debris should be removed from the proposed building footprints,
including foundations and concrete slab floors.
Site review by the geotechnical consultant recommended during the installation of the foundations
in this area, to monitor the installation and to ensure that suitable soil bearing capacity is achieved.
The site review should also include confirmation that excavations are set below the design frost
depth (1.2 m below grade).
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
5 | Page
The design of the foundation walls which are built into the slope should be designed as an earth-
retaining structure, and reviewed by a structural engineer. In the event that shallow groundwater or
perched groundwater conditions are encountered in the slope or open cut excavations, the building
foundations should incorporate suitable permanent drainage systems, to prevent or reduce the
build-up of porewater pressures against the foundation walls. Perimeter weeping tile drains should
be provided with a suitable outlet.
Where possible, uncontrolled surface water flows from the rooftops and hard surfaces should be
directed away from the face of the slope, to reduce the risk of surface erosion.
The Atkinson Davies report identified the presence of drainage tiles. Although not observed by LDS, it
is recommended that in the event that existing tiles or field drains are exposed during the excavation
and site work for the proposed buildings, that the drains should be re-routed to ensure continued
controlled flows into an appropriate discharge location away from the slope face.
Vegetation on the slope should be maintained, where possible. A program of plantation where
appropriate, including deciduous trees and deep-rooted vegetation is recommended in landscaped
areas.
As noted previously, consultation with the Long Point Region Conservation Authority for review of site-specific development plans is recommended, and a Section 28 Permit will be required for construction with
their Regulated Area.
A soil bearing capacity of 143 kPa (3000 psf) was identified in the Atkinson Davies report. This soil bearing is
consistent with the value we would expect for the natural subgrade soils, below the topsoil and any fill material
which may be present at the site. Site inspection by a geotechnical engineer is recommended to verify the soil
bearing capacity during construction. At that time, if there are any loose or unstable soils present at the founding
level, the geotechnical consultant can provide recommendations for subgrade or foundation enhancements, if
required.
Final design drawings including the final building location, services etc. should be reviewed by this office to
ensure that the comments and recommendations provided in this report have been properly interpreted.
Closing
We trust that this report is satisfactory to your present requirements and we would be pleased to assist you
in subsequent phases of this project through to completion. Should you have any questions, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
Rebecca A. Walker, P. Eng. Principal, Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-200-3742 rebecca.walker@LDSconsultants.ca
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
6 | Page
Attachments: Slope Stability Rating Chart Site Photographs – Still Shots from Drone Footage, February 18, 2021 Figure 1 – Topographic Plan Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph Figure 3 – Quaternary Geology Figure 4 – Development Plan
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: February 18, 2021
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope
Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m
0
2
4
8
4
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
2
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 25
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope?
If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 112 to 165 m from the southern property limit, and
separated by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
8 | Page
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – STILL SHOTS FROM DRONE FOOTAGE
Photograph 1: Looking north (oblique) towards the site.
Photograph 2: Looking north towards existing slope across the site. Retaining walls (armourstone block on the west (left) and concrete block (right) are in place to accommodate changes in the site grades sloping down towards the lake.
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
9 | Page
Photograph 3: Looking down on the west side of the site. The existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs are expected to be removed to accommodate the new development.
Photograph 4: Looking down on the east side of the site.
Topographic Plan
Date:
February 2022
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
1
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic Map
www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/MakeATopographicMap
/index.html?viewer=Make_A_Topographic_Map.MATM&locale=en-CA
Scale:
As Shown
NORTH
2016 Aerial Plan
Date:
February 2022
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
2
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic Map
www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/MakeATopographicMap
/index.html?viewer=Make_A_Topographic_Map.MATM&locale=en-CA
Scale:
As Shown
NORTH Brock Street
Quaternary Geology
Date:
February 2022
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
3
Source: Quaternary Geology of the Port Burwell Area, Southern Ontario;
Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2601, Scale 1:50,000, 1998 Scale:
As Shown
SITE
NORTH
Development Plan
Date:
February 2022
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
4
Source: Site Plan provided by Barry Wade Design Construction Management,
dated December 7, 2021
Scale:
NTS
NORTH
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
15875 Robins Hill Road, Unit 1
London, Ontario N5V 0A5
www.ldsconsultants.ca
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Barry Wade Homes Inc.
“BEACH HOUSE LANE”
Proposed residential development – 21 townhouse dwelling units
2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell. Ontario.
Applications for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw.
Prepared for: Barry Wade Homes Inc. REVISED February 2022
LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION 1599 Adelaide St. N., Units 301 & 203 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225
London, ON N5X 4E8 Kitchener, ON N2R 0L3
P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093
www.sbmltd.ca sbm@sbmltd.ca
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
February 20, 2022
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line
P.O Box 166
Staffordsville, Ontario
N0J 1Y0
Attention: Margaret Underhill
Re: “REVISED Applications for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw by Barry Wade
Homes Inc. for “BEACH HOUSE LANE” -- Proposed residential development – 21 townhouse dwelling
units at the assembled properties of 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell. Ontario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Margaret:
Please find enclosed here with a REVISED set of applications and supporting materials in response to
your letter of February 4, 2022 – attached for convenience. The entire application and supporting
documents are being submitted on- line. Please advise if you require hard copy.
This letter will summarize the revisions corresponding with the 8 items in your letter of February 4,
2022.
Item 1: The Owners’ names have been added to the Applications and a letter from the team’s lawyer,
Marshall Mayne dated February 19,2022 is attached to further explain the authorization of the
application.
Item 2: Regarding the Elgin County Official Plan, Section A4.4, Infrastructure, has been reviewed and
further analyzed and is contained in the revised Planning Justification Report. This includes the Traffic
Assessment with a sightline analysis and the Shadow Study contained within the set of Plans in the
Appendix.
Item 3: Regarding the Bayham Official Plan, Section 4.2.4 has been reviewed and further analyzed and
is contained in the revised Planning Justification Report. This includes further explanation of
intensification and impact assessment on neighbouring lands.
Item 4: Regarding the Bayham Official Plan, Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 has been reviewed and further
analyzed and is contained in the revised Planning Justification Report. This includes further explanation
of 5 of the 6 items listed. The sixth item on storm water management is addressed as part of Item 7.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Item 5: Regarding the Bayham Zoning Bylaw, Sections 4 and 11 have been reviewed and further
analyzed the result of which is contained in the revised Planning Justification Report.
Item 6: Regarding the PPS, County OP and local OP, on SLOPE STABILITY, our geotechnical engineer
team member at LDS Engineering has revised their Report and it is submitted herewith.
Item 7: Regarding the FUNTIONAL SERVICING STUDY, our civil engineer team member at CJDL
Consulting Engineers has revised their Report and it is submitted herewith.
Item 8: Is generally a Summary of the previous 7 items and addressed above. The one exception is
“MNR approval along the Lake Erie shoreline”. It is our understanding that this of Municipal
jurisdiction who may consult MNR for advice and recommendations on a development application
such as what is being submitted by Barry Wade Homes Inc. The Applicant’s development team has
reviewed and analyzed the policy and regulatory framework and has explained its findings in the
geotechnical report by LDS.
Draft Plan of Condominium application: Your Feb. 4th letter asked that the application for Draft Plan of
Condominium application be submitted to the County at the same time as the OPA and ZBA application
are being submitted to the Municipality so as to have a “complete” application submission. In our
experience, the Draft Plan of Condominium is not required as part of the complete OPA/ZBA complete
submission to the Municipality. However, again in our experience, if the Condominium was to be the
“vacant land” type, it would be prudent to make the submission with the OPA/ZBA submission, so as to
enable the combining of the required public meetings for each planning instrument all to be at one
public meeting. This approach would facilitate efficient public engagement. Barry Wade Homes Inc. is
proposing a rental and/or condominium tenure. However, if the tenure is to be one of “ownership”, it
would be by way of a “standard” condominium type. This type of condominium does not require a
public meeting. Therefore, there is no advantage in submitting such condominium application at this
time. In fact, the condominium draft plan would be prepared “after” construction takes place such
that the condo plan would be more precise and accurate. As a result, Barry Wade Homes Inc. does not
intend to make application to the County for Plan of Condominium approval at this time.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to working with the Municipality in the next steps
of the approval process. Should you require any further information, or verification of the submitted
materials, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP.
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
cc. Barry Wade Homes Inc.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and WHY THE PROPOSAL IS SOUND LAND USE PLANNING ....................... 1
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
3 Site Description and PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4
4 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................. 11
5 Planning Policy Framework ...................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) ............................................................................................................ 11
5.2 Municipality of Bayham Official Plan....................................................................................................... 13
5.3 County of Elgin Official Plan .................................................................................................................... 25
6 Zoning By-Law and the recommended zoning ........................................................................... 32
7 Issues identified in pre-consultation ......................................................................................... 37
8 AREA RESIDENT CONSULTATION .............................................................................................. 37
9 PARKLAND DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... 38
10 Closing ..................................................................................................................................... 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Provincial Policy Statement
The County of Elgin Official Plan
Municipality of Bayham Official Plan: 2014-2034
Zoning By-Law of the Municipality of Bayham
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND WHY THE PROPOSAL IS SOUND LAND USE PLANNING
Barry Wade Homes Inc. propose a 21-unit residential townhouse condominium development at #2
Robinson Street and #3 Erieus Street, on a assembled property of 3603.5 m2 (0.89 acres). The
townhouse development would be provided with full municipal services and would be located within
the Settlement Area of Port Burwell. Both parcels of land will be legally joined, or merged, to
accommodate the proposed residential development. The subject site is unique and significant with it
being on a major embankment that affords grand views of Lake Erie and the Port Burwell beach and
harbour. Access would be from Robinson Street. Acknowledging that the subject site has a steep
slope the questions about development opportunity potential are answered by supporting studies
comprising, a Slope Stability Study and a Functional Servicing, which accompany the two development
applications. The embankment would be made more stable by virtue of the townhouse having
foundations that would act as a structural retaining wall. The project represents sound land use
planning for the following reasons:
1. The townhouse condominium development would be a low-rise form of residential
development that would help frame a picturesque view from Lake Erie and the
Beach.
2. The townhouse condominium development would provide for additional housing
in a location near many amenities, such as the beach, the harbour, downtown and
other amenities in the former Village of Port Burwell and beyond;
3. The townhouse condominium development would comprise dwelling units of 2 and
3 storeys and range from 1271 sq. ft. (118 m2) to 2243 sq. ft. (208 m2) of total living
area and 2 parking spaces for each. Both family and non-family households could
be accommodated.
4. The townhouse condominium development would be compatible with single
detached homes in the area and not block the views of existing residential
development which is demonstrated in the sections and profiles in the Plan set.
5. The townhouse condominium development would be of a high level of design and
be built with quality materials to provide a functional and aesthetic housing project
that would enhance the overall image and perception of the Village.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 2
6. The proposed residential condominium development is supported by the necessary
background studies including a Slope Stability Study and a Functional Servicing
study.
7. The Barry Wade Homes Inc. proposal complies with the land use planning policy
framework comprising the Provincial Policy Statement, the County of Elgin Official
Plan and the Bayham Official Plan. SEE IMAGES BELOW FOR CONCEPTS.
Two applications are being made, comprising:
1. Application for an AMENDMENT to the OFFICIAL PLAN—to the Municipality;
2. Application for an AMENDMENT to the ZONING BYLAW—to the Municipality;
An application for a DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM (Standard) may eventually be submitted to the County.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 3
2 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the following land use Planning Justification Report is to evaluate the 21-unit townhouse
condominium development within the context of existing land use policies and regulations, including the
Provincial Policy Statement, County of Elgin Official Plan, the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan, and
the Zoning By-law of the Municipality of Bayham. As seen in Figure 1, the subject lands are located at
the south end of Robinson Street, on the east side and overlook the beach and harbour of Port Burwell.
Figure 1. Subject Lands shown in red boundary - in Poplar Hill (Source: Elgin Maps).
This Report, the two development applications and the supporting reports and studies are provided in
response to the PRECONSULTATION MEETING held on February 8, 2021, with the Municipality of Bayham
staff and its Planning Consultant, the County of Elgin staff, and Long Point Region Conservation Authority.
A SUMMARY from both the Municipality and the Conservation Authority are contained in the Appendix.
Subject Site
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 4
Supplemental information is also provided from the Municipality on parkland dedication and contained
in the Appendix.
This Report demonstrates that the proposed residential development would be consistent with
Provincial, County and Municipal land use planning policies, is suitable for the subject lands, and would
be compatible with neighbouring land uses.
Figure 2 below shows a Google Map of the Village with its Beach, Harbour, Marina and the Provincial
Park to the west. The Subject site is shown by the red tag.
Figure 2 – aerial image. Subject site is shown in red tag. (source: Google Maps)
3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The subject lands are located at #2 Robinson Street and #3 Erieus Street. Robinson Street is a major road
in the Village of Port Burwell providing access from the north to the Village Centre and southerly to the
Beach and Harbour. See the Site and Building Design plans in Appendix.
Lake Erie
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 5
SITE DESCRIPTION
Owner: Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Municipal Addresses - #2 Robinson Street and #3 Erieus Street
Area: 3603.5 m2 (0.89 ac) rectangular – irregularly shaped.
Lot width or frontage: 40.234 m along Poplar Hill Road
Lot depth: 100 m+-
Legal description: The property at #2 Robinson Street is legally described as Lots 6 and 7 East of Robinson
Street, Registered Plan 12, Former Village of Port, Burwell, Township of Bayham, County of Elgin. The
property at 3 Erieus Street is legally described as Lot 6, Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 12, Former Village
of Port Burwell, Township of Bayham, County of Elgin, Reference Plan 11R-3556 Parts 2&3, PCL 6-1 SEC
12.
Site features and context – The site fronts onto Robinson Street and extends along its east side for about
100 m to the Erieus Street road allowance. On the site is an existing residence fronting close to Robinson
Street and this budling is proposed to be demolished. An armour stone retaining wall and a concrete
block retaining wall are located on the west and eastern limits of the subject lands respectively. These
elements are proposed to be removed.
The slope is steep from north to the south with a grade difference of about 8 m. The slope is mostly
grassed with some deciduous trees.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - “BEACH HOUSE LANE”
Proposed Buildings and Features: SEE APPENDIX for site plan, floorplans, elevations and renderings.
• 21 townhouse dwelling units
• 3 buildings – shown as Blocks;
o Block A – contains 4 dwelling units and would be 3 storeys in height;
o For Block A, Living area per units would a total of 2243 sq. ft. (208 m2);
o Block B – contains 8 dwelling units and would be 2 storeys in height;
o Block C – contains 9 dwelling units and would be 2 storeys in height;
o For Blocks B and C, Living area per units would a total of 1271 sq. ft. (118 m2);
• Each unit would have a large front deck to view Lake Erie – and front observation decks
ranging from 16 m2 to 45 m2 in area
• Each unit would have two parking spaces and 6 additional parking spaces;
• Full municipal services;
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 6
• A communal AMENITY AREA of 336 m2 ;
• Private garbage pick-up using the inground bin system for Blocks B and C, and public on-
street garbage pick-up for Block A;
• Access would vis Robinson Street and AGM Engineers and surveyors have provided an
assessment of sight lines to ensure the traffic operational safety along Robinson Road. Below
is an email excerpt from AGM, dated February 7, 2022 which reads….
From: Dan Wade <dan@agm.on.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 3:24 PM
To: Barry Wade <barry@barrywade.ca>
Subject: Beach House Lane - Safe Stopping Sight Distances
Barry
We have checked the Safe Stopping Sight Distances for both of the proposed entrances and they
both meet the minimum distance requirements for a Design Speed of 50km/hr. including an
allowance for the down gradient in the south bound direction.
Regards
Dan Wade
AGM Plan ● Survey ● Engineer
3514 White Oak Road London, ON N6E 2Z9
T: 519 685 5300 E: dan@agm.on.ca W: www.agm.on.ca
F: 519 685 5303
Please see the SIGHT LINE PLAN prepared by AGM in the Appendix.
• The tenure would be rental and/or “standard” condominium which enables each resident to
own their UNIT to which they individually maintain.
o The major COMMON ELEMENT would be the private road and associated lighting,
providing accesses from Robinson Street and the underground parking structure for
Block A. Other COMMON ELEMENTS would be the green space, open space, the
retaining walls not part of the individual dwelling unit structure, the garbage pick-up
area and the walkways and stairways within the development.
o The DECLARATION is required as part of the condominium approval, and this is a
document that describes in detail the structure, responsibilities and financial
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 7
commitment by the residents to ensure the ongoing viability of the condominium
corporation. There would be a monthly condominium fee to pay for common
element maintenance and replacement. In addition, requirements to maintain the
overall architectural design and harmony of the development is set out.
Figure 3 - View from Beach parking lot looking north, showing mostly #2 Robinson St portion of subject
lands with slope, retaining wall and cottage all to be removed. Robinson Street is to the left.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 8
Figure 4 - View from Beach parking lot looking northeasterly, showing mostly #3 Erieus St. portion of
subject lands with slope, retaining walls. Erieus Street road allowance is to the right just off the photo. .
Figure 5 - View from Beach parking lot looking easterly, showing mostly #3 Erieus St portion of subject
lands with slope, retaining. The Port Burwell beach park extends easterly up the hill – centre of photo –
and Beach parking lot is in foreground and to the right.
Figure 6 - View from Robinson Street looking south-east showing the Beach and access to parking lot and
#2 Robinson Street in centre of photo with existing residence, and adjacent northerly residence, #4
Robinson Street on left. The access for proposed Block A would be #2 residence.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 9
Figure 7 - View from Robinson Street looking north-east showing the private lane access to #6 and #8
Robinson Street residences. #4 Robinson is to the right. #10 Robinson is to the left centre behind the
large deciduous tree.
Figure 8 - View Erieus Street looking south showing the #7 Erieus Street residence and the dead-ending of
the public street roadway but the continuation of the road allowance southerly to the Beach.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 10
Figure 9 - View Erieus Street looking south from Brock Street, showing the #10 Erieus Street residence
and the dead-ending of the public street roadway and Park on left side.
Figure 10- View Brock Street from Erieus Street looking west showing the residences along it including the
townhouses on north side (right).
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 11
4 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The subject lands are predominantly surrounded by low density residential areas. (see Figure 1).
North – At the top of the slope are existing residences #4, #6, and #8 Robinson Street, and #7 Erieus
Street. Number 6 and 8 Robinson Street properties access via a private mutual lane that connects
to Robinson Street.
South –Port Burwell Beach and Park, and Lake Erie;
West – Robinson Street and then open space lands and the Port Burwell Harbour;
East - Erieus Street road allowance – unopened and the continuation of the Port Burwell Beach and Park.
5 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following section identifies most of the relevant policies, reviews and analysis same to determine
consistency and conformity.
5.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act
“provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning” in order to
ensure efficient, cost-efficient development and the protection of resources.:
• Create healthy, liveable and safe communities that are sustained by:
o promoting efficient development and land use patterns;
o accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix
of residential types (including single-detached, additional residential units,
multi-unit housing, affordable housing and housing for older persons),
employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including
places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes), recreation, park
and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs
o avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or
public health and safety concerns;
o promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and
servicing costs;
o ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available
to meet current and projected needs (Policy 1.1.1).
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 12
• Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development (Policy 1.1.3.1).
• Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land
uses which: a) efficiently use land and resources; b) are appropriate for, and efficiently
use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and
avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion; c) minimize negative
impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency; d) prepare for
the impacts of a changing climate; e) support active transportation; f) are transit-
supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed; and g) are freight-
supportive (Policy 1.1.3.2).
• Section 1.4 on Housing contains several relevant policies. Section 1.4.1 thru 1.4.3 states
that (planning authorities) are to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing
types and densities…..; permitting and facilitating all forms of housing ; all forms of
intensification; promote densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources,
infrastructure, and support active transportation and transit.
• Sections 1.6.6.2 pertains to planning for sewage and water services and the preference
is for full municipal services, but private services may be permitted based on evaluation
criteria.
• Section 1.7.1 sets out policies about Long-term Economic Prosperity should be supported
by:
Promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness
• Section 3.1 sets out policies on Natural Hazards stating that:
Development shall generally be directed, in accordance with guidance developed by the Province (as
amended from time to time), to areas outside of: a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards,
erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards;
• Section 3.1.7 states that …
Further to policy 3.1.6, and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5, development and site
alteration may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects
and risk to public safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where
all of the following are demonstrated and achieved:
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 13
a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection
works standards, and access standards;
b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion
and other emergencies;
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d) no adverse environmental impacts will result.
RESPONSE: Barry Wade Homes Inc. residential proposal would contribute to the achievement of the
above policies in terms of objectives and requirements. This is achieved by way of:
• Development within a designated Settlement Area
• Full Municipal Services available and proposed – through Functional Servicing Report
• Compact multi family development making efficient use of land
• Provision for family and non-family housing
• Contributes to the community in terms of housing choice and diversity, distinguished and
complimentary architectural and site design
• Compatible in terms of form, height and massing with adjacent properties
• Geotechnical study by LDS and Atkinson Davies reports protects safety and security of
developing on slope
The proposed development would be consistent with the PPS.
5.2 Municipality of Bayham Official Plan
Schedule D of the official Plan shows that the subject lands are designated RESIDENTIAL. Figure 11 below
provides an excerpt of Schedule D – Land Use and Constraints.
In addition to the RESIDENTIAL designation is an overlay of HAZARD LANDS and abutting to the south is
an overlay designation of SPECIAL POLICY AREA #2.
Section 4.2.2 sets out policies for Residential Uses and states:
• This Plan encourages new residential development to consolidate with the existing
settlement areas listed in subsection 4.1 of the Plan by filling in the vacant areas and
locating new residential development adjacent to existing built-up areas in a compact and
contiguous fashion.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 14
• The Municipality will encourage the development of housing types other than single
detached dwellings in the villages, and where no land use conflict shall ensue, ………….
• Within the settlement areas, the Municipality will support the provision of affordable
housing accessible to lower and moderate income households. In this regard, the
Municipality will require that 20 percent of all housing which results in the creation of at
least 5 dwelling units, be affordable housing. Affordable ownership housing is considered
to be housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average
purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. Affordable rental housing is
considered to be housing for which the rent either does not exceed 30 percent of gross
annual income of low and moderate income households (60th percentile) or is at or below
the average rental price of rental units in the regional market area.
Figure 11 – excerpt of the Official Plan for the Twp of Bayham – Schedule D – Port Burwell. The subject
lands are shown in the black circle.
Section 4.2.4 sets out policies on Intensification and Redevelopment and states:
The Municipality shall encourage intensification and redevelopment within settlement area boundaries
on vacant or underutilized sites in order to efficiently utilize designated settlement area land and
available municipal services.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 15
Residential intensification and redevelopment is subject to the following policies:
a) The permitted forms of residential intensification and redevelopment shall only be permitted in
those areas designated as “Hamlets” and “Villages” and will be permitted based on the level of
water and wastewater servicing that is available in the specific settlement areas.
b) Residential intensification and redevelopment may take the form of dwelling conversion, street
infilling, rear yard infilling, and infill subdivisions.
c) Residential intensification and redevelopment may only occur to a maximum density which
maintains the minimum lot areas permitted in the Zoning By-law, and/or is deemed suitable
by the Municipality to satisfy the proposed water supply and wastewater disposal systems.
d) When considering proposals for residential intensification and redevelopment, and in addition to
all other applicable development criteria in the Official Plan, the Municipality will ensure that:
1. For dwelling conversions, ……….
2. For street infilling, the proposal is consistent with Subsection 4.4.2.4 a), and with the
established building line and setbacks of the surrounding area.
3. For rear yard infilling,………….
4. For infill subdivisions, the proposal is consistent with subsections 4.4.2.4. a) and c); and
measures will be undertaken through a subdivision agreement, to buffer and screen the
development from surrounding residential uses.
Proposals for residential intensification and redevelopment will not be supported if it is determined that
the proposal cannot satisfy the above criteria, or would present a threat to public health and safety both
on and off site.
RESPONSE: Specifically, section 4.2.4c) provides policy options about … maintains the minimum lot areas
permitted in the Zoning By-law, and/or is deemed suitable by the Municipality to satisfy the proposed water
supply and wastewater disposal systems. The minimum lot areas permitted in the ZB for townhouse buildings
would be 340 m2 per unit x 21 units = 7141 m2 for total required lot area, versus the 3603.5 m2 comprising the
actual assembled site area. This policy objectives are to ensure that “overcrowding” of units does not occur and
that the development can be properly serviced with municipal services. It is not clear whether the 340 m2 per
unit regulation is based on serviced or non-serviced housing development. The Proponent has opted for the
latter policy option which is to be “deemed suitable by the municipality”. The rationale to support this is as
follows:
• A typical 2-storey townhouse unit measures on average – 6m x 12 m = 72 m2 of ground floor area
and 144 m2 total. This accommodates a reasonably sized 3 bedroom townhouse dwelling unit. It
may or may not include a single car garage. The “lot” or dwelling unit land area to place the
townhouse unit thereon typically measures with a frontage of 6 m and by a 25 m depth = 150 m2 per
unit for the land area. The 25 m depth basically provides for a 6 m front yard ( accommodates
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 16
driveway and front lawn etc.) and a rear yard – outdoor living area - of 7 m depth. The private road
access for Blocks B and C would be 6.7 m in width times the 6m (on average) townhouse unit width
would be 40.2 m2 x 17 units = 683 m2 of land;
• The total land area typically allocated the 21 units would be 21 unis x 150 m2 per unit PLUS 683 m2
= 3833 m2. The subject assembled site is 3603.5 m2. The physical context and setting of the subject
site also should be taken into account;
• Large expanses of open and undevelopable land is located adjacently to the west, south and east
occur;
• No overcrowding of dwelling units would occur. The 7141 m2 total area required by the existing
zoning bylaw is unnecessary and excessive;
• Municipal services are shown to be available and sufficient.
The last policy statement that reads …
Proposals for residential intensification and redevelopment will not be supported if it is determined that the
proposal cannot satisfy the above criteria, or would present a threat to public health and safety both on and off
site.
… is best responded to the culmination of the evaluation of the development proposal from multiple
perspective, comprising land use planning, municipal services, social and environmental impacts. Any potential
threat to public health and safety is a prime consideration and the rationale for a multi-perspective evaluation of
the development proposal.
In the writer’s view, there would be no threat to public health and safety. In fact, it is the writer’s view that
health and safety impacts would be positive and compliment the area. The proposed development would be
significant and change the image, “for the better” of Port Burwell from Lake Erie and other directions. The
physical appearance would be improved. The slope would be more stabilized. There would be more public
surveillance over the beach and parking lot that generally would add to a more safe environment. It would add
21 family and non-family groups to the Village, which again, is generally thought to add to the economic
prosperity. The 21 dwelling units would be built based on current geotechnical standards and in accordance with
the Ontario Building Code. The Proponent also intends to make improvements to the public beach parking area
such that it would function better and be more aesthetically pleasing by introducing landscaping elements.
Section 4.2.5 sets out policy on Community Design and states:
The Municipality shall encourage development and redevelopment of lands, buildings, streets, and public
spaces applying community design excellence, contributing to the quality of place for Bayham’s residents.
The following policies relate to the physical design of communities, including plans of subdivision, infill
development proposals, and site plans.
Through the development review process for all planning applications the Municipality shall:
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 17
a) Ensure that new development is designed in keeping with the traditional character of Settlement
Areas, in a manner that preserves the traditional image and enhances the sense of place in the
Municipality;
b) Promote efficient and cost-effective development buildings, landscapes and circulation design
patterns that minimize land consumption;
c) Promote improvement of the physical character, appearance and safety of streetscapes, public
spaces, and parks;
d) Encourage tree retention and/or tree replacement on private and public lands.
e) Encourage design that considers and integrates existing and traditional street patterns and
neighbourhood structure;
f) Encourage a high quality of architecture and site design for institutional uses such as schools, places
of worship, libraries and other public service Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham
g) Encourage streetscaping that reflects the intended land use character of Settlement Areas and the
specific land use designation;
h) Encourage high quality of park and open space design. Land for parkland dedication shall be selected
to facilitate its use as a central focal point for new or existing neighbourhoods;
i) Encourage the provision of pedestrian, cycling and trail linkages through development approvals
process; and,
j) Encourage, at the Municipality’s discretion, design guidelines with development applications,
establishing how the policies of this Section have been considered and addressed. These guidelines shall
be prepared by the applicant to address physical features including streetscaping, landscaping, setbacks,
signage, garage placement, architectural treatment and related design matters.
RESPONSE: The residential proposal would conform to the above policies insofar as it comprises the
following:
• Within the Village of Port Burwell
• On full municipal services
• Is compact and makes efficient use of land
• Townhouses are proposed being something other than single detached residences
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 18
• On an under-utilized site
• More intense form of residential development using land resource more efficiently
• Affordable housing can be considered during the approval process and the
determination of whether the subject development would be appropriate in terms of
location can be decided.
• Is “street-infilling”
• In keeping with the traditional character being a port village
• Improvement of physical character of built form
• Trees planted within the site
• High quality architectural design complimentary to the context of the Port
• Seeks to contribute to high quality parkland with improvements to the Port Burwell
Beach parking lot as set out on the site plan and proposed to be paid for through the
parkland dedication cash in lieu contribution of the development. (see September 13,
2021 email from Staff on parkland dedication requirements).
Section 4.5 sets out policies about the VILLAGES and apply to future development in the Villages of
Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell during the 2018-2038 planning period……………….. The villages of
Port Burwell and Vienna have the capability of accommodating urban types of development on full
municipal services including piped water and sewerage facilities.
Section 4.5.2 Residential state:
Within the areas designated “Residential” on Schedule “B”, “C” and “D”, the primary use of land shall be
for single-detached dwellings. Two-unit dwellings and seasonal dwellings may also be permitted in
order to ensure a diversity of low-density housing types capable of meeting the needs of the Municipality.
The Municipality supports the redevelopment and residential intensification of lands in the
“Residential” designation where such lands are being underutilized. Such redevelopment or
intensification may consist of the uses outlined in Section 4.5.2.1 of the Plan and must be capable of being
serviced with municipal water and sewer services.
Natural features: Natural site features including vegetation, tree cover, and topography shall be
protected, enhanced, and incorporated into the design of the proposed development to the greatest
extent possible.
Design: Innovative housing design and site layout including energy-saving measures will be encouraged.
To achieve energy savings, particular regard shall be had to building form and size, density, lot and
building orientation, and on-site landscaping.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 19
Open space: Open space including parkland shall be provided in accordance with the policies of Section
4.5.8.
Adjacent and surrounding land use: The proposed development shall be compatible with existing (or
proposed) neighbouring land uses. Where necessary or desirable, the proposed development shall be
adequately screened from adjacent land uses by the provision of landscaping and/or buffering.
Facilities and services: Existing or proposed municipal services (including potable water supply, sanitary
sewage treatment and disposal, solid waste disposal, storm and surface drainage, roads, sidewalks, and
street lighting) shall be adequate to serve the proposed development. If these services or facilities are
deemed inadequate, the Municipality may require that an agreement be entered into with the developer
as to the design and cost apportionment of any public works required to bring these services or facilities
up to the appropriate standard.
Storm drainage: Adequate provision for stormwater management/drainage and surface runoff subject
to the requirements of the Municipality, and the statutory approval authority having jurisdiction, shall be
provided. Where in the opinion of the Municipality it is deemed necessary or desirable, the Municipality
may require the submission of a grading plan and/or stormwater management plan to ensure surface
water runoff does not adversely affect neighbouring properties or receiving watercourses.
Vehicular access: Vehicular access shall be available or made available from a public highway or public
street of reasonable construction and maintenance to permit year round access and shall be subject to
the approval of the authority(ies) having jurisdiction. In no case shall access be permitted where traffic
hazards could result due to poor sight lines or proximity to a traffic intersection. In new residential
subdivisions, the use of a curvilinear street pattern, cul-de-sacs, and other similar design features to
minimize through traffic movements shall be encouraged.
RESPONSE: The residential proposal would conform to the above policies insofar as it comprises the
following:
• Constitutes intensification and infill development on an under-utilized site
• On full municipal services
• Innovative design proposed in the form of
• Will have trees planted within the site with complimentary landscaping
• High quality architectural design complimentary to the context of the Port
• Seeks to contribute to high quality parkland with improvements to the Port Burwell Beach
parking lot
• Compatible with adjacent land uses in terms of similar residential use, 2 and 3 storey
built form, set-backs and enhanced building design
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 20
• Will provide proper Storm water facilities (CJDL Consulting Engineers Report)
• Will ensure vehicular access is safe and well designed.
• Will apply for Site Plan Approval and enter into Development Agreement
The SITE measurements are:
Area: 3603.5 m2 (0.89 ac) rectangular – irregularly shaped.
Lot width or frontage: 40.234 m
Lot depth: 100 m- varies
Units proposed – 21
Density proposed – 58.3 units per ha
Section 4.5.3.4 permits a maximum density of 35 units per ha. This density is typical of Official Plans across
southwestern Ontario and is based on flat unconstrained sites in urban fully serviced contexts. The zoning
regulation of 35upha density would yield 12 units on the subject site.
The rationale for proposing the higher density is that the site is unique because:
• with its location enabling a grand view of Lake Erie, and located on a slope, and being within a village
(urban) context;
• the slope needs to be retained and made stable. An efficient way of doing this, which was suggested by
the Municipality at Pre-consultation, was to use the rear wall of the dwelling units as a retaining wall to
stabilize the slope. This takes away the typical 6m deep rear yard from each unit. To compensate for the
absence of rear yard is an over-sized deck at the front of the units which also has the benefit of having the
view to the Lake. Placing the two- car “ports” beneath each unit also saves space (site area);
• Adjacent to a very attractive natural beach and harbour.
In conclusion, slope constraints on development have been converted to opportunities. Overall, the quality
of the living spaces proposed would be maintained. Having more dwelling units and more people able to
view the Lake and enjoy the associated amenities would work toward serving the public interest.
Section 4.5.3 sets out policies for Multi-Unit Residential state:
Permitted uses in the “Multi-Unit Residential” designation are housing in the form of triplex dwellings,
group homes and crisis housing and medium density residential uses such as townhouses and
apartment buildings, including senior citizens’ complexes……………… should target a net density of 35
units per hectare.
“Multi-Unit Residential” uses shall be provided with adequate off-street parking and should be designed,
situated, buffered and landscaped so as to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 21
“Multi-Unit Residential” developments in excess of 10 units will require site plan agreements in
accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act.
The servicing of property and the land division of property in the “Multi-Unit Residential” designation
shall comply with the policies of Section 4.5.1.8 of this Plan.
The Municipality shall encourage the redevelopment and residential intensification of lands from the
“Residential” designation, to the “Multi-Unit Residential” where such lands are being underutilized
and where they can be developed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding development
in the “Residential” designation. Such redevelopment or intensification may consist of the uses outlined
in Section 4.5.3.1 of the Plan and must be capable of being serviced with municipal water and sewer
services. Council may request that an impact study be completed by the developer in order to support a
proposed “Multi-Unit Residential” development, prior to any re-zoning or amendment to the Official Plan.
This study may examine, among other things, the potential impact on schools, traffic, the Municipality’s
infrastructure and neighbouring properties. Also discussed will be the means to address these impacts.
Development of “Multi-Unit-Residential” sites shall enhance the quality of the residential neighbourhood,
with particular attention to the effects of vehicular and pedestrian traffic operation.
RESPONSE: The residential proposal would conform to the above policies insofar as it comprises the
following:
• An Amendment to the official Plan is being applied for to change the designation of the
subject lands from RESIDENTIAL to MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL as is encouraged
• Constitutes the permitted uses of TOWNHOUSES
• On full municipal services
• Innovative design proposed in the form of townhouse of a high quality architectural
design complimentary to the context of the Port
• Will have trees planted within the site with complimentary landscaping
• Will have 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 6 additional visitor parking spaces,
whereas the zoning requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit.
• Impact study has been carried out as per following:
o Proper Sanitary and water services are feasible
o Proper Storm water facilities are feasible
o All Utilities (gas, hydro, telephone, internet) can be provided
o Slope stability and shoreline hazard risks have been studied and resolved (LDS and
Atkinson Davies Reports)
o Traffic impact minimal on Robinson Street and sight lines meet standards for
proper traffic operations
o Impacts on schools will be revised as part of the circulation to the Boards as part
of the application processing by municipality. It is expected that the students
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 22
generated from 21 townhouse units would not be a significant number and could
be accommodated within the existing schools and bussing routes.
Section 4.5.3.10 states:
Council may request that an impact study be completed by the developer in order to support a proposed “Multi-
Unit Residential” development, prior to any re-zoning or amendment to the Official Plan. This study may
examine, among other things, the potential impact on schools, traffic, the Municipality’s infrastructure and
neighbouring properties. Also discussed will be the means to address these impacts.
RESPONSE: The Planning Justification Report is being submitted with the Application that is the “impact study”.
i) The housing form being proposed would accommodate family and non-family households. The
population of the 21-unit development would likely be in the range of 42 and 84 persons (assuming 2 to 4
people per unit). Form this population, 21 to 42 children could likely be expected. It is anticipated that the
children, be they at day care age, elementary school age or secondary school age, could easily be
accommodated in the local Port Burwell Elementary School and other religious based and regional schools and
day care centres. It is further anticipated that the parkland and recreational needs would be provided by the
major park land to the east and west and most notably the beach front.
ii) Physical built form is of 3-storeys on Block A and 2 storeys on Block B and C. Consistent with the
Township’s Record of Pre-consultation, no Shadow Study is necessary given the low profile building design
proposed. Usually shadow studies are required for built form structures of 6 or more storeys. It is noted that
there exists a residence on the top of slope lands (Block A) that already casts some shadow to the property to
the north.
Barry Wade Homes Inc. has provided shadow studies for the equinoxes and the solstices at 12 noon and 4 p.m.
daily times for the Block A 3- storey residence ( 4 townhouse units) as proposed. No analysis was carried out for
the Block b and C units as they are distant from any adjacent residence. The Shadow Plans are contained in the
Appendix. For June and May and September, there are no shadows cast to any adjacent properties. For the
winter solstice – January 12 noon and 4 p.m. the shadows are expectedly greater but only for a short time.
Therefore, no significant impact is expected on adjacent properties.
iii) The public roads, such as Robinson Street are improved and can accommodate the traffic generated
from the development which would be 42 vehicles (2 per unit) plus visitors and deliveries. Total trips per day
per unit may be in the order of 10 trips per unit, totalling approximately 420 trips, which is a minor contribution
to the carrying capacity Robinson Street – a designated County arterial road. None of the new traffic would
travel along local residential streets in the area;
i) Additional description on impact on infrastructure is covered in the Elgin County Official Plan
analysis under section 4.2.4.
ii) The proposed Beach House proposal will be subject to Site Plan Approval pending successful
rezoning and amending the official plan. Details on engineering design for services, landscaping,
garbage locations etc. will be defined in detail at this stage. The site plan shows the garbage
collection pick up location internal to Blocks B and C. Garbage collection would be private for Blocks
B and C using the “enviroworks” or “mollix” garbage collection systems . For Block A the 4 dwelling
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 23
units would store their garbage until garbage collection day and then the containers would be
placed out onto Robinson Street for public pick-up.
Sections 50 and 51 of the Planning Act have to do with the subdividing of lands and parkland dedication
requirements among other matters. The Provincial Policy Statement and the official Plans generally translate
the legislation into policies which the Planning Justification report is dealing with. The Beach House proposal
would be rental, or owned in condominium tenure. The intention is to gain approval of the OPA and ZBA and
then decide on the future tenure- ownership status of the development.
Section 4.5.4 sets out policies for Harbour Residential/Commercial and state:
In the “Harbour Residential/Commercial” designation permitted uses include townhouses targeted to a
net density of 35 units per hectare; stacked townhouses to a targeted net density of 60 units per
hectare; apartments to a targeted net density of 75 units per hectare; marinas and associated uses,
including boat storage and repairs; parks, schools and churches; tourist commercial establishments;
and parking areas. The waterfront is considered an important element to the community at large.
RESPONSE: This designation is located to the west of the subject lands on the west side of Robinson
Street and east of the Harbour is so designated and permits the same and complimentary uses to the
subject residential proposal.
Section 3.3.2 sets out policies for the (overlay designation) Specific Policy Area No. 2 – Port Burwell
Harbour and states:
In addition to the policies of Section 6.1, the lands within the “Hazard Lands” designation in Port Burwell
which are generally situated south of Robinson Street, and east of the Big Otter Creek and extending into
Lake Erie, are designated as “Specific Policy Area” on Schedule “D” to this plan and may be used to
develop a marina and ancillary facilities. These lands will remain in a holding zone until such time as the
conditions regarding development as outlined in Section 6.1 of this Plan can be accommodated to the
satisfaction of the Municipality, in consultation with the Province and the Conservation Authority.
RESPONSE: This designation is adjacent and permits the complimentary uses to the subject residential
proposal.
Section 6.1.1 sets out policies for the “Hazard Lands” designation and state:
The Hazard Lands designation applies to areas which exhibit or potentially exhibit a hazardous condition
as a result of their susceptibility to flooding, erosion, dynamic beach hazards, subsidence, slumping,
inundation or the presence of unstable soils, unstable bedrock, or steep slopes.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 24
In the Municipality of Bayham the boundaries of the “Hazard Lands” designation have been generalized
on Schedule “A2”, “B”, “C”, and “D” to follow the regulation limit determined by the Long Point Region
Conservation Authority due to the absence of detailed engineered flood line mapping in the Municipality.
These areas may be used for any of the uses permitted in the underlying land use designation found
on the map. In all cases the location of buildings and structures for purposes other than flood or erosion
control will be regulated through the provisions of the Zoning By-law after Municipal Council has
consulted the Conservation Authority where applicable.
The “Hazard Lands” designation within Port Burwell, adjacent to Big Otter Creek was determined through
the simulation of the 100-year hydraulic flood as established by the Conservation Authority. The lands
within the “Hazard Lands” designation represent the engineered Flood plain for the Big Otter Creek.
Bridges, culverts, hydro structures and boathouses without residential quarters, are permitted.
Sections follow to regulate:
• Buildings and Fill.
• Flood Control Work.
• Land Dedication Under the Planning Act
• Setbacks and Lot lines, Building setbacks.
RESPONSE: This overlay designation was well identified during pre-consultation and therefore the
geotechnical study by Atkinson Davies of 2005 was peer reviewed and updated by LDS Engineers in a
separate report.
Section 6.1.6 sets out policies for the Consideration of Amendments and state:
Where any land designated as “Hazard Lands” is under private ownership, the Plan does not intend
that this land will necessarily remain as hazard land indefinitely, nor shall it be construed as implying
that such land is free and open to the general public or that the land will be purchased by the
Municipality or any other public agency. Applications for the redesignation of “Hazard Lands” for other
purposes may be considered by the Municipal Council after consultation with the Conservation
Authority and various Ministries or agencies and after consideration of the following: The existing
physical hazards; The potential impacts of these hazards; The proposed methods by which these impacts
may be overcome in a manner consistent with accepted engineering techniques and resource
management practices; and, The costs and benefits in monetary, social and biological value in terms of
any engineering works and/or resource management practices needed to overcome these impacts.
RESPONSE: The geotechnical study by Atkinson Davies of 2005 was reviewed and updated by LDS
Engineers in a separate report. This initiative helps to support the use of the above policy to enable
“re-consideration”.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 25
Section 6.1.8 sets out policies for the Lake Erie Shoreline and state:
The Lake Erie shoreline area is a strip of land immediately adjacent to Lake Erie that is influenced by
flooding, erosion, and dynamic beach hazards and may present a hazard to any structures within this
area.
For the purpose of the Official Plan the “Hazard Lands” will begin at the furthest landward limit of these
three shoreline hazards. The flooding hazard limit will extend for a distance determined by the following
formula: …………………
The policy of this Official Plan is to allow structures within this area only if the erosion at the building site
in question has been decreased to zero by a stabilization project. Such stabilization project must be:
Designed and supervised by a registered Professional Engineer; Approved by the appropriate
Conservation Authority, Municipal Council and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
RESPONSE: The geotechnical study by Atkinson Davies of 2005 was peer reviewed and updated by LDS
Engineers in a separate report. This initiative helps to support the use of the above policy to enable
“re-consideration”.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the writer that the proposed residential development is in conformity
with the policies of Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham.
5.3 County of Elgin Official Plan
Section A3 sets out the 12 GOALS of the County which have been reviewed with the conclusion that
the residential proposal herein contributes to the achievement of the goals in direct and direct ways.
Section A4 sets out the STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES of the County upon which are based on the Goals
A summary of relevant ones are set out below with the bolded phrases being most applicable, as
follows:
A4.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN
a) To create compact communities with a range of services that includes necessary amenities and
transportation options and affords equitable access to a range of local economic and social
opportunities.
b) To promote the creation of pedestrian-oriented built environments that provide comfort, safety,
accessibility for persons with disabilities and encourage the creation of safe and barrier-free
linkages between residential, commercial, institutional and other areas.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 26
c) To ensure that housing is available to all ages, abilities, incomes and household sizes, and is
located in areas near public transportation, jobs, and essential goods and services.
d) To recognize downtowns, historic areas or districts as mixed-use, vibrant places ……………..
e) To focus new development in settlement areas, in accordance with the tiered settlement areas
policies of Section B2.5 d) of this Plan.
f) To allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary when appropriate …………..
g) To identify and highlight the importance of the ‘port’ communities along the Lake Erie shoreline.
h) To encourage intensification to areas within settlement areas that are fully serviced.
Sections B, C, D, E and F are the Land Use Policies upon which are based on the Strategic objectives.
Plan.
A4.2 NATURAL SYSTEMS
a) To protect natural heritage features and areas …………
b) To ensure that land use planning contributes to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of
water and related resources and aquatic ecosystems ………….
c) To recognize that a healthy community is made up of an interconnected system of open spaces and
natural heritage features and areas.
d) To minimize negative changes to the water quality and hydrological and hydrogeological functions …
e) To promote land use decisions that incorporate water conservation measures ……………
f) To minimize the loss of life and property damage caused by natural hazard processes associated with
natural systems by directing development and site alteration to areas outside of hazardous lands.
A4.3 ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
a) To reinforce the function of the downtown areas in settlement areas as cultural, administrative,
entertainment, retail and social focal points of the community.
b) To support the role of the 'ports' in the County as the primary locations for tourism and related
economic activity.
c) To support the growth of new industry sectors, and the transition of existing industry sectors…….
d) To establish and maintain strong links with education and research institutions and companies.
e) To encourage the protection of the County’s cultural heritage resources ……………..
f) To establish tools that provide the incentives required to encourage desired forms of development
in the right locations, along with the provision of needed public amenities.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 27
g) To provide opportunities for a wide range of appropriately scaled agriculture-related and secondary
uses in the Agricultural Area.
h) To ensure that at all times, the County has a 20 year supply of serviced residential, employment and
commercial land, ………..
i) To encourage local municipalities to provide for the broadest range of employment uses …………
j) To identify County Roads 4, 19, 73 and 103 and the County roads that parallel the Lake Erie Shoreline
as the primary tourism corridors in the County.
k) To encourage local municipalities in their Official Plans to permit tourism and recreation ……..
l) To encourage local municipalities to pre-zone lands within their community …………………….
A4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
a) To establish an integrated transportation system that safely and efficiently accommodates various
modes of transportation including automobiles, trucks, public transit, cycling and walking.
b) To ensure that the construction of all infrastructure, or expansions to existing infrastructure, occurs
in a manner that is compatible with adjacent land uses and with a minimum of social and
environmental impact.
c) To encourage the efficient use of land to make the best use of infrastructure and services.
d) To encourage the development of public facilities in appropriate locations at the right time to meet
the needs of present and future residents.
e) To protect the function of County Roads by only permitting development that would be compatible
with that function. Where a County Road is located in an urban area the local context needs to be taken
into account.
f) To coordinate infrastructure decision-making between municipalities
Specifically, to section A4.4 b) above, the “infrastructure” comprises, public roads and sewers as well private
elements. Such elements comprise the municipal services and the retaining structure on the slope which is the
rear foundation wall of the dwelling units in Block B and C. There is also a low retaining wall along the southerly
limit in common with the beach parking lot. The policy wants to be assured of compatibility with adjacent uses
for social and environmental impacts. The following points are made to enable the conclusion that there would
be no adverse impact on adjacent uses.
iii) The municipal sewers have the capacity to accommodate the proposed flows;
iv) The public roads, such as Robinson Street are improved and can accommodate the traffic generated
from the development which would be 42 vehicles (2 per unit) plus visitors and deliveries. Total
trips per day per unit may be in the order of 10 per unit, totalling approximately 420 trips, which is
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 28
a minor contribution to the carrying capacity of Robinson Street – a designated County arterial road.
None of the new traffic would necessarily travel on existing local residential streets in the area;
v) The proposed private connections for sewer and water would be underground as would be most
other utilities such as internet, cable, telephone and natural gas. Hence, they would be out of the
sight and exposure to any adjacent residents;
The private roads and driveways would be engineered to accommodate the volume and nature of residential
traffic thereon. Emergency Services would serve the proposed development from Robinson Street or the private
drive along the 17 units in Blocks B and C. The length of the private drive is less than the maximum for a fire
fighting vehicle to access. Emergency ambulance vehicles would turnaround in the driveways of the units.
Consistent with the Township’s Record of Pre-consultation, no Traffic Impact Assessment is necessary given the
low volumes of traffic generated. A Sight Line analysis was carried out by AGM Engineers and Surveyors and is
described in section 3 of this Report. It demonstrated the access points meet traffic operational design
standards.
Section B2.5 sets out the policies regarding the HIERARCHY OF SETTLEMENT AREAS stating:
a) Water supply, treatment and distribution works, along with wastewater collection and treatment
works, are the responsibility of the constituent lower tier municipalities and/or private sector
organizations engaged by the lower tier municipalities.
b) The Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System (EAPWSS) intake and treatment plant facility is located
in Central Elgin, east of Port Stanley. The EAPWSS serves several Elgin municipalities including Aylmer,
Bayham, Central Elgin, Malahide and Southwold. The System also serves St. Thomas and part of the
City of London. …………..
c) This Plan establishes a hierarchy of settlement areas based on their scale, function, and the level of
services that exist in each settlement.
d) Three tiers of settlement areas are established by this Plan as set out below:
TIER 1 -- Tier 1 settlement areas generally have the largest populations in the County and as a
consequence have full municipal services (municipal water and sewage services). …………….
TIER 2 -- The second tier includes those settlement areas which are generally smaller in population than
Tier 1 settlement areas and are on partial services (municipal water/individual onsite sewage services
or individual on-site water/municipal sewage services). …………..
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 29
TIER 3 -- The third tier includes those settlement areas which are generally the smallest communities in
the County, are predominately residential in function, and do not have any municipal services (i.e.
services are provided by individual on-site water and sewage services).
RESPONSE: Port Burwell is a Tier 1 Settlement Area and therefore designed to accommodate growth
in a compact efficient form on full municipal services. A review of the above policies draws the
writer to the conclusion that the residential proposal would contribute to the policy objectives and
meet the policy requirements.
PART C: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS of the County Official Plan sets out policies for the three primary
land use designations on Schedule A (i.e. Settlement Areas, wetlands and Agricultural Areas) and the
two overlays (aggregate and petroleum) on Schedule C in this Plan. Additional policy direction is
provided through local Official Plans.
Section C1.1.1 Residential Areas contains the following:
It is the objective of this Plan to:
a) maintain and enhance the character and identity of existing residential areas;
b) encourage the provision of a range of housing types …………….
c) promote the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure …………………
d) encourage increases in density in new development areas ……………………….
e) ensure that residential areas permit a variety of complementary and compatible land uses ……………
f) require a high standard of urban design for development and redevelopment; and,
g) encourage local municipalities to establish comprehensive design guidelines and policies to foster the
establishment of communities that are safe, functional and attractive.
Section C1.3 HOUSING POLICIES comprises the following:
C1.3.1 Goals - It is the goal of this Plan to meet the County's current and future housing needs by:
a) monitoring and ensuring that there is a 20 year supply of land for residential development with
sufficient water and wastewater capacity;
b) ensuring the provision of an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet the needs of
current and future residents;
c) assisting in the achievement of residential intensification and affordable housing by encouraging
opportunities for mixed use development in appropriate locations;
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 30
d) encouraging the use of surplus public lands for affordable housing only if the site is appropriate for
such a use and located where the use would be compatible with adjacent uses;
e) encouraging the development of seniors housing in the County;
f) encouraging the provision of alternative forms of housing for special needs groups;
g) supporting universal physical access and encourage the building industry to incorporate such
features in new residential structures;
h) encouraging the development and redevelopment of lands within settlement areas and in
appropriate locations at higher densities to maximize the use of infrastructure; and,
i) encouraging the redevelopment of brownfield properties and incentives to achieve same.
C1.3.2 General Policies
The County supports:
a) residential intensification and redevelopment within settlement areas, where an appropriate level
of physical services is or will be available in the immediately foreseeable future and subject to the
policies of this Plan. In this regard, the County will require that 15 percent of all development occur by
way of residential intensification and redevelopment;
b) the provision of alternative forms of housing for special needs groups and emergency housing, …..
c) the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock………………….
d) the utilization of available programs and/or funding, if any, from applicable levels of government for
assisted housing for households, ……………………
Local municipalities are also required to establish local Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law
provisions to allow second units in detached, semi-detached, row houses and ancillary structures.
Local municipalities are also encouraged to include local Official
Plan policies with respect to garden suites. Encouraging the establishment of second units and garden
suites will also assist in meeting residential intensification targets and the provision of affordable
housing.
C1.3.3 Affordable Housing
The County supports the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income
households. In this regard the minimum target for the provision of housing which is affordable in Elgin
County is 20%.
RESPONSE: A review of the above policies draws the writer to the conclusion that the residential
proposal would contribute to the policy objectives and meet the policy requirements of the County.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 31
Section D3 sets out policies on NATURAL AND MAN-MADE HAZARDS and states:
D3.1 Hazardous Lands - Hazardous lands are lands that could be unsafe for development due to
naturally occurring processes. Along the shoreline of Lake Erie, this means the land, including that
covered by water and the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic
beach hazard limits. …………
D3.2 Shoreline of Lake Erie - The Conservation Authorities have commissioned Shoreline Management
Plans for the Lake Erie shoreline within the boundaries of the County of Elgin. These management plans
were prepared to balance the options of shoreline prevention, protection, environmental impact,
monitoring, emergency response and public education in an overall management plan of the shoreline
resources. The recommendations of these Shoreline Management Plans and the Conservation Authority
regulations have resulted in development design standards and/or prohibition within the established
shoreline hazard lands. The shoreline hazard lands is not shown on this Plan. Instead, it is a policy of
this Plan that this area be delineated in lower tier Official Plans and zoning by-laws.
D3.3 Development in a Floodplain ………………..
D3.4 Erosion Hazard Limit -- a)Development shall be directed to an area outside of the erosion hazard
limit of a riverine valley slope. The erosion hazard limit distance shall be determined in consultation
with the affected municipality and Conservation Authority and be subject to the following criteria as
identified within the provincial technical guide for natural hazards: a) toe erosion allowance;
b) stable slope allowance (3:1);
c) flooding hazard limit or meander belt allowance; and,
d) erosion/erosion access allowance.
The erosion hazard limit will be defined on a site-by-site basis in consultation with the appropriate
Conservation Authority. Provincial guidelines related to natural hazards will be used as a basis in
determining the erosion hazard limit.
D3.5 HAZARDOUS SLOPES -- a) Development shall be sufficiently setback from the top of bank of slopes
greater than 3:1. The development setback distance shall be determined by a qualified geotechnical
engineer in consultation with the local municipality and the appropriate Conservation Authority and
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 32
be subject to the following criteria: i) soil type and groundwater patterns; ii) vegetation type and
cover; iii) severity of slope; and, iv) nature of development
RESPONSE: The above policies about protection from slope and shoreline hazards has been dealt
with by the supporting reports by LDS Consultants, Atkinson Davies Geotechnical Engineers and CJDL
Consulting Engineers which are described elsewhere n this Report and provided under separate
cover.
The over riding general conclusion is that the residential proposal by Barry Wade Homes Inc. is in
conformity with the Elgin County Official Plan.
6 ZONING BY-LAW and the RECOMMENDED ZONING
Most of both #2 Robinson Street and #3 is zoned RESIDENTIAL R1(h2). There occurs a portion in the
central area of the subject lands that is zone R1. The “h2” provision is a holding zone that is to ensure
orderly development, a subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and
servicing impacts of new development to the Municipality, will be required prior to the removal of the
“h2” zone symbol.
The R1 zone does not permit TOWNHOUSES and therefore and amendment to the Zoning Bylaw is
required.
The RESIDENTIAL R2 ZONE permits the following:
• Single-detached dwelling;
• Double duplex dwelling;
• Multi-unit residential use;
• Triplex dwelling;
• Townhouse and row house dwelling;
• Apartment building;
• Boarding house or rooming house;
• Senior citizen home;
• Group home;
• Home occupation;
• Accessory buildings and structures.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 33
Figure 12- Excerpt of the Zoning Map showing the subject lands in the red circle.
The definition in the Bylaw of Townhouses is as follows:
DWELLING, TOWNHOUSE or ROW HOUSE, shall mean a separate building containing three (3) or more
attached single units with a common masonry wall dividing the two dwelling units vertically, each of
which has an independent entrance either directly or through a common vestibule.
The rezoning proposal is to rezone from R1 to R2. The following table compares the existing regulations
of the R2 zone with the residential proposal. It is noted that the FRONT LOT LINE is considered to be
the frontage along Robinson Street, The REAR LOT BOUNDARY is the east boundary of the site adjacent
to Erieus Street. The INTERIOR SIDE YARDS are along the north and south lot lines.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 34
ZONING REGULATION -
PROVISION
REQUIRED Village RESIDENTIAL
– R2
PROPOSED BY THE 21 UNIT
TOWNHOUSES COMPLEX
Minimum Lot Area (m2)
340 m2 per unit x 21 units= 7141 3603.5 ***
Minimum Lot Frontage (m)
25 40.234
Front Yard Depth / Exterior Side
Yard Width* (min m)
6.0 1.86***
Side Yard Width (min m)
NORTH
SOUTH
FOR BLOCK A - north side yard --
Dwelling without an attached
garage or carport:
1.2 metres plus 0.5 metres for
each additional or partial storey
above the first storey. =
(1.2+0.5=0.5) = 2.2 m
FOR BLOCK B AND C – south side
yard -- 1.2 metres plus 0.5
metres for each
additional or partial storey
above the first storey = 1.7 m
2.68
6.71
Rear Yard Depth (min m)
9.0 Block A = 20.12
Block C = 4.08***
Maximum Lot Coverage (%)
50 50.2 ***
Landscaped Open Space (min %)
Not applicable --
Building Height
Not applicable --
Parking 1.5 spaces per unit 2 spaces per unit
IN SUMMARY, THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS REQUIRED IN THE R2 REZONING ARE:
1. Minimum Lot area – reduced from 7141 m2 to 3603.5 m2 OR 340 m2 per unit to 171.6 m2 per
unit;
2. Front Yard depth minimum – reduced from 6.9 m to 1.86 m or 1.7 m for flexibility;
3. Lot coverage maximum -- increased from 50% to 50.2% or 52% for flexibility;
4. Rear Yard for Block C – decreased from 9.0 m to 4.08 m or 4.0 m for flexibility.
The primary rationale for the needed special provision is that the site is very unique in terms of shape
and the slope dictates a form of development that has not been anticipated by the zoning regulations.
Specifically, the MINIMUM LOT AREA is much less because there is no rear yards for Blocks B and C =
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 35
17 dwelling units. There is no rear yard because the rear foundation walls are also retaining structures
to add stability to the slope. The rear yard has been compensated for by the large front – lake -view
front balconies/verandas of 16m2 = 171 sq. ft. in area. This area is typical of private outdoor living
spaces at the rear of conventional townhouses.
Section 11.3 - Minimum Lot area – reduced from 7141 m2 to 3603.5 m2 OR 340 m2 per unit to 171.6 m2 per
unit. The minimum lot areas permitted in the ZB for townhouse buildings would be 340 m2 per unit x 21 units =
7141 m2 for total required lot area, versus the 3603.5 m2 comprising the actual assembled site area. This policy
objectives are to ensure that “overcrowding” of units does not occur and that the development can be properly
serviced with municipal services. It is not clear whether the 340 m2 per unit regulation is based on serviced or
non-serviced housing development. The Proponent has opted for the latter policy option which is to be
“deemed suitable by the municipality”. The rationale to support this is as follows:
• A typical 2-storey townhouse unit measures on average – 6m x 12 m = 72 m2 of ground floor area and
144 m2 total. This accommodates a reasonably sized 3 bedroom townhouse dwelling unit. It may or may not
include a single car garage. The “lot” or dwelling unit land area to place the townhouse unit thereon typically
measures with a frontage of 6 m and by a 25 m depth = 150 m2 per unit for the land area. The 25 m depth
basically provides for a 6 m front yard (accommodates driveway and front lawn etc.) and a rear yard – outdoor
living area - of 7 m depth. The private road access for Blocks B and C would be 6.7 m in width times the 6m (on
average) townhouse unit width would be 40.2 m2 x 17 units = 683 m2 of land;
• The total land area typically allocated the 21 units would be 21 unis x 150 m2 per unit PLUS 683 m2 =
3833 m2. The subject assembled site is 3603.5 m2. The physical context and setting of the subject site also
should be taken into account;
• Large expanses of open and undevelopable land is located adjacently to the west, south and east occur;
• No overcrowding of dwelling units would occur. The 7141 m2 total area required by the existing zoning
bylaw is unnecessary and excessive unless it is on lands without municipal services.
Section 11.5 – Lot Coverage maximum - increased from 50% to 50.2% or 51% for flexibility. The 1% increase in
coverage is figured to be incidental and minor, that simply takes into account the uniqueness of the site, the
nature of the housing development proposed and the contribution towards the efficient utilization of the land
resource
Section 11.8 – Minimum Side Yard setback. The side yard setback requirements are met because 2.2 m is
required and the Plan proposes 2.68 m. The “attached garage” is provided with underground parking. The 3 m
wide side yard is not required to provide for a driveway and access to the rear yard. It does not appear to be on
a corner.
The proposal on Block A shows a north side yard of 2.68 m and the south side is a 2.13 m separation space to
Block B which is another form of housing but on the same property. The north side yard of 2.68 m would fulfil
the objectives of having side yards, which is to provide for light, ventilation, fire separation, building
maintenance and privacy.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 36
Section 11.7 – minimum front yard setback. The request is to reduced setback from 6.0 m to 1.86 m or 1.7 m for
flexibility. This is based on contemporary Urban design standards. These standards aim to place buildings closer
to the “public realm” or public street such as to make the street more active, animated and with greater public
surveillance. On major arterial streets in urban situations, the standard is reduced to as much as 1m. The
reduced space can fulfil the objectives of having front yards, which is to provide for light, ventilation, fire
separation, privacy, building maintenance and aesthetics from the public realm(Robinson Street).
Section 11.9 - 9.0 metres. or one-half the height, whichever is greater. (9.0 m is the greater and to be applied)
The rear yard is the setback from the east property boundary. Block A is proposed at 20.12 m and Block C is
proposed at 4.08 m. The zoned rear yard in Block C functions as a side yard and it would meet the zoning side
yard regulation. The space can fulfil the objectives of having side yards, comprising; separation, ventilation, day
light and privacy. The rear yard is the right of way of Erieus Street (unopened).
Section 4.34 - Driveway Regulations Where a Driveway is Required to Serve a Residential Use
4.34.1 The maximum width of a driveway, measured along the street line shall be nine
(9.0) metres.
4.34.2 The minimum distance between a driveway and an intersection of street lines
measured along the street line intersected by such driveway shall be nine (9.0) metres.
4.34.3 The minimum distance between an interior side lot line and any driveway, with
the exception of a mutual or common driveway, shall be one (1.0) metre.
4.34.4 The interior angle formed between the street line and the centre line of any
driveway shall not be less than forty-five (45) degrees.
Blocks A and B would meet the above regulations.
The rationale for the driveway design is to work with the one-way loop design that exists and works well. The
large “pork chop” is to encourage any left turning from the entry into the loop into the townhouse development
of Block B. Sight Line analysis conducted by AGM Engineers and Surveyors is in section 3 and the Appendix.
Parking Regulations – require 1.5 spaces per unit which includes the visitor parking. The Proposal
would provide 2 spaces per unit. Also 6 additional visitor spaces would be provided. Research has
found that the City of London allocates required parking as follows:
(ii) Visitor Parking: Multi-unit residential development including cluster detached dwellings
developments with a total of three or more units shall provide a common area(s) for visitor
designated and signed parking spaces. One (1) visitor parking space shall be provided for
every ten (10) dwelling units. The number of visitor parking spaces may be included within the
total number of parking spaces required by the applicable zoning by-law. Where feasible,
visitor parking shall be centrally located to serve all units. These may be distributed in small
clusters to better serve the complex. Driveways or parking spaces that are, or may be
perceived for the exclusive use in association with a dwelling unit will not be considered as a
visitor parking space.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 37
7 ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PRE-CONSULTATION
Pre-consultation by way of a Proposal Summary was submitted to the Municipal Planning and County staff in
January 2021. Requirements for a Complete Application were set out and the Summaries are contained in the
Appendix.
The Barry Wade Homes Inc. development team comprises:
1. Barry Wade Design - Architecture
2. LDS Consultants for geotechnical engineering
3. CJDL Consulting engineers for Municipal Services
4. SBM Planning – Laverne Kirkness for the OPA and ZBA approval process and the Planning Justification.
5. Marshall Mayne – Legal Counsel
The main issues comprise:
1. Slope stability
2. Lake Erie Hazard
3. Community Design Impact
4. Need for an Official Plan Amendment
Issues 1 and 2 above have been dealt with by LDS Consultants and CJDL Consulting engineers in separate
reports as revised, and referenced in this document.
Issues 3 and 4 have been dealt with in the policy sections of this report.
8 AREA RESIDENT CONSULTATION
Barry Wade has personally discussed the development proposed with the abutting neighbours. The
impacts were identified and discussed. Issues of traffic, parking and fencing that may block Lake Erie
views were identified. The most notable issue was the potential to block viewing and the proposed
development has focussed in on this matter specifically to ensure no abutting resident would lose their
view of the Lake Eire. The heights of the proposed residential buildings and the elevations of which
they are to be set at, all take into account the views of the neighbours with the result that views would
continue. The three cross sections labelled as SITE PROFILES of the development, in the Appendix,
illustrate the protection of views.
Barry Wade Homes has offered the following to ensure the proposed residential development would
be compatible with the neighbouring residential properties as set out below:
• Abutting residences, #6 and #8 Robinson Street, are located on small lots and have minimal rear
yards which is the setback of the buildings from their south property boundaries which and is the
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 38
direction to which Lake Eire is viewed. To ensure minimal impact on these two residences and in
fact enable them to improve their physical situation, Barry Wade Homes Inc. has offered to sever
and sell a parcel of land measuring 3 m x 11 m (approximately) such they would have an increased
rear yard;
• Barry Wade Homes Inc. has proposed plans that do not require the use of the lane common to
#4 and #6 Robinson Street, such that no additional traffic or parking demands would be placed
on the narrow lane ways;
• Barry Wade Homes Inc. has agreed not to place any fencing in the development that would
obstruct views of Lake Erie
9 PARKLAND DEDICATION
At Pre-consultation parkland dedication as discussed and the subsequent email dated September 13,
2021, advises that it would be cash in lieu and based on a land appraisal prepared by an accredited
appraiser. Barry Wade Homes Inc. is in agreement with this requirement but does request that some
of the dedication monies be directed to improving the parking area of currently serving the Port
Burwell Beach. A Plan of improvement has been provided in the set of plans provided in the Appendix
(drawing #A1-2). This Plan increase the efficiency of the parking lot by increasing the number of spaces
and provides some aesthetic landscape areas to make the public facility more attractive. This can be
further discusses during the process of the applications.
10 CLOSING
Based on the analysis herein, the proposal for 21 townhouse condominium dwelling units has
demonstrated:
1. To be a suitable use for the long-term use of the subject lands;
2. To be consistent with the PPS;
3. To be in conformity with the County of Elgin Official Plan;
4. To be in conformity with the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan’s general Planning
Principles.
5. To be in compliance with the genera intent, structure and standard regulations of the Zoning
By-law but recognize the uniqueness of the site boundaries, shape and slope;
6. To be compatible with surrounding residential land uses.
7. To be capable of being serviced with municipal services.
8. To be able to resolve constraints imposed by the Lake Erie hazard and the lope.
It is therefore requested that the County of Elgin and the Municipality of Bayham support the two
applications for an Amendment to the Official Plan and to the Zoning Bylaw.
www.sbmltd.ca Beach House Lane Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 39
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Provincial Policy Statement
The County of Elgin Official Plan
Municipality of Bayham Official Plan: 2014-2034
Zoning By-Law of the Municipality of Bayham
Barry Wade Homes Inc. development team reports and discussion.
City of London – Zoning Bylaw Z-1
APPPENDIX
1. Proposal Summary by Barry Wade Design and Kirkness Consulting Inc. – February
8, 2021
2. Pre-consultation Summaries from Municipality of Bayham, the Long Point Region
Conservation Authority and an email on parkland dedication form Bayham.
3. AGM Engineers and Surveying – Traffic Sight Lines Plan along Robinson Street
4. Lawyer letter, dated February 18, 2022 – Carlyle Peterson Lawyers – Marshall R.
Mayne regarding application authorizations.
5. Beach House Lane – drawing, site plan, floor plans, elevations and site profiles and
shadow study- Barry Wade Design.
6. Functional servicing Report by CJDL Consulting Engineers – REVISED February 11,
2022 – under separate cover.
7. Site Review and Desktop Study by LDS Consultants Inc., REVISED - February 7, 2022
(review of Atkinson Davies Geotechnical Study of 2005) – under separate cover.
8. Slope Stability Study by Atkinson Davies Inc., May 2005 – under separate cover.
1
December 5, 2021
Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Line P.O Box 166
Staffordsville, Ontario
N0J 1Y0
56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160 Attention: Margaret Underhill
Re: Proposed Waterfront Development in Port Burwell
______________________________________________________________
Dear Margaret:
Scope of Development
The intent of this application is to construct 17 Residential townhouse condominium dwelling units located at 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street. The parcels have
been assembled. I am asking for the Municipality for a pre-consult review of the proposed development, such that a full and complete application can be made for rezoning. Attached to this email are site plans, site profiles, building plans and elevations for your review and circulation to other government agencies.
Vision and Development Objectives The plans aim to show an exciting, new, and attractive small scale residential development of compact housing, that would compliment the waterfront and the village of Port Burwell. The beach, waterscape and village are looked upon as
assets that would give the proposed residential development a context that would
dictate a residential market catering to those that wish to live in a quality, efficient dwelling with interior amenities and approximately 1300 sq. ft. of living space, plus a large deck, and a two-car garage port. Outside maintenance would be very little,
such that young seniors, empty nesters would likely be the market focus.
The architecture takes on a traditional marine vibe in terms of architectural form, colours and materials. A significant retaining wall is required to enable the development to step down toward the Lake thereby maintaining views for existing
2
residences, The higher density and compact form of housing would help to offset the retaining wall costs and facilitate a market price that is within range of most.
Land Severance and rezoning:
2 Robinson street is presently zoned R1. Part of this application is to sever the existing residence from the property. The existing residence will be reconstructed while retaining the existing R1 zoning, with the balance of the existing land zoned
R1-H2 would be rezoned to R2 to permit the townhouse proposal.
Parcel two known as 3 Erieus Street will require a rezoning from R1-H2 to R2 zoning as well. This is a vacant property. Both parcels of land will be legally joined, or merged, to accommodate the
proposed development of 17 townhouses
Servicing
All services would come in from Robinson Street. Below is an itemized list of
services available.
Water: There is an existing 6” waterline main on Robinson street.
Sanitary: There is an existing sanitary manhole (EX MHS1) located approximately
132’ (40m) north of the proposed development site. A forcemain would be installed
to pump the sanitary to this manhole.
Storm: We are proposing all storm water be directed to an existing (375 mm) storm sewer on Robinson street leading to the existing Bio-swale.
Hydro: will come off of Robinson Street
Gas: Existing service is off of Erieus Street.
Soils Reports: Borehole test have been completed on 3 Erieus Street. Soils conditions are considered acceptable.
Floodplain The regulatory flood line elevation is 176.02 for this location. We are
proposing a lower floor elevation of 178.93. The proposed access and driveway is at an elevation of 178.77. This would put the road access at 2.75 meters higher than regulatory flood elevation.
Site Plan Data
2 Robinson Street: Min Lot area required 800 m2 Proposed 707m2
Proposed Development site: Proposed Lot area: 2,896 m2 .29 Hectares
Proposed coverage: 1,347 m2 47%
3
Landscape area: 707.11 m2 25% Open space: 831.47 m2 28%
Density: Required: 340 m2 per unit Proposed: 170 m2 per unit
Setbacks: Front yard require: 6 m Proposed: 1.8m Building Line Established
Rear yard required: 9 m Proposed: 3 m Interior side yard required: 1.8 m Proposed 2.98 m Exterior side yard required: 4.5 m Proposed 8.22 m
Building Height: Required Proposed: 8.23 m
Parking: Required: 26 spaces Proposed:34 spaces
We look forward to working with the staff of the Municipality to enable this
development to be constructed. Laverne Kirkness of Kirkness Consulting Inc. Urban and Rural Planning will be assisting me at the pre-consultation meeting. Sincerely yours
Barry Wade
Barry Wade
President of Barry Wade Homes Inc. 15 Jane Street, Dorchester Ontario. N0L 1G2. barry@barrywade.ca
.
Date: February 8, 2021
Time: 10:00 am – 11:10 am
Purpose: Zoom Virtual - Pre-Consultation Meeting 1
Proposal: Port Burwell Waterfront Development – Standard Condominium
Attendees:
1. Barry Wade barry@barrywade.ca
2. Laverne Kirkness laverne@laverneconsultinginc.ca
3. Leigh-Ann Mauthe, LPRCA lmauthe@lprca.on.ca
4. Nancy Pasato, Manager of Planning County of Elgin npasato@elgin.ca
5. Margaret Underhill, Acting Clerk/Planning Coordinator munderhill@bayham.on.ca
6. William Pol, IBI Group, Planning Consultant Municipality of Bayham
7. Ed Roloson, Water/Wastewater Operations Manager eroloson@bayham.on.ca
8. Bill Knifton, Chief Building Official/Drainage Superintendent bknifton@bayham.on.ca
9. Chief Harry Baranik, Fire Chief/By-law Enforcement Officer hbaranik@bayham.on.ca
Proposal Brief:
Scope and Vision
- Construct Standard Condominium with 17 residential townhouse dwelling units located at 2
Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street
- Small scale, compact two-storey, three-bedroom residential units for those who wish to live in a
quality, efficient dwelling with interior amenities and approximately 1300 sq. ft. of living space,
plus large deck and an open two-car garage port underneath; no amenities at the rear for
privacy
- Accommodation would be suitable for seasonal and year-round use
- Significant 16 ft high retaining wall required on the north side to enable the development to
step down to the lake and maintain the views for the existing residences on top of the bluff; wall
to be part of the condo agreement
- 2 Robinson St existing cottage to be demolished and replaced with new; existing reduced R1 lot
size of 707 m2
Land Use Planning
- Intensity is double of what the By-law permits – insufficient outdoor open space for the units
- Design may have an impact on the pubic beach and public events at the beach – impact
assessment as per OP Section 4.5.3.10
- Official Plan Amendment required with Planning Justification Report to re-designate to multi-
unit residential
– reference Section 4.5.3.9 encourages redevelopment and residential intensification for
underutilized lands in settlement areas with full services by way of OPA from residential
to multi-unit residential, when compatible to surrounding development
– reference Section 8.5.1.2 Background Reports listing
- Community Design – any considerations to using the building as the “retaining wall”?
- Erieus St Road Allowance – appears to be included in the design – check on the status
- Zoning By-law Amendment required for the 2 Robinson St retained parcel and the condominium
parcel to address corner lot side yard, rear yard, density etc.
- Site Plan Control Agreement – required for the condominium development
- Parkland Dedication Fee – Bayham staff to confirm the requirement for Condominium
- Should be an updated Slope Stability Plan – to be determined by LPRCA
- Consider referencing the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan
- Site plan to consider emergency access, waste collection, service vehicles
LPRCA
- See attached provided by Leigh-Ann Mauthe
County
- Applicant has indicated they are looking to apply for a Standard (phased) condominium
- Advised to contact the County once site plan has been applied for with Municipality of Bayham
to go over requirements and timing for application.
- Severance application – criteria for review incudes consideration of hazard lands “will not have
an adverse effect on natural hazard processes such as flooding and erosion” – will need to
demonstrate this with any consent application.
Servicing
- Capacity is not an issue for the water and sanitary sewer systems
- No water loop required - water line existing along Robinson St to beach parking area to the
washrooms and back up to Brock St
- Pumping station for sewage - an Agreement required
- Full Servicing Plan required
- Add an additional fire hydrant closer to the development
- Proposal is for one service to the property – meter at each unit
Fire & Building
- Consideration in the design for maximum # units together before fire separation
- Car Ports – protect the building above with separation
- Recommend but cannot require residential sprinkler system for extra protection
- Engineer the plans to the Fire Code
- Hydro pole in the middle of the proposed driveway – consider relocation
Roads (Steve Adams unable to attend)
- Hydro Pole – existing pole feeds the beach washrooms and a second feed to the pole light in the
west side parking lot – consideration for relocation which will cause power outages at the beach
(any works to be done should be done in the off-season)
- Stormwater Management Plan required – overland water cannot be directed on to the street or
the beach parking lot and the laneway should have catch basins located on the south side of the
laneway to catch any water from the driveways and building
- Storm Drain Oil Separator – recommended to have In the system before it flows in to the bio-
swale –the separator will need to be cleaned by the property owner annually in order for this to
be affective – confirmation of cleanout provided to the municipality annually
- Access – ensure clear sightlines being adjacent to the hill. The Highway Traffic Act suggest (not
mandatory) that laneways are not placed on a hill or within 50 metres of the top or bottom of
an incline
- Municipality may need to consider road widening/dedication along Robinson St ROW – to be
determined
Developer end-of-meeting comment:
- Will look at the Erieus St road allowance
- May consider reducing the # units and incorporate the building wall as the retaining wall and
redesign to a three-storey building
Long Point Region Conservation Authority February 8/21
Staff has now had an opportunity review the request for information on the requirements for site
development. The subject property is located 3 Erieus Street– see attached, in Port Burwell, Ontario and
at this location; the property is located within the erosion hazard and flood hazardassociated with Lake
Erie. The subject lands are located entirely within the Regulation Limit of O. Reg. 178/06 and permit from
this office is required for any proposed site development.
Section 3.1.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, generally directs new development to areas
outside of hazardous lands adjacent to the shoreline of the Great-Lskes -St. Lawrence River Systems and
large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, and erosion hazards. New development
within the stable slope is not permitted and manipulation of the slope via retaining walls is generally not
permitted.
Reports/information required:
- Site topography to include vertical datum, depending on the vertical datum the foundation of
the proposed development may need to be engineered to withstand any potential damages
from flood forces,
- Coastal assessment may be required,
- An updated geotechnical investigation unless the Professional Engineer states the study is still
valid. An update may be required to appropriately scope the project and/or to complete the
study to today’s standards,
- The retaining wall must be designed/reviewed by a Professional Engineer with competencies in
geotechnical engineering and a Professional Engineer with competencies in structural
engineering,
- The redevelopment of 2 Robinson Street requires consideration of the stable slope allowance,
setbacks and information relating to lateral load on retaining wall.
The Elgin Shoreline Management Plan was originally adopted as policy by the LPRCA Board of Directors,
however, this motion was formally recidended and is not adopted policy by LPRCA.
Further to our conversation with regard to development at 3 Erieus Street in Port Burwell and the on
site hazards, below is an excerpt from the Technical Guide for Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River
Shorelines Part 4 Erosion Hazard to aid in explaining the potential for slope instability or failure. Also,
please find the link to the document in its entirety;
https://www.lprca.on.ca/userfiles/files/2017%20Updates/Tech%20Guide/GL%20Tech%20Guide%20PAR
T4%20Erosion%20Hazard.pdf
Figure 4.10
Please find below the applicable excerpt from the Policies for the Administration of the Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. Also, included
is the link to the document in its
entirety, https://www.lprca.on.ca/userfiles/files/2017%20Updates/LPRCA%20Consolidated%20Poli
cies%20%20October%202017.pdf
8.5 Lake Erie Shoreline – Shoreline Erosion Hazards
About 200 kilometres of Lake Erie shoreline is within the jurisdiction of the LPRCA. For the purposes of
defining the extent of the Regulated Area, a 15 metre (50 foot) allowance is added to the furthest
landward extent of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic beach hazard.
A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) was completed by Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited in
December 1989 and subsequently adopted by the LPRCA. The plan lays out the technical basis and
recommended management plan for the lakeshore. The Lake Erie Shoreline Erosion Hazard and Lake
Erie Dynamic Beach Hazard are determined based on information from the Shoreline Management Plan
and updated shoreline mapping.
Defining the Lake Erie Shoreline Erosion Hazard
The Lake Erie Shoreline Erosion Hazard is defined as the average annual rate of recession extended over
a 100 year period. The erosion hazard is determined using an erosion allowance (equal to 100 times the
average annual recession rate) and a stable slope allowance (equal to the horizontal distance measured
landward from the predicted toe of the slope equal to 3 times the height of the cliff, bluff or bank)
(Figure 10). Where there is insufficient data to estimate an average annual recession rate, an erosion
allowance equal to 30 metres (100 feet) is used.
General Policies for Lake Erie Shoreline Erosion Hazard
The following policies apply to development proposed in a Regulated Area subject to a Shoreline Erosion
Hazard.
Development within the Regulated Area associated with the Lake Erie shoreline will not be permitted
except in accordance with the recommendations of the currently-approved Shoreline
Management Plan for the applicable shoreline reach and the policies in Sections 8.5.2-8.5.12.
Development associated with existing uses located within Lake Erie Shoreline Flooding or Erosion
Hazards may be permitted in accordance with the policies in Sections 7.1.2-7.1.3 – General
Policies, and where there is no feasible alternative site outside the flooding or erosion hazard,
provided that it can be demonstrated that:
a) the proposed development is located in an area of least (and acceptable) risk
b) the proposed development is set back from the top of slope and is located in an area
where the slope stability factor of safety is not less than 1.3-1.5 depending on the site
conditions, type of use and size of the building or structure,
c) the setback from the top of stable slope includes an erosion hazard component that
recognizes the effectiveness, integrity, residual design life and maintainability of any
existing erosion protection works; and
d) a maintenance access of at least 5 metres (16 feet) is retained to and along existing
shoreline protection works.
Current policies and guidelines do not support investment and development of a building or structure
within the unstable slope.
The proposed location for development at 3 Erieus with regard to potential slope failure or instability
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact our office.
Coments provided by:
Leigh-Anne Mauthe, BES
Supervisor of Planning Services
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
From:Marg Underhill
To:Laverne
Cc:Laverne Kirkness; "Barry Wade"
Subject:RE: PB Waterfront Development - Pre-Consultation Meeting Notes Feb 8/21
Date:September 13, 2021 4:32:32 PM
Attachments:image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.png
Good Afternoon Laverne
My apologies for not getting back to you in a timely manner on this question. Barry
reminded me today that I hadn’t provided an answer re cash-in-lieu parkland dedication
fees.
The cash-in-lieu amount will be based on 5 % of the value of the land, OP 8.18 (Planning
Act rate). This requires a property evaluation/assessment performed by a fully credited
appraiser. The $2,000 fee is for a residential lot by consent (Section 5 b) of the By-law).
The previously reviewed pre-con sketch included public ROW lands (Erieus St) the exact
size of the development lands is not known as yet and of course, planning permissions are
first.
The Planning Act indicates that the monies from the cash-in-lieu can be used in a special
account to be used for public park acquisition or “any other public recreational purpose”.
This may suggest that a Municipality (Council) could agree with the applicants to allocatethe money to a specific area, in this case the beachfront area.
Please let me know if you require additional information.
Regards,
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning CoordinatorMunicipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160Straffordville ON N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222F: 519-866-3884
munderhill@bayham.on.cawww.bayham.on.ca
Be smart – Stay apart – Stay healthy!
From: Laverne [mailto:laverne@kirknessconsultinginc.ca]
Sent: June 14, 2021 10:01 PM
To: Marg Underhill <MUnderhill@bayham.on.ca>
Cc: Laverne Kirkness <lkirkness@sbmltd.ca>; 'Barry Wade' <barry@barrywade.ca>
Subject: RE: PB Waterfront Development - Pre-Consultation Meeting Notes Feb 8/21
February 18, 2022
The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160
Straffordville ON
N0J 1Y0
Attention: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator
Dear Ms. Underhill:
RE: Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment - 2 Robinson Street
and 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell
Our File No. 19109
We are the solicitors for Barry Wade and Barry Wade Homes Inc. and have been provided with a
copy of your February 4, 2022 letter, which deemed the above applications to be incomplete. We
would like to take this opportunity to address item #1 in your February 4 letter, which states,
“Application Form Incomplete – all landowners to be included on the applications”
It is our understanding that revised applications have been submitted that include all registered
owners of the subject lands. Mr. Wade has also provided you with an authorization letter from
the owners of 2 Robinson Street, Michael and Reta Glen appointing Mr. Wade and Barry Wade
Homes Inc. as their agents with respect to the official plan and zoning by-law amendment
applications for 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, as required pursuant to section 17 of the
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application and section 18 of the Official Plan Amendment
Application. If there is a specific issue with this authorization, please let us know and we are
happy to provide an updated authorization form.
For your information, Mr. Wade has entered into a binding agreement of purchase and sale with
Mr. and Ms. Glen to purchase 2 Robinson Street. This agreement contains an assignment clause
that allows Mr. Wade to assign the agreement to a related corporation. When the purchase of 2
Robinson Street is completed, 3 Erieus Street and 2 Robinson Street will have the same owner.
Based on the foregoing, we believe that item #1 in your February 4 letter has been properly
addressed, but if you require more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours very truly,
carlylepeterson Lawyers LLP
Marshall R. Mayne
*Executed Pursuant to the Electronic Commerce Act
Per:
Marshall R. Mayne
BFBFBOA
R
DW
A
L
K
BOA
R
D
W
A
L
K
CONCRETE SIDEWALKBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSBEACH ACCESSPUBLIC DOCKS
ROBINSONSTREET PITT STREETGR
E
EN
S
P
AC
EBFBF C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
EW
A
L
K
PUBLIC DOCKS
V
E
CH
I
C
L
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
F
O
R
FI
R
EWO
R
K
S
GR
E
EN
S
P
AC
E
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
BLOCK A
ENTRANCE
BLOCK B & C
ENTRANCE
ARCHIBALD, GRAY & McKAY ENGINEERING LTD.LONDON 685-5300E N G I N E E R I N G S U R V E Y I N G
3514 WHITE OAK ROAD, LONDON, ON, N6E 2Z9ENGINEERING LTD.
EMAIL info@agm.on.ca WEB www.agm.on.caPHONE 519-685-5300 FAX 519-685-5303
ARCHIBALD, GRAY & McKAY
PLAN SURVEY ENGINEER
BARRY WADE HOMES INC.
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A0.1
COVER SHEET
B E A C H H O U S E L A N E - P O R T B U R W E L L , O N T A R I O
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A0.2
INTERIOR RENDERINGS
B E A C H H O U S E L A N E - P O R T B U R W E L L , O N T A R I O
BLOCK B & C
2.68 m north side
171.6 sm PER UNIT
PROPOSEDPERMITTED
ROW HOUSING
4.08 m
40.234 m
1.86 m
R2
10m
ZONES R2
LOT AREA
FRONT & EXTERIOR
SIDEYARD DEPTH (M)
PERMITTED USES
LOT FRONTAGE
REARYARD DEPTH (M)
INTERIOR SIDEYARD DEPTH
(M)
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT (M)
COVERAGE (%) MAX.
15 m
9 m required
6 m
340 sm PER UNIT
50% MAX.
1.2 m plus .5m per
additional floor
ROW HOUSING
MAIN FLOOR
SF
SECOND FLOOR
TOTAL
SM
912
751 69.8
2,243
84.7
208.4
COMMON AREA
GROSS LOT AREA 3,603.5
LANDSCAPE AREA
38,788
SF SM
BUILDING AREA 19,458 50.2%
%AC HEC
0.890 0.360
PARKING REQUIRED.42 SPACES
PROVIDED.
1.5 SPACES PER UNIT
32 SPACES REQUIRED
MAIN FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
SF SM
TOTAL
592 54.9
789 73.3
1,271 118.1
24.7%
9,735 25.1%
1,807.7
904
Block A
Block A
6.7mBlock B&C
50.2%
OBSERVATION DECK AREA
OBSERVATION DECK AREA
491
175 16.3
45.621.9% OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
13.8% OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
Z O N I N G D A T A
B U I L D I N G D A T A - B L O C K A
S I T E D A T A
COTTAGECOTTAGE
BH3
BH2
BH1
CB
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
B U I L D I N G D A T A - B L O C K B & C
CBROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEBLOCK A
BLOCK C
COMMON
AMENITY GREENSPACE
GREENSPACE
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
BLOCK B
PROPERTY LINE 334' (101.80m)PROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)THIRD FLOOR 53.8580 PROP.LINE 32' (9.83m)178.68COTTAGE
COTTAGE
PROPERTY LINE 165' (50.32m)
DRIVEWAY ERIEUS STREETA1.1
SITE PLAN
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
PROPOSED RAMP TO U/G PARKING
UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 UNIT 9 UNIT 10 UNIT 11 UNIT 12
UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 15 UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 18 UNIT 19 UNIT 20 UNIT 21
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
EXIT
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
ENTER
ADD. 6 VISTOR PARKING TOTAL 16 VISTOR PARKINGS
3,620 SF 336 SM
STAIRCASE9,595 891
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
KI
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A1.2EX TREEPROPERTY LINE 334' (101.80m)178.68POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKING
LOT TO ADD PLANTING AREA ERIUS STREET P R O P O S E D P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
PROPOSED PUBLIC BEACH
PARKING LOT PLANPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYBLOCK B BLOCK C
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A1.3
SHADOW STUDY
JAN.12 - 12:00PM JAN.12 - 4:00PM
JUL.12 - 4:00PM
MAR.12 - 4:00PM
AUG.12 - 4:00PM
JUN.12 - 4:00PM
SEP.12 - 4:00PM
JUL.12 - 12:00PM
MAR.12 - 12:00PM
AUG.12 - 12:00PM
JUN.12 - 12:00PM
SEP.12 - 12:00PM
9485909193959688898786858483909193949596888987868584839091939495968889100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION (BIG OTTER)
100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION87868483186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
GREENSPACE PARKING LOT EDGEBEACH EDGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPARKING LOT EDGEPROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINEGRAVEL PARKING LOT
TOP OF CB
S C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
S I T E S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
S I T E S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
R O B I N S O N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N
WATERS EDGE100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION (BIG OTTER)
100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION (BIG OTTER)
100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
INVERT STORM ELEVATION
186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
WATERS EDGEWATERS EDGEBEACH EDGEOBSERVATION DECK
PROPERTY LINECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
COTTAGECOTTAGE
OBSERVATION DECK
GRAVEL PARKING LOT
GRAVEL PARKING LOT
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A2
SITE PROFILES
KITCHEN
69 SF
T H I R D F L O O R P L A NM A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A NL O W E R F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"751 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"580 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"912 SF
PARKING PARKING STOR
LIVING ROOM
DINING
OBSERVATION DECK
WR
ELEV
OPTIONAL
LAUNDRY
ELEV
OPTIONAL
ENSUITE
MASTER BEDROOM
WR
BEDROOM 1
CLO
ELEV
OPTIONAL
BARRECREATION / STUDIO ROOM
BONUS BEDROOM
DINING
WR
MECH
T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A
ROOF TOP PATIO
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK
B L O C K A
ROBINSON STREET PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESIDEWALK RAMP
L A K E E L E V A T I O N
B L O C K CB L O C K B
S C A L E 1 / 16 " = 1 ' - 0 "
RAMP
PARKING PARKING STOR PARKING PARKING STOR PARKING PARKING STOR PARKINGPARKINGSTOR
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
DINING
OBSERVATION DECK
WR
ELEVOPTIONAL
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
DINING
OBSERVATION DECK
WR
ELEVOPTIONAL
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
DINING
OBSERVATION DECK
WR
ELEVOPTIONAL
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
DINING
OBSERVATION DECK
WR
ELEVOPTIONAL
ELEVOPTIONAL
ENSUITE
MASTER BEDROOM
WR
BEDROOM 1
CLO
ELEVOPTIONAL
ENSUITE
MASTER BEDROOM
WR
BEDROOM 1
CLO
ELEVOPTIONAL
ENSUITE
MASTER BEDROOM
WR
BEDROOM 1
CLO
ENSUITE
MASTER BEDROOM
ELEVOPTIONAL
WR
BEDROOM 1
MECH
WR
ROOF TOP PATIODINING
BONUS BEDROOM
RECREATION / STUDIO ROOMBAR OPTIONALELEV
MECH
WR
ROOF TOP PATIODINING
BONUS BEDROOM
RECREATION / STUDIO ROOMBAR OPTIONALELEV
MECH
WR
ROOF TOP PATIODINING
BONUS BEDROOM
RECREATION / STUDIO ROOMBAR OPTIONALELEV
MECH
WR
ROOF TOP PATIO DINING
BONUS BEDROOM
RECREATION / STUDIO ROOMBAROPTIONALELEV
O V E R A L L L O W E R F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 1/16 "=1'-0"
O V E R A L L M A I N F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 1/16 "=1'-0"
O V E R A L L S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 1/16 "=1'-0"
O V E R A L L T H I R D F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 1/16 "=1'-0"
LAUNDRYLAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A3
FLOOR PLANS
BLOCK A
ELEVATIONS
A42018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
B L O C K A - E A S T E L E V A T I O NB L O C K A - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
OBSERVATION DECK
SIDEWALK
12 DEGREE RAMP
12 DEGREE RAMP
SIDEWALK B L O C K A - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
B L O C K A - W E S T E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
BLOCK A
MASTER BEDROOM
ENSUITE
WR
OBSERVATION DECK
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOMBEDROOM
OPEN CARPORT
MECH
STOR
WR FOYER
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
M A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
604 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"789 SF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C
MASTER BEDROOM
ENSUITE
WR
OBSERVATION DECK
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOMBEDROOM
OPEN CARPORT
MECH
STOR
WR FOYER
LF
MF
ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FOUNDATION
B L O C K B - W E S T E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "PROPERTY LINES C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
B L O C K B - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
M A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
604 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"789 SF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
B L O C K B - E A S T E L E V A T I O N
BEDROOM
MASTER BEDROOM
SKYLIGHT
OPENING
UTILITY
LIVING SPACE
ATTIC
PARKING
OBSERVATION DECK
T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A5
BLOCK B AND C
BEACH HOUSE LANE TOWNHOUSES
FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
PORT BURWELL, ONTARIO
21086
16 December 2021
Revision 1 – 22 February 2022
Page 1
16 December 2021 21086
Revision 1 – 22 February 2022
BEACH HOUSE LANE TOWNHOUSES
FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
PORT BURWELL, ONTARIO
1.0 Introduction
The proposed Beach House Lane Townhouses development consists of a 0.38 Ha (0.9 Ac) parcel of land at
2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, within the Community of Port Burwell and the Municipality of Bayham
(the ‘Site’). The property is owned by Barry Wade Homes Inc., the ‘Developer’. The property at 2 Robinson
Street is legally described as Lots 6 and 7 East of Robinson Street, Registered Plan 12, Former Village of Port
Burwell, Township of Bayham, County of Elgin. The property at 3 Erieus Street is legally described as Lot 6,
Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 12, Former Village of Port Burwell, Township of Bayham, County of Elgin,
Reference Plan 11R-3556 Parts 2&3, PCL 6-1 SEC 12.
The Site is bounded to the south by the Port Burwell public beach parking lot, to the east by an unused
portion of the Erieus Street right-of-way (ROW), to the west by Robinson Street, and to the north by existing
cottages. An armour stone retaining wall and a concrete block retaining wall are located on the west and
eastern limits of the property respectively. An 18o to 28o+ slope, approximately 8-9m in height, is located
between the base of the retaining walls and the lower level of the property adjacent to the Port Burwell
beach public parking lot.
2.0 Proposed Development
The development proposal for the Site consists of constructing three (3) townhouse buildings to provide
twenty-one (21) residential units. One four-unit townhouse building fronting Robinson Street (Block A) will
be located at the top of the existing slope and two townhouses (Blocks B and C), with 8 and 9 units
respectively, will be located at the base of the slope and serviced by a private internal access road. The
foundation walls of Blocks B and C at the base of the slope will be designed as structural retaining walls to
support the existing slope. The townhouses will be sold individually and a plan of condominium established
over the property.
3.0 Contour Plan
Ground surface elevations were assumed for the site based on existing design drawings enclosed in
Appendix A and historical topographic data in the area. A detailed topographic survey of the site will be
completed at the site plan application stage of the project.
Page 2
4.0 Sanitary Servicing
There are two options for the proposed development’s sanitary servicing outlet: existing MH1 on Robinson
Street or existing MH15 on Erieus Street as shown on design drawings enclosed in Appendix A. The existing
topography on the property does not allow for gravity sanitary service to be provided. The proposed
development will be serviced by private sanitary sewers that outlet to a proposed sanitary pumping station
on the property. The pumping station can be located on the eastern or western limits of the Site depending
on which outlet is chosen, and convey sewage flows to existing sanitary sewers on Erieus Street or Robinson
Street, respectively. The pumping station will remain privately owned and maintained by the condominium.
The Municipality of Bayham has confirmed that the existing sanitary sewer network and Port Burwell
sewage pumping stations have sufficient capacity to receive sanitary flows from the proposed development.
Sanitary flows from the proposed development can be estimated using a flow rate 365 L/cap/day as per the
Municipality of Bayham Design Standards for residential developments and a population density of 3
persons per unit. Therefore, sanitary flows for 21 units, excluding infiltration, is calculated as 22,995 L/day
or 23.0 m3/day.
5.0 Stormwater Management
The site has varying topography with the southern portion generally at the lake level, northern portion at
the Port Burwell tableland, and a slope approximately 8-9m high in the middle of the site. Pre-development
drainage (0.38ha± @ C = 0.35) generally flows to the south towards Lake Erie. The native subsurface soil
consists of surficial topsoil and sand fill overlying natural silty clay soils.
The site falls under the jurisdiction of the Long Point Conservation Authority and is located within the LPRCA
Regulation Limit, as shown by the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-Law Z456-2003 – Schedule I.
Similar to the sanitary servicing, there are two options for the proposed development’s storm servicing
outlet: the existing 375mmø sewer @ 6.7% on Robinson Street or the existing 865x1345mm elliptical sewer
@ 0.97% located within the Erieus Street ROW. Design drawings for each storm sewer outlet option are
enclosed in Appendix A.
The proposed development will be serviced by a network of surface swales and storm sewers that, in post-
development conditions (0.38ha± @ C = 0.72), will direct runoff to one of the existing storm sewer outlets
to the east or the west of the site. Peak stormwater flow during a 5-year design storm generated from the
proposed development is estimated to be 61.7 L/s, which corresponds to 14% and 2% of the total sewer
capacity of the Robinson Street and Erieus Street sewers respectively.
Post-development quantity control will not be provided due to the site’s proximity to Lake Erie. Stormwater
quality control will be provided by means of an Oil Grit Separator which can be installed upstream of the
existing storm sewer outlets. An EF-4 Stormceptor, or equivalent, sized to treat 0.38ha± of run-off (C = 0.72)
will capture >90% of run-off and will provide an estimated net annual sediment (TSS) load reduction of 84%.
Refer to Appendix B for a detailed Stormceptor Sizing Report.
The Lake Erie 100-year flood elevation (175.70m) and the Big Otter Creek 100-year flood elevation (176.02)
are approximately 2.5m± and 2.2m± below the top of the proposed retaining wall on the southern limit of
the Site. Lake and creek water levels do not pose any flooding concerns for the site.
Page 3
6.0 Water Supply
Water servicing will be provided from the existing 150mmø watermain on Robinson Street. A new 150mmø
watermain will be extended into the lower level of the property with individual 25mmø services to units 5-
21 and a 50mmø individual service will be provided from Robinson Street to Units 1-4 at the top of the
Robinson Street hill. The Municipality of Bayham has confirmed that the existing watermain network has
sufficient capacity to service the proposed development.
A new fire hydrant will be installed off of the internal access road to provide fire protection as per OBC
standards. The Municipality has indicated that a looped watermain connection is not required, however is
available between Robinson Street and the Erieus Street ROW. A looped connection to Erieus Street may be
required to meet fire flow demands as per OBC and Fire Underwriter Survey (FUS) Guidelines. Modelling of
the water network may be required to confirm this.
7.0 Electrical and Utilities
It is anticipated that electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities will have adequate capacity
available on Robinson Street for connection/extension of underground utilities to service the proposed
development. Contact with the various utility companies will be during the site plan application process.
An existing hydro pole on Robinson Street will potentially conflict with the entrance of the proposed
development. Relocation of the hydro pole, if required, will take place during off-season as to not impact
electricity supply to public beach washrooms.
8.0 Roadwork
A common driveway connected to Robinson Street will provide access to underground parking for each
residential unit of the Block A townhouse. Individual carports for each unit of Blocks B and C will have access
to a 6.71m wide private road connected to Robinson Street at the bottom of the hill. The road surface will
be hot-mix asphalt with concrete curb and gutter to prevent erosion in the roadway and ensure long term
durability.
A 0.8m± high retaining wall will be constructed on the south side of the access road to allow for typical
grading design and to create a distinct separation from the existing public beach gravel parking lot.
9.0 Grading and Geotechnical
A Site Review and Desktop Study was completed by LDS Consultants Inc. (26 February 2021) to evaluate the
previously completed Slope Stability Assessment by Atkinson Davies Inc. (12 May 2005) with respect to the
current development proposal. The LDS Study (2021) concluded the overall slope stability on site to be in a
stable condition, as indicated in the Atkinson Davies Report (2005).
The Atkinson Davies report made note of several tiles which were observed to be outletting near the toe of
the slope. These tiles were not observed as part of the LDS Study but the lands were expected to still contain
some portion of these drains.
Page 4
In the event that drainage tiles are uncovered during construction of the proposed townhouses, they will
be re-routed or relocated to ensure controlled flows into an appropriate discharge location away from the
slope face. Consideration will be made to outlet re-routed tile drains to the proposed storm sewers of the
development if possible.
The rear walls of Blocks B and C are recommended to be constructed as structural retaining walls to support
the loading of the existing slope. Other recommendations are provided by LDS pertaining to design and
construction of the development. Refer to the LDS and Atkinson Davies Reports enclosed in Appendix C for
further details.
Preliminary grading concepts developed by Barry Wade Homes Inc. indicate that grading slopes steeper
than 3H:1V may be required to maximize usable greenspace on site. Where proposed grades are steeper
than 3H:1V, reinforced earth geogrid slopes or approved equivalent should be designed by a geotechnical
engineer.
10.0 Plan of Condominium
It is understood that the proposed townhouses will be developed as a Plan of Condominium. The required
sanitary pumping station is proposed to be owned by the Condominium Corporation and operated and
maintained by a licensed operator, such as the Ontario Clean Water Agency or similar. Sewers and water
services located within the limits of the Condominium are proposed to be maintained by the Condominium
Corporation.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Cameron Cluett, P.Eng. Andrew Gilvesy, P. Eng.
CJC/
APPENDIX ‘A’ - DRAWINGS
Drawing A1.1: Site Plan (Barry Wade Group, 7 DEC 2021)
Drawing A2: Building Elevations (Barry Wade Group, 1 DEC 2021)
Drawing 1-9: Robinson Street Sanitary Sewer (Giffels Associates Limited, JUNE 1983)
Drawing 1-11: Erieus Street Sanitary Sewer (Giffels Associates Limited, JUNE 1983)
Drawing 4422.1A-3: Robinson Street Storm Sewer Outlet (Meritech Engineering, 7 JULY 2017)
Drawing 2: Erieus Street Storm Sewer Outlet (Spriet Associates Limited, 16 SEPT 2019)
APPENDIX ‘B’ – PRELIMINARY STORMCEPTOR DESIGN
STORMCEPTOR®
ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL SEDIMENT (TSS) LOAD REDUCTION
Recommended Stormceptor EF Model:EF4
Estimated Net Annual Sediment (TSS) Load Reduction (%):84
Project Name:Robinson Street Beachfront Condominiums
Project Number:21086
Designer Name:Cameron Cluett
Designer Company:CJDL
Designer Email:ccluett@cjdleng.com
Designer Phone:519-688-1000
EOR Name:
EOR Company:
EOR Email:
EOR Phone:
Province:Ontario
City:Port Burwell
Nearest Rainfall Station:LONDON CS
Climate Station Id:6144478
Years of Rainfall Data:20
Net Annual Sediment
(TSS) Load Reduction
Sizing Summary
Stormceptor
Model
TSS Removal
Provided (%)
EF4 84
EF6 92
EF8 96
EF10 98
EF12 99
Oil / Fuel Spill Risk Site?No
Upstream Flow Control?No
Peak Conveyance (maximum) Flow Rate (L/s):
Site Sediment Transport Rate (kg/ha/yr):
Required Water Quality Runoff Volume Capture (%):90.00
Estimated Water Quality Flow Rate (L/s):10.58
Runoff Coefficient 'c':0.72
Drainage Area (ha):0.38
% Imperviousness:70.00
Particle Size Distribution:Fine
Target TSS Removal (%):80.0
Site Name:
Water Quality Runoff Volume Capture (%):> 90
11/24/2021
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 1info@imbriumsystems.com
THIRD-PARTY TESTING AND VERIFICATION
►Stormceptor® EF and Stormceptor® EFO are the latest evolutions in the Stormceptor® oil-grit separator (OGS) technology
series, and are designed to remove a wide variety of pollutants from stormwater and snowmelt runoff. These technologies have
been third-party tested in accordance with the Canadian ETV Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-Grit Separators and
performance has been third-party verified in accordance with the ISO 14034 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
protocol.
PERFORMANCE
►Stormceptor® EF and EFO remove stormwater pollutants through gravity separation and floatation, and feature a patent-
pending design that generates positive removal of total suspended solids (TSS) throughout each storm event, including high-
intensity storms. Captured pollutants include sediment, free oils, and sediment-bound pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals,
and petroleum hydrocarbons. Stormceptor is sized to remove a high level of TSS from the frequent rainfall events that contribute
the vast majority of annual runoff volume and pollutant load. The technology incorporates an internal bypass to convey excessive
stormwater flows from high-intensity storms through the device without resuspension and washout (scour) of previously
captured pollutants. Proper routine maintenance ensures high pollutant removal performance and protection of downstream
waterways.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (PSD)
►The Canadian ETV PSD shown in the table below was used, or in part, for this sizing. This is the identical PSD that is referenced
in the Canadian ETV Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-Grit Separators for both sediment removal testing and scour testing.
The Canadian ETV PSD contains a wide range of particle sizes in the sand and silt fractions, and is considered reasonably
representative of the particle size fractions found in typical urban stormwater runoff.
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 2info@imbriumsystems.com
Rainfall
Intensity
(mm / hr)
Percent
Rainfall
Volume (%)
Cumulative
Rainfall Volume
(%)
Flow Rate
(L/s)
Flow Rate
(L/min)
Surface
Loading Rate
(L/min/m²)
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Incremental
Removal (%)
Cumulative
Removal
(%)
1 20.7 20.7 0.76 46.0 38.0 100 20.7 20.7
2 16.9 37.6 1.52 91.0 76.0 94 15.8 36.5
3 11.8 49.4 2.28 137.0 114.0 88 10.4 46.9
4 8.5 57.9 3.04 183.0 152.0 83 7.1 54.0
5 6.4 64.3 3.80 228.0 190.0 78 5.0 59.0
6 4.9 69.2 4.56 274.0 228.0 76 3.8 62.8
7 3.9 73.2 5.32 319.0 266.0 75 2.9 65.7
8 3.9 77.0 6.08 365.0 304.0 73 2.8 68.5
9 3.6 80.6 6.85 411.0 342.0 71 2.6 71.0
10 2.9 83.5 7.61 456.0 380.0 69 2.0 73.0
11 1.9 85.4 8.37 502.0 418.0 68 1.3 74.3
12 1.8 87.2 9.13 548.0 456.0 68 1.3 75.6
13 1.6 88.8 9.89 593.0 494.0 67 1.1 76.7
14 1.3 90.1 10.65 639.0 532.0 67 0.9 77.5
15 1.4 91.5 11.41 685.0 570.0 66 0.9 78.4
16 0.8 92.3 12.17 730.0 608.0 66 0.5 79.0
17 0.9 93.2 12.93 776.0 647.0 65 0.6 79.6
18 1.3 94.5 13.69 821.0 685.0 65 0.8 80.4
19 0.8 95.3 14.45 867.0 723.0 65 0.5 80.9
20 1.0 96.3 15.21 913.0 761.0 65 0.7 81.6
21 0.2 96.5 15.97 958.0 799.0 64 0.1 81.7
22 0.0 96.5 16.73 1004.0 837.0 64 0.0 81.7
23 0.5 97.0 17.49 1050.0 875.0 64 0.3 82.0
24 0.5 97.5 18.25 1095.0 913.0 64 0.3 82.3
25 0.0 97.5 19.02 1141.0 951.0 63 0.0 82.3
30 1.4 98.9 22.82 1369.0 1141.0 65 0.9 83.2
35 0.7 99.6 26.62 1597.0 1331.0 69 0.5 83.7
40 0.4 100.0 30.42 1825.0 1521.0 64 0.3 84.0
45 0.0 100.0 34.23 2054.0 1711.0 57 0.0 84.0
50 0.0 100.0 38.03 2282.0 1902.0 52 0.0 84.0
Estimated Net Annual Sediment (TSS) Load Reduction = 84 %
Climate Station ID: 6144478 Years of Rainfall Data: 20
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 3info@imbriumsystems.com
RAINFALL DATA FROM LONDON CS RAINFALL STATION
INCREMENTAL AND CUMULATIVE TSS REMOVAL
FOR THE RECOMMENDED STORMCEPTOR® MODEL
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 4info@imbriumsystems.com
Maximum Pipe Diameter / Peak Conveyance
Stormceptor
EF / EFO Model Diameter Min Angle Inlet /
Outlet Pipes
Max Inlet Pipe
Diameter
Max Outlet Pipe
Diameter
Peak Conveyance
Flow Rate
(m)(ft)(mm)(in)(mm)(in)(L/s)(cfs)
EF4 / EFO4 1.2 4 90 609 24 609 24 425 15
EF6 / EFO6 1.8 6 90 914 36 914 36 990 35
EF8 / EFO8 2.4 8 90 1219 48 1219 48 1700 60
EF10 / EFO10 3.0 10 90 1828 72 1828 72 2830 100
EF12 / EFO12 3.6 12 90 1828 72 1828 72 2830 100
►Stormceptor® EF and EFO feature an internal bypass and superior scour prevention technology that have been demonstrated
in third-party testing according to the scour testing provisions of the Canadian ETV Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-Grit
Separators, and the exceptional scour test performance has been third-party verified in accordance with the ISO 14034 ETV
protocol. As a result, Stormceptor EF and EFO are approved for online installation, eliminating the need for costly additional
bypass structures, piping, and installation expense.
SCOUR PREVENTION AND ONLINE CONFIGURATION
DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
►Stormceptor® EF and EFO offers design flexibility in one simplified platform, accepting stormwater flow from a single inlet pipe
or multiple inlet pipes, and/or surface runoff through an inlet grate. The device can also serve as a junction structure,
accommodate a 90-degree inlet-to-outlet bend angle, and can be modified to ensure performance in submerged conditions.
OIL CAPTURE AND RETENTION
►While Stormceptor® EF will capture and retain oil from dry weather spills and low intensity runoff, Stormceptor® EFO has
demonstrated superior oil capture and greater than 99% oil retention in third-party testing according to the light liquid re-
entrainment testing provisions of the Canadian ETV Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-Grit Separators. Stormceptor EFO is
recommended for sites where oil capture and retention is a requirement.
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 5info@imbriumsystems.com
INLET-TO-OUTLET DROP
Elevation differential between inlet and outlet pipe inverts is dictated by the angle
at which the inlet pipe(s) enters the unit.
0° - 45° : The inlet pipe is 1-inch (25mm) higher than the outlet pipe.
45° - 90° : The inlet pipe is 2-inches (50mm) higher than the outlet pipe.
HEAD LOSS
The head loss through Stormceptor EF is similar to that of a 60-degree bend
structure. The applicable K value for calculating minor losses through the unit is 1.1.
For submerged conditions the applicable K value is 3.0.
Pollutant Capacity
Stormceptor
EF / EFO
Model
Diameter
Depth (Outlet
Pipe Invert to
Sump Floor)
Oil Volume
Recommended
Sediment
Maintenance Depth *
Maximum
Sediment Volume * Maximum
Sediment Mass **
(m)(ft)(m)(ft)(L)(Gal)(mm)(in)(L)(ft³)(kg)(lb)
EF4 / EFO4 1.2 4 1.52 5.0 265 70 203 8 1190 42 1904 5250
EF6 / EFO6 1.8 6 1.93 6.3 610 160 305 12 3470 123 5552 15375
EF8 / EFO8 2.4 8 2.59 8.5 1070 280 610 24 8780 310 14048 38750
EF10 / EFO10 3.0 10 3.25 10.7 1670 440 610 24 17790 628 28464 78500
EF12 / EFO12 3.6 12 3.89 12.8 2475 655 610 24 31220 1103 49952 137875
*Increased sump depth may be added to increase sediment storage capacity
** Average density of wet packed sediment in sump = 1.6 kg/L (100 lb/ft³ )
STANDARD STORMCEPTOR EF/EFO DRAWINGS
For standard details, please visit http://www.imbriumsystems.com/stormwater-treatment-solutions/stormceptor-ef
STANDARD STORMCEPTOR EF/EFO SPECIFICATION
For specifications, please visit http://www.imbriumsystems.com/stormwater-treatment-solutions/stormceptor-ef
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 6info@imbriumsystems.com
PART 1 – GENERAL
1.1 WORK INCLUDED
This section specifies requirements for selecting, sizing, and designing an underground Oil Grit Separator (OGS)
device for stormwater quality treatment, with third-party testing results and a Statement of Verification in accordance
with ISO 14034 Environmental Management – Environmental Technology Verification (ETV).
1.2 REFERENCE STANDARDS & PROCEDURES
ISO 14034:2016 Environmental management – Environmental technology verification (ETV)
Canadian Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program’s Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-
Grit Separators.
1.3 SUBMITTALS
1.3.1 All submittals, including sizing reports & shop drawings, shall be submitted upon request with each
order to the contractor then forwarded to the Engineer of Record for review and acceptance. Shop drawings
shall detail all OGS components, elevations, and sequence of construction.
1.3.2 Alternative devices shall have features identical to or greater than the specified device, including:
treatment chamber diameter, treatment chamber wet volume, sediment storage volume, and oil storage
volume.
1.3.3 Unless directed otherwise by the Engineer of Record, OGS stormwater quality treatment product
substitutions or alternatives submitted within ten days prior to project bid shall not be accepted. All alternatives
or substitutions submitted shall be signed and sealed by a local registered Professional Engineer, based on
the exact same criteria detailed in Section 3, in entirety, subject to review and approval by the Engineer of
Record.
PART 2 – PRODUCTS
2.1 OGS POLLUTANT STORAGE
The OGS device shall include a sump for sediment storage, and a protected volume for the capture and storage of
petroleum hydrocarbons and buoyant gross pollutants. The minimum sediment & petroleum hydrocarbon storage
capacity shall be as follows:
2.1.1 4 ft (1219 mm) Diameter OGS Units: 1.19 m³ sediment / 265 L oil
6 ft (1829 mm) Diameter OGS Units: 3.48 m³ sediment / 609 L oil
8 ft (2438 mm) Diameter OGS Units: 8.78 m³ sediment / 1,071 L oil
10 ft (3048 mm) Diameter OGS Units: 17.78 m³ sediment / 1,673 L oil
12 ft (3657 mm) Diameter OGS Units: 31.23 m³ sediment / 2,476 L oil
PART 3 – PERFORMANCE & DESIGN
3.1 GENERAL
STANDARD PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR “OIL GRIT SEPARATOR” (OGS) STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT DEVICE
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 7info@imbriumsystems.com
The OGS stormwater quality treatment device shall be verified in accordance with ISO 14034:2016 Environmental
management – Environmental technology verification (ETV). The OGS stormwater quality treatment device shall
remove oil, sediment and gross pollutants from stormwater runoff during frequent wet weather events, and retain
these pollutants during less frequent high flow wet weather events below the insert within the OGS for later removal
during maintenance. The Manufacturer shall have at least ten (10) years of local experience, history and success in
engineering design, manufacturing and production and supply of OGS stormwater quality treatment device systems,
acceptable to the Engineer of Record.
3.2 SIZING METHODOLOGY
The OGS device shall be engineered, designed and sized to provide stormwater quality treatment based on treating a
minimum of 90 percent of the average annual runoff volume and a minimum removal of an annual average 60% of
the sediment (TSS) load based on the Particle Size Distribution (PSD) specified in the sizing report for the specified
device. Sizing shall be determined using historical rainfall data and a sediment removal performance curve derived
from the actual third-party verified laboratory testing data. The OGS device shall also have sufficient annual sediment
storage capacity as specified and calculated in Section 2.1.
3.3 CANADIAN ETV or ISO 14034 ETV VERIFICATION OF SCOUR TESTING
The OGS device shall have Canadian ETV or ISO 14034 ETV Verification of third-party scour testing conducted in
accordance with the Canadian ETV Program’s Procedure for Laboratory Testing of Oil-Grit Separators.
3.3.1 To be acceptable for on-line installation, the OGS device must demonstrate an average scour test
effluent concentration less than 10 mg/L at each surface loading rate tested, up to and including
2600 L/min/m².
www.imbriumsystems.comPage 8info@imbriumsystems.com
APPENDIX ‘C’ – SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
LDS CONSULTANTS INC. 15875 Robins Hill Road – Unit 1 London, Ontario N5V 0A5
February 26, 2021
File: GE-00480
Barry Wade Design Construction Management
776497 Ontario Ltd.
15 Jane St,
Dorchester, Ontario N0L 1G2
Reference: SITE REVIEW and DESKTOP STUDY
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
3 ERIEUS STREET, PORT BURWELL
Introduction and Background
LDS Consultants (LDS) has been retained by Barry Wade Design Construction Management to carry out a
Geotechnical Review of the Site, and a review of the existing Geotechnical Report which was prepared for
the site by Atkinson Davies Inc., dated May 12, 2005. It is understood that this review has been
commissioned to address a requirement from Long Point Region Conservation Authority, to confirm that
the geotechnical comments and recommendations from the aforementioned report are still valid for the
proposed development. To facilitate our review, the client also provided LDS with copies of the Foundation
Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan Drawings which have been prepared for the proposed 20 unit condominium
development.
The proposed development is planned for the parcel located at 3 Erieus Street, in Port Burwell, Ontario,
The site is located at the southerly extent of Erieus Street, fronting onto the Port Burwell Beach and parking
area. The site slopes down towards the waterfront, and based on the drawings which have been provided
for review, it is anticipated that the condominium units will be built into the slope. A topographic plan is
provided for reference on Figure 1, along with an aerial photograph, which is provided on Figure 2, attached.
To assess the soil conditions at the site, Atkinson Davies advanced two boreholes and a test pit at the site.
Soils were described as surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural silty clay soils, which extend below
the depth of the boreholes (9.6 m). The natural subgrade soils are described as having a firm to very staff
consistency. The natural soil conditions are consistent with the soils indicated in the geological mapping for
the area, which are described as glaciolucustrine silt deposits. An excerpt from the Quaternary Geology
mapping for the Port Burwell Area is provided on Figure 3.
In May 2006, Ontario Regulation 178/06 came into effect in the Long Point Region Conservation Authority
watershed area, which locally implements the Generic Regulation (Development, Interference with
Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses). This regulation replaces the former Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways regulations, and is intended to ensure public safety, prevent
property damage and social disruption due to natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Ontario
Regulation 157/06 is implemented by the local Conservation Authority, by means of permit issuance for
works in or near watercourses, valleys, wetlands, or shorelines, when required.
Geotechnical Review February 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
2 | Page
The site is located within the Long Point Regulated lands. Property owners must obtain permission from
Long Point Region Conservation Authority before beginning any development, site alteration, construction,
or placement of fill within the regulated area. Proposed development within the study area will be subject
to the above referenced Regulation.
Site Review
A site review was carried out by LDS on February 18, 2021. At the time of the site reconnaissance visit,
much of the site was snow-covered, however it appears that the site is generally grass-covered. Although
limited areas were visible, no water seepage or signs of significant overland erosion were observed. The
ground surface appears to slope down approximately 8 to 9 m in the area with greatest topographic relief,
measured from the north to the south.
The Atkinson Davies Report makes note of several tiles which were observed to be outletting near the toe
of the slope, presumably tied to upgradient lots to the north. Although these tiles were not specifically
observed by LDS, the vacant lands are expected to still contain some portion of these drains.
During the site reconnaissance visit, LDS prepared a Slope Stability Rating Chart, consistent with the
guidance material prepared by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The Rating Chart
summarizes site observations and empirically scores various elements which contribute to slope stability,
to assess the potential for slope instabilities at the site. A copy of the chart is appended for reference. The
Slope Instability Rating is 25, indicating a slight potential for instability. This is marginally better than the
findings of the Slope Rating which was determined by Atkinson Davies, due to the presence of light
vegetative cover on the site.
Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations
The overall slope stability is considered to be in a stable condition, as indicated by the slope stability
analyses presented in the Atkinson Davies Report (2005). From a geotechnical standpoint, development at
the site, and construction into the existing slope can be carried out without detrimental impact to the long-
term slope stability, provided that some care is taken by the contractors doing the work, and by adhering to
the geotechnical comments provided in the Atkinson Davies Report, many of which are still considered
appropriate for the proposed development.
The owner has proposed the construction of 21 condominium units, as shown on Figure 4, appended. The
rear wall of the units which will be built into the slope will be constructed as structural retaining walls, to
support the loading of the slope, which continues northward from the proposed building area.
In addition, the following comments are provided to supplement the Atkinson Davies Report, and are
provided to help mitigate the occurrence of shallow sliding failures within the slope, and to help maintain
the overall stable slope configuration.
During the demolition of the existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs, all
construction materials and debris should be removed from the proposed building footprints,
including foundations and concrete slab floors.
Site review by the geotechnical consultant recommended during the installation of the foundations
in this area, to monitor the installation and to ensure that suitable soil bearing capacity is achieved.
The site review should also include confirmation that excavations are set below the design frost
depth (1.2 m below grade).
The design of the foundation walls which are built into the slope should be designed as an earth-
retaining structure, and reviewed by a structural engineer. In the event that shallow groundwater or
Geotechnical Review February 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
3 | Page
perched groundwater conditions are encountered in the slope or open cut excavations, the building
foundations should incorporate suitable permanent drainage systems, to prevent or reduce the
build-up of porewater pressures against the foundation walls. Perimeter weeping tile drains should
be provided with a suitable outlet.
Where possible, uncontrolled surface water flows from the rooftops and hard surfaces should be
directed away from the face of the slope, to reduce the risk of surface erosion.
In the event that existing tiles or field drains are exposed during the excavation and site work for the
proposed buildings, the drains should be re-routed to ensure continued controlled flows into an
appropriate discharge location away from the slope face.
Vegetation on the slope should be maintained, where possible. A program of plantation where
appropriate, including deciduous trees and deep-rooted vegetation is recommended in landscaped
areas.
Consultation with the Long Point Region Conservation Authority for review of site-specific development plans is recommended, and a Section 28 Permit will be required for construction with
their Regulated Area.
Final design drawings including the final building location, services etc. should be reviewed by this office to
ensure that the comments and recommendations provided in this report have been properly interpreted.
Closing
We trust that this report is satisfactory to your present requirements and we would be pleased to assist you
in subsequent phases of this project through to completion. Should you have any questions, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
Rebecca A. Walker, P. Eng. Principal, Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-200-3742 rebecca.walker@LDSconsultants.ca Attachments: Slope Stability Rating Chart Site Photographs – Still Shots from Drone Footage, February 18, 2021
Figure 1 – Topographic Plan Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph Figure 3 – Quaternary Geology Figure 4 – Development Plan
Geotechnical Review February 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: February 18, 2021
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope
Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m
0
2
4
8
4
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
2
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 25
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes:
Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope?
If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
Geotechnical Review February 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
5 | Page
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – STILL SHOTS FROM DRONE FOOTAGE
Photograph 1: Looking north (oblique) towards the site.
Photograph 2: Looking north towards existing slope across the site. Retaining walls (armourstone block on the west (left) and concrete block (right) are in place to accommodate changes in the site grades sloping down towards the lake.
Geotechnical Review February 2021 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
6 | Page
Photograph 3: Looking down on the west side of the site. The existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs are expected to be removed to accommodate the new development.
Photograph 4: Looking down on the east side of the site.
Topographic Plan
Date:
February 2021
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
2
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic Map
www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/MakeATopographicMap
/index.html?viewer=Make_A_Topographic_Map.MATM&locale=en-CA
Scale:
As Shown
NORTH
2016 Aerial Plan
Date:
February 2021
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
2
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic Map
www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/MakeATopographicMap
/index.html?viewer=Make_A_Topographic_Map.MATM&locale=en-CA
Scale:
As Shown
NORTH Brock Street
Quaternary Geology
Date:
February 2021
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
3
Source: Quaternary Geology of the Port Burwell Area, Southern Ontario;
Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2601, Scale 1:50,000, 1998 Scale:
As Shown
SITE
NORTH
Development Plan
Date:
February 2021
Project No.:
GE-00480
Figure No.:
4
Source: Site Plan provided by Barry Wade Design Construction Management Scale:
NTS
NORTH
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
15875 Robins Hill Road, Unit 1
London, Ontario N5V 0A5
www.ldsconsultants.ca
LDS CONSULTANTS INC. 15875 Robins Hill Road – Unit 1 London, Ontario N5V 0A5
May 2, 2022
File: GE-00480
Barry Wade Design Construction Management
776497 Ontario Ltd.
15 Jane St,
Dorchester, Ontario N0L 1G2
Reference: SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
3 ERIEUS STREET & 2 ROBINSON STREET
PORT BURWELL, MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
Introduction
LDS Consultants (LDS) has been retained by Barry Wade Design Construction Management to carry out a
Geotechnical Review of the Site, and prepare a Slope Stability Assessment Report in support of their
proposed development located at 3 Erieus Street and 2 Robinson Street, in Port Burwell. Development
plans include demolition of the existing cottage residence at 2 Robinson Street, and the creation of a 21-
unit condominium development.
It is understood that a Pre-Consultation Meeting was held with staff from the Municipality of Bayham, Elgin
County, and Long Point Conservation Authority on February 8, 2021. It is understood that this Slope
Assessment Report has been commissioned to address a requirement from Long Point Region
Conservation Authority, provide an updated geotechnical investigation. As such, this report has reviewed
the previous analysis carried out by Atkinson Davies, to confirm that the geotechnical comments and
recommendations from the aforementioned report are still valid for the proposed development, and to
update the assessment work to reflect on the current development plans which have been proposed at the
site.
Further, this report is prepared to satisfy the following requirements from the County of Elgin and
Municipality of Bayham:
County of Elgin, Official Plan (February 2015), Section D3;
Municipality of Bayham, Official Plan, Sections 6.1.7, 6.1.8 and 6.1.9.; and,
Provincial Policy Statement (2020), Section 3.1.
The aforementioned Official Plan documents from the County of Elgin and Municipality of Bayham identify
the requirements for assessment of slope hazards and developments located along the Lake Erie shoreline,
and Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement addresses development with relation to the presence of
natural hazards.
In preparing this report, LDS has reviewed a previous Geotechnical Report which was prepared for the site
by Atkinson Davies Inc., dated May 12, 2005. That report was prepared for a proposed dingle family
residence, and although the scope of the proposed development has changed, the soils information
provided in that report is considered representative of the site conditions, and the relevant information has
been incorporated into this report. To facilitate our review, the client also provided LDS with copies of the
Foundation Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan Drawings which have been prepared for the proposed 21 unit
condominium development, along with the Functional Servicing Report prepared by Cyril J Demeyere
Limited (CJDL), dated December 2021.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
2 | Page
Site Conditions and Proposed Development Plans
The Site is bounded to the south by the Port Burwell public beach parking lot, to the east by an unused
portion of the Erieus Street right-of-way (ROW), to the west by Robinson Street, and to the north by existing
cottages. An armourstone retaining wall and a concrete block retaining wall are located on the west and
eastern limits of the property respectively. The site slopes down towards the waterfront (approximately 9
m), with an overall slope inclination in the range of 18 to 28 degrees. A topographic plan is provided for
reference on Figure 1, along with an aerial photograph, which is provided on Figure 2, attached.
Based on the drawings which have been provided for review, one four-unit townhouse building fronting
Robinson Street (Block A) will be located at the top of the existing slope and two townhouses (Blocks B and
C), with 8 and 9 units respectively, will be located at the base of the slope and serviced by a private internal
access road. It is understood that the foundation walls of Blocks B and C at the base of the slope will be
designed as structural retaining walls to support the existing slope.
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Considerations
Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) has been requested to provide comments to the
Municipality of Bayham with regards to the proposed development, and general conformance with the
Natural Hazards section of the Provincial Policy Statement. The developer engaged in a pre-consultation
with LPRCA in February 2021. Through that discussion, it was identified that the property is located within
the erosion hazard and flood hazard associated with Lake Erie. The subject lands are located entirely within
the Regulation Limit of O. Reg. 178/06.
In May 2006, Ontario Regulation 178/06 came into effect in the LPRCA watershed area, which locally
implements the Generic Regulation (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline
and Watercourses). This regulation replaces the former Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
regulations, and is intended to ensure public safety, prevent property damage and social disruption due to
natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Ontario Regulation 157/06 is implemented by the local
Conservation Authority, by means of permit issuance for works in or near watercourses, valleys, wetlands,
or shorelines, when required.
The site is located within the Long Point Regulated lands, and the proposed development within the study
area will be subject to the above referenced Regulation. Property owners must obtain permission from Long
Point Region Conservation Authority before beginning any development, site alteration, construction, or
placement of fill within the regulated area.
Pre-consultation notes indicate that LPRCA policies and guidelines do not support investment and
development of a building or structure within the unstable slope, as it relates to a shoreline erosion hazard.
This report addresses the overall condition of the existing slope, and how the proposed development plans
can address the potential concerns raised by LPRCA.
Summarized Conditions
To assess the soil conditions at the site, Atkinson Davies advanced two boreholes and a test pit at the site.
Soils were described as surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural silty clay soils, which extend below
the depth of the boreholes (9.6 m). The natural subgrade soils are described as having a firm to very stiff
consistency, and the natural subgrade soils are typically characterized as being geologically stable.
The natural soil conditions are consistent with the soils indicated in the geological mapping for the area,
which are described as glaciolucustrine silt deposits. An excerpt from the Quaternary Geology mapping for
the Port Burwell Area is provided on Figure 3.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
3 | Page
Site Review
A site review was carried out by LDS on February 18, 2021, and again on April 13, 2022. At the time of the
original site reconnaissance visit, much of the site was snow-covered, however it appears that the site is
generally grass-covered. The vegetative cover throughout the site was verified through a review of aerial
photographs, and was confirmed through the subsequent visit carried out in April 2022. During both site
reconnaissance visits by LDS staff, no water seepage or signs of significant overland erosion were
observed. The ground surface appears to slope down approximately 8 to 9 m in the area with greatest
topographic relief, measured from the north to the south.
The Atkinson Davies Report makes note of several tiles which were observed to be outletting near the toe
of the slope, presumably tied to upgradient lots to the north. Although these tiles were not specifically
observed by LDS, the vacant lands are expected to still contain some portion of these drains.
During the site reconnaissance visit, LDS prepared a Slope Stability Rating Charts, consistent with the
guidance material prepared by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The Rating Chart
summarizes site observations and empirically scores various elements which contribute to slope stability,
to assess the potential for slope instabilities at the site. A copy of the charts is appended for reference. The
Slope Instability Rating is in the range of 27 to 29, indicating a slight potential for instability.
Slope Stability & Flooding Hazard Analysis
The overall slope stability is considered to be in a stable condition, as indicated by the slope stability
analyses presented in the Atkinson Davies Report (2005). LDS has reviewed this analysis, and conducted
an independent review of the slope stability analysis, using the slope profile provided in their report.
Stable Slope Configuration
Predominant soil conditions are expected to be comprised surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural
silty clay soils. Based on the following soil parameters which may be considered representative of the
predominant and typical soil conditions in the area, and minor groundwater seepage which is expected to
occur under wet weather conditions from the weathered zone within the subgrade soils (within a typical
depth of 1.2 m below ground surface along the top of the slope). The soil parameters used in our analysis
are as follows:
Predominant Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m3) Angle of Internal Friction Cohesion (kPa)
Compact Clayey Silt 19.5 28 o 10
A minimum factor of safety of 1.4 is recommended as the threshold for an acceptable slope stability, as
indicated in the report “Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes” prepared for the Ministry of Natural
Resources. A number of potential failure types were assessed, including shallow slumping/sliding failures,
medium depth rotation failures near the crest of the slope, and deep rotational failures through the entire
height of the slope.
Three cross sections (profiles surveyed by Cyril J Demeyere) were identified and assessed at the site.
Slope stability calculations using Slope/W software indicate the following range of factors of safety:
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
4 | Page
Cross Section Shallow Sliding
Failure
Medium Depth
Failure
Deep Rotational
Failure
Slope Profile A – West end of site > 1.82 > 1.51 > 1.66
Slope Profile B – Central part of site > 1.63 > 1.89 > 2.17
Slope Profile C - East end of site > 2.01 > 2.29 > 2.56
The slope stability analysis yields a minimum factor of safety of 1.51 at Slope Profile A for a medium depth
rotational failure. All other factors of safety for the various failure modes and locations which were assessed
were above this level. Drawings of each of the slope profiles are appended for reference.
It is noted that the factors of safety exceed the minimum factor of safety of 1.4 which is noted above. As such,
the analysis indicates that the slope is in a stable condition. This is consistent with the findings of the Atkinson
Davies analysis.
Review of Flooding Hazard
The Lake Erie 100-year flood elevation is identified as 175.70 m asl, and the Big Otter Creek 100-year flood
elevation is at 176.02 m asl. These elevations are approximately 2.5 m and 2.2 m below the top of the
proposed retaining wall on the southern limit of the Site. Based on this information, the flooding levels of
Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek do not pose a flooding hazard for the site.
Erosion Hazard
LDS has also considered the effects of toe erosion and undercutting along the toe of the slope. As noted in the
”Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shoreline and
Watercourses Regulation”, the erosion hazard along the Lake Erie Shoreline is defined as the average annual
rate of recession extended over a 100-year period. As noted in Section 6.1.8 in the Municipality of Bayham Official
Plan, the erosion hazard limit extends the following distance (D):
D = 3h +100r (or 30 metres, whichever is greater)
where h = height of the slope, 9 m
r = rate of erosion (conservative estimate of 0.3 m/year)
The above calculation yields a result of 57 m. The southern property limit is some 110 to 165 m from Lake Erie,
and is separated from the lake by a public beach and parking area. As such, the erosion hazard is not considered
a concern for the proposed development.
Conclusions of Slope Assessment
The existing slopes in their current form and geometry are considered stable, with a minimum factor of
safety above the prescribed threshold of 1.4. The slope is not subject to toe erosion or potential undermining
which may be associated with flooding from Lake Erie or Big Otter Creek, given the setback distance and
wave uprush calculations noted above.
From a geotechnical standpoint, development at the site, and construction into the existing slope can be
carried out without detrimental impact to the long-term slope stability, provided that some care is taken by
the contractors doing the work, and by adhering to the geotechnical comments provided in the Atkinson
Davies Report, and described in the following section.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
5 | Page
Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations
The owner has proposed the construction of 21 condominium units, as shown on Figure 4, appended. The
proposed development plans include the construction of a series of residential units, incorporating
structurally reinforced foundation walls to assist in accommodating the existing change in grade from north
to south. This is similar to the typical walk-out style building foundations where buildings are constructed
into site slopes.
The following recommendations are provided from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed site
development.
Site Preparation
During the demolition of the existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs, all construction
materials and debris should be removed from the proposed building footprints, including foundations and
concrete slab floors.
Fill placement will be required at the site to accommodate design grades. Where the fill placement is located
within the sloped part of the site, soil benching is recommended to ensure that the placement of engineered
fill soils does not result in the creation of preferential failure planes. A typical detail is provided on the Slope
Profile drawings, appended.
In accordance with the Ontario Building Code (Section 4.2.4.15), foundations may be set on fill material
provided that it can be demonstrated that the fill is capable of safely supporting the building and that
detrimental movement of the building will not occur. In this regard, it is recommended that any fill material
placed in future building footprints be engineered and verified through an inspection and testing program.
Engineered fill should consist of suitable, compactable, inorganic soils, which are free of topsoil, organics
and miscellaneous debris. For best compaction results, the fill material should have a moisture content
within about 3 percent of optimum, as determined by Standard Proctor testing.
The engineered fill material should be placed in maximum 300 mm (12 inch) thick lifts and uniformly
compacted to 100 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). If site grading and subgrade
preparation work is carried out in winter months, care should be taken to ensure that the exposed subgrade
soils, and any fill material being used within the engineered fill pad is free of frozen and frost-laden material.
The possible re-use of onsite soils should be subject to review and approval by the geotechnical consultant.
Foundation Design
A soil bearing capacity of 143 kPa (3000 psf) was previously identified in the Atkinson Davies report. This
soil bearing is consistent with the value we would expect for the natural subgrade soils, below the topsoil
and any fill material which may be present at the site. Site inspection by a geotechnical engineer is
recommended to verify the soil bearing capacity during construction. At that time, if there are any loose or
unstable soils present at the founding level, the geotechnical consultant can provide recommendations for
subgrade or foundation enhancements, if required.
The foundation walls will be designed by a structural engineer, to ensure that loading associated with
changes in the grades can be adequately supported, and permanent foundation weeping tile systems will
be incorporated into the design to prevent the build-up of pore-water pressures behind the walls.
Foundations should be provided with damp-proofing and foundation drainage tiles, in accordance with
standard Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements. Perimeter drains should be wrapped with filter fabric,
and set in stone to limit the movement of fines into the drain tiles. The drains should be provided with a
frost-free outlet from which the water can be removed.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
6 | Page
Drain clean-outs and inspection ports can be incorporated into the design of the foundation drainage
system, to provide a mechanism for inspection and cleaning of the drains. Perimeter weeping tile drains
should be provided with a suitable outlet.
The proposed foundation walls will offer more stability and support that the existing foundation walls, since
they will be further supported by perpendicular walls which will be incorporated into the foundations of each
unit. A typical detail (an excerpt from the conceptual design drawings) is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Typical Foundation Detail
Based on the field and laboratory testing during the present geotechnical investigation and our experience with
similar soils, the following soil parameters are recommended for the design of the foundations.
Soil φ γ (kN/m3) Ka Ko Kp
Compact Silt / Silt Till 28 19.5 0.36 0.53 2.78
Finished Grading and Surface Drainage
Where possible, uncontrolled surface water flows from the rooftops and hard surfaces should be directed
away from the face of the slope, to reduce the risk of surface erosion.
The Atkinson Davies report identified the presence of drainage tiles. Although not observed by LDS, it is
recommended that in the event that existing tiles or field drains are exposed during the excavation and site work
for the proposed buildings, that the drains should be re-routed to ensure continued controlled flows into an
appropriate discharge location away from the slope face.
Landscaped Areas
Vegetation on the slope should be maintained, where possible. A program of plantation in landscaped areas
where appropriate, including deciduous trees and deep-rooted vegetation is recommended in landscaped areas.
Final design drawings including the final building location, services etc. should be reviewed by this office to
ensure that the comments and recommendations provided in this report have been properly interpreted.
LPRCA Section 28 Permit
The developer acknowledges that the proposed development at the site (including site grading and building
construction) is subject to permits and approvals from LPRCA in accordance with O. Reg. 178/06, since the property is located within the LPRCA Regulated Lands.
Structurally reinforced foundation wall, designed by a structural engineer
Foundation walls between units will be designed to provide additional support (similar to the function of a buttress wall)
Foundation drainage system is expected to incorporate
foundation drainage boards, and an exterior weeping tile
system to prevent the build-up of pore-water pressures
against the wall.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
7 | Page
The developer is committed to ensure that suitable engineering design and inspection is carried out to
address any issues or concerns which are identified by the Conservation Authority.
Conclusion
As noted in the introduction of Section 3.0 in the PPS, development shall be directed away from areas of
natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property
damage, and not create new or aggravate existing hazards. The findings of this geotechnical slope review
identify that the existing slope is in a stable condition. It is our opinion that the proposed development does
not result in an unacceptable level of risk to public health or safety, and that it will improve the existing site
conditions.
More specifically, PPS Section 3.1.7, states that development and site alteration may be permitted in those
portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor, could
be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where all of the following are demonstrated and
achieved:
development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection
works standards, and access standards;
vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding,
erosion and other emergencies;
new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
no adverse environmental impacts will result.
In accordance with this section of the PPS, the proposed development plans are outside of the flooding
hazard (including consideration for wave uprush), as described previously; the plans incorporate vehicle
access mid-slope and across the toe of the slope, providing good access to the site; fill placement can occur
with imported materials in a safe manner to establish and maintain stable founding soils, the proposed
building foundations can be constructed into the existing slope to accommodate the change in grades,
reducing the potential for rotational slope failures and improving upon the existing conditions which currently
exist at the site; and do not pose a significant risk of environmental impact.
LDS is the second geotechnical consultant which has had involvement in proposed development plans at
the site, and although proposed development plans have evolved for the subject lands, the conclusion that
development could be supported from a geotechnical standpoint has been echoed by both consultants.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
8 | Page
Closing
We trust that this report is satisfactory to your present requirements and we would be pleased to assist you
in subsequent phases of this project through to completion. Should you have any questions, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
Rebecca A. Walker, P. Eng. Principal, Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-200-3742
rebecca.walker@LDSconsultants.ca Attachments: Slope Stability Rating Charts Site Photographs – Still Shots from Drone Footage, April 13 2022 Drawing 1 – Regional Topography Drawing 2 – Aerial Photograph Drawing 3 – Quaternary Geology Drawing 4 – Development Plan Drawing 5 – Topographic Survey Plan
Drawing 6 – Slope Profile A Drawing 7 – Slope Profile B Drawing 8 – Slope Profile C
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope A
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope
Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m (Elevation 176.4 to 186.8 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
0
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 27
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope?
If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 165 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
10 | Page
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope B
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m (Elevation 175.6 to 186.2 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
2
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 29
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope? If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 145 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
11 | Page
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope C
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m m (Elevation 176.2 to 186.3 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
0
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 27
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope? If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 116 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
12 | Page
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – STILL SHOTS FROM DRONE FOOTAGE, April 13, 2022
Photograph 1: Looking north (oblique) towards the site.
Photograph 2: Looking north towards existing slope across the site. Retaining walls (armourstone block on the west (left) and concrete block (right) are in place to accommodate changes in the site grades sloping down towards the lake.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
13 | Page
Photograph 3: Looking down on the west side of the site. The existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs are expected to be removed to accommodate the new development.
Photograph 4: Looking down on the east side of the site.
DRAWING NAME Regional Topography
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic
Map www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/
MakeATopographicMap/index.html?viewer
=Make_A_Topographic_Map. MATM&locale=en-CA
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 1
Slope Profile A Slope Profile B Slope Profile C
SITE
DRAWING NAME Aerial Photograph, April 2022
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Still shot from LDS Drone Footage, April 13, 2022
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 2
Slope Profile A Slope Profile B Slope Profile C
DRAWING NAME Quaternary Geology
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Quaternary Geology of the Port Burwell Area,
Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Map
2601, Scale 1:50,000, 1998
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 3
SITE
NORTH
DRAWING NAME Development Plan
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Site Plan provided by Barry Wade Design Construction
Management, dated December 7, 2021
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 4
1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).Notes: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN5
9495PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINECOTTAGECOTTAGEOBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECKNotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 1.66FS = 1.51Rotational FailureMedium DepthFS = 1.82Rotational FailureShallow Depth6SLOPE PROFILE A
GREENSPACEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOTTAGE186.38 FIN GRADENotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 2.17FS = 1.89Rotational FailureMedium DepthFS = 1.63Rotational FailureShallow DepthSLOPE PROFILE B7
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOTTAGE185.27 FIN GRADENotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 2.56Medium DepthRotational FailureFS = 2.29Shallow DepthRotational FailureFS = 2.01SLOPE PROFILE C8
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
2323 Trafalgar Street
London, Ontario N5V 0E1
www.ldsconsultants.ca
LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION 1599 Adelaide St. N., Units 301 & 203 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225
London, ON N5X 4E8 Kitchener, ON N2R 0L3
P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
May 6, 2022
Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng.
Manager Watershed Services
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm Street
Tillsonburg, ON N4G 0C4
Re: Development applications by Barry Wade Homes Inc. – for its project Beach house Lane, 2 Robinson and 3
Erieus Streets, Port Burwell.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Lorrie Minshall
Thank you for the meeting of May 28, 2022 in your offices. This letter is our response to that meeting and
previous correspondence. It is the beginning of the preparation of an Addendum to the Planning Justification
Report – revised February 22, 2022, of which will be submitted to the Municipality. The preparation of the
Addendum is necessary to appropriately respond to two major events, namely:
1. The Bayham Municipal Staff meeting with IBPI Group – Paul Riley, Planning Consultant of 2022;
2. The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) meeting of April 28, 2022.
Revisions are being made to the Site Plan design and these will be provided in the Addendum.
Revisions are being made to the Planning Justification Report and will be provided in the Addendum:
Revisions have been made to the Geotechnical Study by LDS Consultants Inc. (LDS) and its final report is
submitted herewith as an enclosure.
This letter is specifically a response to #2 above. It incorporates a supplemental review and analysis of the
Application with respect to Section 3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) to provide specific comments
on how the Proponent has regard for the applicable sections which relate to natural hazards and protecting
public health and safety. This is being done to supplement the position of the Geotechnical Report prepared by
LDS, and to address specific concerns which have been expressed by the LPRCA. in its original comment letter
and at the meeting of April 28, 2022.
Section 3.0 states:
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on reducing
www.sbmltd.ca
2
the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazards.
Development shall be directed away from areas of natural or human-made hazards where
there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property damage, and not create
new or aggravate existing hazards.
Mitigating potential risk to public health or safety or of property damage from natural hazards,
including the risks that may be associated with the impacts of a changing climate, will require
the Province, planning authorities, and conservation authorities to work together.
RESPONSE: The Barry Wade Hones development team have been well aware of the above requirements from
the outset and the Planning Justification Report focused in on section 3.1.7. One of the significant statements is
that development shall be directed away from natural hazards where there is unacceptable risks and not create
new or aggravate existing hazards. The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT, dated May 2, 2022 concludes that the proposed development does not result in an
unacceptable risk to public health and safety, that there would no new hazard created and none that exist
aggravated.
The above section also requires coordination with various levels of government. It is readily known that Bayham
and LPRCA maintain a collaborative relationship with the County of Elgin. The Proponent expects that this will
continue and expects that the application will be fully circulated to all departments and agencies as well as the
public, to enable the gathering of all inputs so comprehensive evaluation of the application can be achieved
from economic, social, environmental perspectives.
Section 3.1. Natural Hazards states:
3.1.1 Development shall generally be directed, in accordance with guidance developed by
the Province (as amended from time to time), to areas outside of:
a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System and large
inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards;
…………..
3.1.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within:
a) the dynamic beach hazard;
b) ………………………;
c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazards,
erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards, unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe
access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard; and …………………….. .
RESPONSE: The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated
May 2, 2022 shows that there would outside of the hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great
Lakes – notably Lake Erie, that development is not within an area defined as a dynamic beach hazard. The site
limits are also outside of the flooding hazard associated with the 100-year flood elevations of Lake Erie and Big
Otter Creek, and outside of the erosion hazard associated with Lake Erie. Further, that in the event of a flooding
emergency, that there is safe access to and egress from the site for residents, and in the event that maintenance
or remedial works are required to be undertaken at the site.
www.sbmltd.ca
3
3.1.5 Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is:
a) an institutional use including hospitals, long-term care homes, retirement homes, pre-schools, school
nurseries, day cares and schools;
b) an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical
substations; or
c) uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances.
RESPONSE: The Proposal is for 19 residential dwelling units. These are not listed in the above prohibitions.
3.1.6 Where the two zone concept for flood plains is applied, development and site alteration may be permitted
in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding
hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.
RESPONSE: The two zone concept does not apply to this site.
3.1.7 Further to policy 3.1.6, and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5, development and site alteration
may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public
safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where all of the following are
demonstrated and achieved:
a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works
standards, and access standards;
b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and
other emergencies;
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d) no adverse environmental impacts will result
RESPONSE: The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated
May 2, 2022 shows that appropriate site alteration can be carried out subject to more detailed design to be
completed at the Site Plan Approval stage, that safe access can be provided during emergencies, that no new
hazards would be created or existing ones aggravated, and that there would be no adverse environmental
impacts.
LPRCA expressed a comment that Section 3.1.7 also requires that subsection (b) in Section 3.1.7 also requires
that access be available to undertake inspection and repair of any retaining walls – or in the case of this
development, foundation walls which are designed to accommodate site grades and provide structural support
to retained soils in the upper part of the slope. The Geotechnical Report prepared by LDS speaks to the design of
the foundation walls which support retained soil providing an increased level of support and higher factor of
safety than that of an unsupported retaining wall, and provides recommendations which provide a mechanism
to inspect foundations.
www.sbmltd.ca
4
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to what we understand will be a modification
to your earlier correspondence to the Municipality. Please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP.
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
cc. Barry Wade Homes Inc.
cc. Rebecca Walker – LDS
cc. Margaret Underhill – Twp of Bayham
cc. Aisling Laverty - LPRCA
encl. The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated May 2, 2022
SUPPLEMENT
to the
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Barry Wade Homes Inc. “BEACH HOUSE LANE”
Proposed residential condominium development – 19 townhouse dwelling units.
AT: 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell. Ontario.
Applications for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw.
Prepared for: Barry Wade Homes Inc. May 24, 2022
LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
1599 Adelaide St. N., Units 301 & 203 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225
London, ON N5X 4E8 Kitchener, ON N2R 0L3
P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
May 24, 2022
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line
P.O Box 166
Staffordsville, Ontario
N0J 1Y0
Attention: Margaret Underhill
Re: SUPPLEMENT TO THE “Applications for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw by
Barry Wade Homes Inc. for “BEACH HOUSE LANE” -- Proposed residential development – 19
townhouse dwelling units at the assembled properties of 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street, Port
Burwell. Ontario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Margaret:
This is further to our Addendum submission of February 20, 2022 comprising the Planning Justification Report –
REVISED. This SUPPLEMENT submission arises from two major recent meetings, namely:
1.A Bayham Municipal Staff meeting with IBI Group – Paul Riley, Planning Consultant of April 6, 2022, and
a Summary of that meeting is provided in the Appendix.
2.A Long Point Region Conservation Meeting of April 28, 2022 . A follow up letter has been sent to the
LPRCA dated May of which you were copied. It is included in the Supplement for convenience and keep
the updates together.
The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the REVISED PJR. This SUPPLEMENT includes:
a)Revisions to the Site Plan have been made. The revised site plan shows19 dwelling units and an
emergency access easterly over the Erieus Street unopened road allowance. The number of units have
been reduced from 21 units to 19.
b)Response to those issues described in the April 6, 2022 meeting Pre-consultation Meeting Notes
prepared by Bayham staff and attached.
c)Revisions have been made to the Geotechnical Study by Land Development solutions and its final report
is submitted herewith under separate cover.
www.sbmltd.ca
2
d) A policy review of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 has been completed focusing in on relevant
sections of section 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety. This was done to supplement the position of
the Geotechnical Report by LDS being part of the full response to the concerns expressed by the PLRCA.
In its original letter and at the meeting of April 28, 2022.
e) A revised SITE LINE REPORT by Barry Wade Homes Inc.
f) A revised SHADOW STUDY REPORT by Barry Wade Homes Inc.
RESPONSE TO THOSE ISSUES DESCRIBED IN THE APRIL 6, 2022 MEETING PRE-CONSULTATION MEETING NOTES
1. DENSITY- Barry Wade Homes has tried to reduce the density to respond to Bayham and have
now settled on 19 units which is feasible with the emergency access to Erieus Street being
available. Space that would be used for a hammerhead turn-around now can be used for a
dwelling unit – increasing land resource efficiency.
2. THE PATIOS on units of Block B and C have been increased to 19 m2.
3. ACCESS – The main access to Block B and C from Robinson has been re-designed to be
contained within the boundaries of the subject property, sightlines are adequate and there
would be no encroachment on the Hagerman Street unopened road allowance to the south.
4. SNOW STORAGE has been provided for minimally and the future intention is to have the snow
taken off site when severe weather conditions dictate.
5. The decision to have the tenure to be RENTAL or STANDARD CONDOMINIUM has yet to be
determined but it is not considered to be a factor that would be included in the zoning bylaw
amendment.
6. No “affordable” housing is proposed as generally defined and assigned because of the lack of
need in Port Burwell. The existing housing complex in Port Burwell is 85% occupied and the
vacancy arises from the remoteness of the Village from employment sources where autos are
needed “to get to work”.
7. REVISED SIGHTLINES AND SHADOWING analysis have been provided herein to show existing
and proposed situations, with the conclusion that there is negligible or no adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
8. FIRE SAFETY ON BLOCK A – grading has been revised to now have a 3-storey building. Basement
parking areas does not count as a storey. See the revised Site Plan and Elevations and X-
sections.
9. AMENITY AREAS – have been enlarged, made more accessible and proposed to contain BBQ
stations/facilities. See the revised Site Plan.
www.sbmltd.ca
3
We are hoping that the Municipality has sufficient supporting information that a PUBLIC MEETING
before COUNCIL cold be scheduled in June before the summer months.
Thank you for your consideration, and er look forward to working with the Municipality in the next
steps of the approval process. Should you require any further information, or verification of the
submitted materials, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP.
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
cc. Barry Wade Homes Inc.
cc. Rebecca Walker – LDS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bayham - THE APRIL 6, 2022, MEETING PRE-CONSULTATION MEETING NOTES
2. A policy review of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 has been completed focusing in on relevant sections
of section 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety by SBAM Planning to reinforce the Geotechnical Report by
LDS. Both are in a letter from SBM to LPRCA, dated May 6, 2022.
3. LPRCA letter of May 5, 2022 and cover email, arising from meeting of April 28, 2022
4. Site Plan and related drawings including Sight Lines and Shadows
5. Sightline Report – Barry Wade Homes Inc.
6. Shadow Study – Barry Wade Homes Inc.
www.sbmltd.ca
4
ATTACHMENT
1. Bayham - THE APRIL 6, 2022, MEETING PRE-CONSULTATION MEETING NOTES
Pre-Consultation Meeting Notes
Beach House Lane Townhouses, 2 Robinson St & 3 Erieus St, Port Burwell
April 6, 2022 – Zoom Virtual Meeting 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Attendees: Barry Wade, Barry Wade Homes Inc. Laverne Kirkness, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Planning Consultants Thomas Thayer, CAO/Clerk
Chief Harry Baranik, Bayham Fire Chief Paul Riley, IBI Group, Municipal Planning Consultant Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
LK – Introduced the purpose of the meeting to discuss the site plan elements of the project to construct 21 units – Block A, B & C with an on-site laneway. Open to revisions.
- Items to discuss include: density, access, fire services, sight lines, Condo vs. Rental, Affordable Housing, timeline Density and Amenity Area PR – Density – asking for 40% more than the OP permits – 18 units would be more appropriate considering the density policies
- Concerns with adequate amenity area and usability of the proposed amenity area - need to add more amenity area on the east side possibly
accessibility is a concern with the proposed amenity locations on a sloped area
- 16 m2 patios don’t meet the requirement for 19 m2 per the ZBL for an apartment
- Proposed easterly side yard insufficient. Is it possible to increase the easterly side yard and add amenity area and accommodate an emergency turnaround area – explore the “hammerhead” turnaround option
- Is it possible remove units on the east end to improve access and/or add amenity area?
- the required turnaround outside radius is 12 metres for fire emergency vehicles BW – The maximum driveway can be 90 metres to a dead end; may be able to reduce the laneway to 90 metres to meet the OBC and FC and then no turnaround needed
- Hydrant to be located between Unit 12 & 13 at the south lot line meeting the distance requirements
- Perhaps can accommodate a smaller turnaround for EMS/Police and keeping the number of units reasonable
- Wondering if Bayham would permit emergency access at the east end on Erieus St ROW; possibly use Erieus St as an emergency exit with a gate access only TT – Obtaining lands from the Municipality or entering in to an agreement for the Erieus Street road allowance are options that would require legal opinion to determine which one would be most suitable for both parties
Beach House Lane Townhouses Pre-Consultation Meeting Apr 6/22 2
ACTION:
LK – further consideration will be given to the density policies Access - Hagerman Street at Robinson Street TT – There are legal implications to using a road allowance (Hagerman Street) that hasn’t been stopped up and closed BW – Moving the driveway north may be an issue due to the grade change but will look into PR – Need relief from the 9 metre separation from an intersection in the ZBA BW – Grade change from Robinson Street to entrance doesn’t affect the sidewalks; driveway will be privately maintained ACTION: BW - Will look at designing the access directly from Robinson Street Bayham Staff - Will investigate the Erieus Street options with legal counsel
Snow Storage
BW – Need to add an area or there will be an agreement/understanding that it will be removed to be determined by the Condo Board Condo vs. Rental LK – Proposing standard Condo or Long Term Rental BW – Thinking Condos but want the flexibility on use depending on the market demand – no short term rentals, no AirBNBs for example
- Want the option to convert the units to Condos post construction when they can be
accurately surveyed PR - we need to make sure the OPA can account for this in some manner
Affordable Housing BW – Looked at affordable housing – one 35 unit development in Port Burwell is at 85% capacity
- Village doesn’t provide amenities for residents needing affordable housing i.e. public
transportation, year-round shopping opportunities, medical care PR – Policies are there but need to be discussed as to the applicability to this area
ACTION: PR - Will follow-up with the County, MMAH on the affordable housing policies.
Height of Block A PR – There are land use planning issues with the height of Block A – sightlines and shadowing
- Shadow study was to be looked at and revised presented to us
- What’s the impact of the height to sightlines from the beach and approaching the beach
on Robinson Street?
- Impact on views of/from the Lighthouse?
Beach House Lane Townhouses Pre-Consultation Meeting Apr 6/22 3
- Fire equipment doesn’t serve height at 4 storeys
- How does this impact Fire Services?
HB – Have safety concerns about fire separation between living area & balcony per unit
- Have safety concerns with reaching the balconies in an emergency event with the proposed height of Block A
- Fire services’ duty is to make every structure as safe a possible with all factors considered including new building materials, new interior surfaces and design and composition of modern contents; the OFM requires the tracking of new buildings
constructed with lightweight construction systems
- Could there be considerations for non-combustible materials, complete fire stop walls/separations and installation of residential sprinkler systems to control the fire in the initial stages, which makes many of the construction points mentioned a moot point
- Costs for the additional safety features could be passed on to the prospective home owner
- BBQs are not permitted on the balconies as per Bayham By-law
- Amenity areas discussed earlier need to be accessible and useable for outdoor
communal BBQ area BW – Topographical survey is completed
- Block A has more than 50% coverage at the base making the parking area classified as a basement making it a three storey building as per the zoning
- Block A north side is 23 feet to the bottom of balcony/window
- The design was “tweaked” that the upper floor can be accessed by a ladder
- There would be a 45 metre distance from the truck
- Measured distance between Block A and B, C meets the OBC
- Send us the By-law re BBQ prohibition
- The OBC will be followed
- We could make the building with non-combustible materials
ACTION: LK/BW - Provide to Bayham information showing how the fire services will be addressed.
HB – Provide copy of the Bayham By-law re BBQs Shadow Study PR – Update the Planning Justification Report to match the Shadow Study plan; the equinox dates do not match up – Can discuss whether or not the Shadow Study goes to the public or not as it is not a requirement, however, it will be a neighbours’ concern ACTION: BW – A completed updated Shadow Study will be provided to Bayham and will also provide a Sightline Study showing existing conditions and future conditions.
Beach House Lane Townhouses Pre-Consultation Meeting Apr 6/22 4
Timeline
The Municipality has to consult with the County before a date can be set for the public meeting to allow for time for the required application circulation. FURTHER ACTIONS
BW – Will reconsider and design the entrance to Robinson Street - Will add the amenity space required - Wants to keep as many units as possible (20 minimum) but will look at the “hammerhead” turn around at the east end - Requests staff to discuss Erieus Street emergency exit potential
Bayham – Staff will discuss the Erieus Street potential and respond as soon as able
Meeting Adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
www.sbmltd.ca
5
ATTACHMENT
2. A policy review of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 has been completed focusing in on relevant
sections of section 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety by SBAM Planning to reinforce the
Geotechnical Report by LDS. Both are in a letter from SBM to LPRCA, dated May 6, 2022.
LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION 1599 Adelaide St. N., Units 301 & 203 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225
London, ON N5X 4E8 Kitchener, ON N2R 0L3
P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
May 6, 2022
Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng.
Manager Watershed Services
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm Street
Tillsonburg, ON N4G 0C4
Re: Development applications by Barry Wade Homes Inc. – for its project Beach house Lane, 2 Robinson and 3
Erieus Streets, Port Burwell.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Lorrie Minshall
Thank you for the meeting of May 28, 2022 in your offices. This letter is our response to that meeting and
previous correspondence. It is the beginning of the preparation of an Addendum to the Planning Justification
Report – revised February 22, 2022, of which will be submitted to the Municipality. The preparation of the
Addendum is necessary to appropriately respond to two major events, namely:
1. The Bayham Municipal Staff meeting with IBPI Group – Paul Riley, Planning Consultant of 2022;
2. The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) meeting of April 28, 2022.
Revisions are being made to the Site Plan design and these will be provided in the Addendum.
Revisions are being made to the Planning Justification Report and will be provided in the Addendum:
Revisions have been made to the Geotechnical Study by LDS Consultants Inc. (LDS) and its final report is
submitted herewith as an enclosure.
This letter is specifically a response to #2 above. It incorporates a supplemental review and analysis of the
Application with respect to Section 3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) to provide specific comments
on how the Proponent has regard for the applicable sections which relate to natural hazards and protecting
public health and safety. This is being done to supplement the position of the Geotechnical Report prepared by
LDS, and to address specific concerns which have been expressed by the LPRCA. in its original comment letter
and at the meeting of April 28, 2022.
Section 3.0 states:
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on reducing
www.sbmltd.ca
2
the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazards.
Development shall be directed away from areas of natural or human-made hazards where
there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property damage, and not create
new or aggravate existing hazards.
Mitigating potential risk to public health or safety or of property damage from natural hazards,
including the risks that may be associated with the impacts of a changing climate, will require
the Province, planning authorities, and conservation authorities to work together.
RESPONSE: The Barry Wade Hones development team have been well aware of the above requirements from
the outset and the Planning Justification Report focused in on section 3.1.7. One of the significant statements is
that development shall be directed away from natural hazards where there is unacceptable risks and not create
new or aggravate existing hazards. The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT, dated May 2, 2022 concludes that the proposed development does not result in an
unacceptable risk to public health and safety, that there would no new hazard created and none that exist
aggravated.
The above section also requires coordination with various levels of government. It is readily known that Bayham
and LPRCA maintain a collaborative relationship with the County of Elgin. The Proponent expects that this will
continue and expects that the application will be fully circulated to all departments and agencies as well as the
public, to enable the gathering of all inputs so comprehensive evaluation of the application can be achieved
from economic, social, environmental perspectives.
Section 3.1. Natural Hazards states:
3.1.1 Development shall generally be directed, in accordance with guidance developed by
the Province (as amended from time to time), to areas outside of:
a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System and large
inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards;
…………..
3.1.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within:
a) the dynamic beach hazard;
b) ………………………;
c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazards,
erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards, unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe
access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard; and …………………….. .
RESPONSE: The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated
May 2, 2022 shows that there would outside of the hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great
Lakes – notably Lake Erie, that development is not within an area defined as a dynamic beach hazard. The site
limits are also outside of the flooding hazard associated with the 100-year flood elevations of Lake Erie and Big
Otter Creek, and outside of the erosion hazard associated with Lake Erie. Further, that in the event of a flooding
emergency, that there is safe access to and egress from the site for residents, and in the event that maintenance
or remedial works are required to be undertaken at the site.
www.sbmltd.ca
3
3.1.5 Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is:
a) an institutional use including hospitals, long-term care homes, retirement homes, pre-schools, school
nurseries, day cares and schools;
b) an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical
substations; or
c) uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances.
RESPONSE: The Proposal is for 19 residential dwelling units. These are not listed in the above prohibitions.
3.1.6 Where the two zone concept for flood plains is applied, development and site alteration may be permitted
in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding
hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.
RESPONSE: The two zone concept does not apply to this site.
3.1.7 Further to policy 3.1.6, and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5, development and site alteration
may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public
safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where all of the following are
demonstrated and achieved:
a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works
standards, and access standards;
b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and
other emergencies;
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d) no adverse environmental impacts will result
RESPONSE: The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated
May 2, 2022 shows that appropriate site alteration can be carried out subject to more detailed design to be
completed at the Site Plan Approval stage, that safe access can be provided during emergencies, that no new
hazards would be created or existing ones aggravated, and that there would be no adverse environmental
impacts.
LPRCA expressed a comment that Section 3.1.7 also requires that subsection (b) in Section 3.1.7 also requires
that access be available to undertake inspection and repair of any retaining walls – or in the case of this
development, foundation walls which are designed to accommodate site grades and provide structural support
to retained soils in the upper part of the slope. The Geotechnical Report prepared by LDS speaks to the design of
the foundation walls which support retained soil providing an increased level of support and higher factor of
safety than that of an unsupported retaining wall, and provides recommendations which provide a mechanism
to inspect foundations.
www.sbmltd.ca
4
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to what we understand will be a modification
to your earlier correspondence to the Municipality. Please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP.
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
cc. Barry Wade Homes Inc.
cc. Rebecca Walker – LDS
cc. Margaret Underhill – Twp of Bayham
cc. Aisling Laverty - LPRCA
encl. The LDS - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT for the PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, dated May 2, 2022
Lighthouse sightline
This view looking north on Robinson St shows the lighthouse being partially blocked by the
incline of the road. As the view moves towards the east, the existing homes on the east side of
Robinson St block the view of the Lighthouse from the Beach 100%. The proposed Beach Lane
Development has no impact on sightlines of the Historic Lighthouse.
LDS CONSULTANTS INC. 15875 Robins Hill Road – Unit 1 London, Ontario N5V 0A5
May 2, 2022
File: GE-00480
Barry Wade Design Construction Management
776497 Ontario Ltd.
15 Jane St,
Dorchester, Ontario N0L 1G2
Reference: SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
3 ERIEUS STREET & 2 ROBINSON STREET
PORT BURWELL, MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
Introduction
LDS Consultants (LDS) has been retained by Barry Wade Design Construction Management to carry out a
Geotechnical Review of the Site, and prepare a Slope Stability Assessment Report in support of their
proposed development located at 3 Erieus Street and 2 Robinson Street, in Port Burwell. Development
plans include demolition of the existing cottage residence at 2 Robinson Street, and the creation of a 21-
unit condominium development.
It is understood that a Pre-Consultation Meeting was held with staff from the Municipality of Bayham, Elgin
County, and Long Point Conservation Authority on February 8, 2021. It is understood that this Slope
Assessment Report has been commissioned to address a requirement from Long Point Region
Conservation Authority, provide an updated geotechnical investigation. As such, this report has reviewed
the previous analysis carried out by Atkinson Davies, to confirm that the geotechnical comments and
recommendations from the aforementioned report are still valid for the proposed development, and to
update the assessment work to reflect on the current development plans which have been proposed at the
site.
Further, this report is prepared to satisfy the following requirements from the County of Elgin and
Municipality of Bayham:
County of Elgin, Official Plan (February 2015), Section D3;
Municipality of Bayham, Official Plan, Sections 6.1.7, 6.1.8 and 6.1.9.; and,
Provincial Policy Statement (2020), Section 3.1.
The aforementioned Official Plan documents from the County of Elgin and Municipality of Bayham identify
the requirements for assessment of slope hazards and developments located along the Lake Erie shoreline,
and Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement addresses development with relation to the presence of
natural hazards.
In preparing this report, LDS has reviewed a previous Geotechnical Report which was prepared for the site
by Atkinson Davies Inc., dated May 12, 2005. That report was prepared for a proposed dingle family
residence, and although the scope of the proposed development has changed, the soils information
provided in that report is considered representative of the site conditions, and the relevant information has
been incorporated into this report. To facilitate our review, the client also provided LDS with copies of the
Foundation Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan Drawings which have been prepared for the proposed 21 unit
condominium development, along with the Functional Servicing Report prepared by Cyril J Demeyere
Limited (CJDL), dated December 2021.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
2 | Page
Site Conditions and Proposed Development Plans
The Site is bounded to the south by the Port Burwell public beach parking lot, to the east by an unused
portion of the Erieus Street right-of-way (ROW), to the west by Robinson Street, and to the north by existing
cottages. An armourstone retaining wall and a concrete block retaining wall are located on the west and
eastern limits of the property respectively. The site slopes down towards the waterfront (approximately 9
m), with an overall slope inclination in the range of 18 to 28 degrees. A topographic plan is provided for
reference on Figure 1, along with an aerial photograph, which is provided on Figure 2, attached.
Based on the drawings which have been provided for review, one four-unit townhouse building fronting
Robinson Street (Block A) will be located at the top of the existing slope and two townhouses (Blocks B and
C), with 8 and 9 units respectively, will be located at the base of the slope and serviced by a private internal
access road. It is understood that the foundation walls of Blocks B and C at the base of the slope will be
designed as structural retaining walls to support the existing slope.
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Considerations
Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) has been requested to provide comments to the
Municipality of Bayham with regards to the proposed development, and general conformance with the
Natural Hazards section of the Provincial Policy Statement. The developer engaged in a pre-consultation
with LPRCA in February 2021. Through that discussion, it was identified that the property is located within
the erosion hazard and flood hazard associated with Lake Erie. The subject lands are located entirely within
the Regulation Limit of O. Reg. 178/06.
In May 2006, Ontario Regulation 178/06 came into effect in the LPRCA watershed area, which locally
implements the Generic Regulation (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline
and Watercourses). This regulation replaces the former Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
regulations, and is intended to ensure public safety, prevent property damage and social disruption due to
natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Ontario Regulation 157/06 is implemented by the local
Conservation Authority, by means of permit issuance for works in or near watercourses, valleys, wetlands,
or shorelines, when required.
The site is located within the Long Point Regulated lands, and the proposed development within the study
area will be subject to the above referenced Regulation. Property owners must obtain permission from Long
Point Region Conservation Authority before beginning any development, site alteration, construction, or
placement of fill within the regulated area.
Pre-consultation notes indicate that LPRCA policies and guidelines do not support investment and
development of a building or structure within the unstable slope, as it relates to a shoreline erosion hazard.
This report addresses the overall condition of the existing slope, and how the proposed development plans
can address the potential concerns raised by LPRCA.
Summarized Conditions
To assess the soil conditions at the site, Atkinson Davies advanced two boreholes and a test pit at the site.
Soils were described as surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural silty clay soils, which extend below
the depth of the boreholes (9.6 m). The natural subgrade soils are described as having a firm to very stiff
consistency, and the natural subgrade soils are typically characterized as being geologically stable.
The natural soil conditions are consistent with the soils indicated in the geological mapping for the area,
which are described as glaciolucustrine silt deposits. An excerpt from the Quaternary Geology mapping for
the Port Burwell Area is provided on Figure 3.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
3 | Page
Site Review
A site review was carried out by LDS on February 18, 2021, and again on April 13, 2022. At the time of the
original site reconnaissance visit, much of the site was snow-covered, however it appears that the site is
generally grass-covered. The vegetative cover throughout the site was verified through a review of aerial
photographs, and was confirmed through the subsequent visit carried out in April 2022. During both site
reconnaissance visits by LDS staff, no water seepage or signs of significant overland erosion were
observed. The ground surface appears to slope down approximately 8 to 9 m in the area with greatest
topographic relief, measured from the north to the south.
The Atkinson Davies Report makes note of several tiles which were observed to be outletting near the toe
of the slope, presumably tied to upgradient lots to the north. Although these tiles were not specifically
observed by LDS, the vacant lands are expected to still contain some portion of these drains.
During the site reconnaissance visit, LDS prepared a Slope Stability Rating Charts, consistent with the
guidance material prepared by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The Rating Chart
summarizes site observations and empirically scores various elements which contribute to slope stability,
to assess the potential for slope instabilities at the site. A copy of the charts is appended for reference. The
Slope Instability Rating is in the range of 27 to 29, indicating a slight potential for instability.
Slope Stability & Flooding Hazard Analysis
The overall slope stability is considered to be in a stable condition, as indicated by the slope stability
analyses presented in the Atkinson Davies Report (2005). LDS has reviewed this analysis, and conducted
an independent review of the slope stability analysis, using the slope profile provided in their report.
Stable Slope Configuration
Predominant soil conditions are expected to be comprised surficial topsoil and sand fill, overlying natural
silty clay soils. Based on the following soil parameters which may be considered representative of the
predominant and typical soil conditions in the area, and minor groundwater seepage which is expected to
occur under wet weather conditions from the weathered zone within the subgrade soils (within a typical
depth of 1.2 m below ground surface along the top of the slope). The soil parameters used in our analysis
are as follows:
Predominant Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m3) Angle of Internal Friction Cohesion (kPa)
Compact Clayey Silt 19.5 28 o 10
A minimum factor of safety of 1.4 is recommended as the threshold for an acceptable slope stability, as
indicated in the report “Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes” prepared for the Ministry of Natural
Resources. A number of potential failure types were assessed, including shallow slumping/sliding failures,
medium depth rotation failures near the crest of the slope, and deep rotational failures through the entire
height of the slope.
Three cross sections (profiles surveyed by Cyril J Demeyere) were identified and assessed at the site.
Slope stability calculations using Slope/W software indicate the following range of factors of safety:
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
4 | Page
Cross Section Shallow Sliding
Failure
Medium Depth
Failure
Deep Rotational
Failure
Slope Profile A – West end of site > 1.82 > 1.51 > 1.66
Slope Profile B – Central part of site > 1.63 > 1.89 > 2.17
Slope Profile C - East end of site > 2.01 > 2.29 > 2.56
The slope stability analysis yields a minimum factor of safety of 1.51 at Slope Profile A for a medium depth
rotational failure. All other factors of safety for the various failure modes and locations which were assessed
were above this level. Drawings of each of the slope profiles are appended for reference.
It is noted that the factors of safety exceed the minimum factor of safety of 1.4 which is noted above. As such,
the analysis indicates that the slope is in a stable condition. This is consistent with the findings of the Atkinson
Davies analysis.
Review of Flooding Hazard
The Lake Erie 100-year flood elevation is identified as 175.70 m asl, and the Big Otter Creek 100-year flood
elevation is at 176.02 m asl. These elevations are approximately 2.5 m and 2.2 m below the top of the
proposed retaining wall on the southern limit of the Site. Based on this information, the flooding levels of
Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek do not pose a flooding hazard for the site.
Erosion Hazard
LDS has also considered the effects of toe erosion and undercutting along the toe of the slope. As noted in the
”Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shoreline and
Watercourses Regulation”, the erosion hazard along the Lake Erie Shoreline is defined as the average annual
rate of recession extended over a 100-year period. As noted in Section 6.1.8 in the Municipality of Bayham Official
Plan, the erosion hazard limit extends the following distance (D):
D = 3h +100r (or 30 metres, whichever is greater)
where h = height of the slope, 9 m
r = rate of erosion (conservative estimate of 0.3 m/year)
The above calculation yields a result of 57 m. The southern property limit is some 110 to 165 m from Lake Erie,
and is separated from the lake by a public beach and parking area. As such, the erosion hazard is not considered
a concern for the proposed development.
Conclusions of Slope Assessment
The existing slopes in their current form and geometry are considered stable, with a minimum factor of
safety above the prescribed threshold of 1.4. The slope is not subject to toe erosion or potential undermining
which may be associated with flooding from Lake Erie or Big Otter Creek, given the setback distance and
wave uprush calculations noted above.
From a geotechnical standpoint, development at the site, and construction into the existing slope can be
carried out without detrimental impact to the long-term slope stability, provided that some care is taken by
the contractors doing the work, and by adhering to the geotechnical comments provided in the Atkinson
Davies Report, and described in the following section.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
5 | Page
Geotechnical Comments and Recommendations
The owner has proposed the construction of 21 condominium units, as shown on Figure 4, appended. The
proposed development plans include the construction of a series of residential units, incorporating
structurally reinforced foundation walls to assist in accommodating the existing change in grade from north
to south. This is similar to the typical walk-out style building foundations where buildings are constructed
into site slopes.
The following recommendations are provided from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed site
development.
Site Preparation
During the demolition of the existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs, all construction
materials and debris should be removed from the proposed building footprints, including foundations and
concrete slab floors.
Fill placement will be required at the site to accommodate design grades. Where the fill placement is located
within the sloped part of the site, soil benching is recommended to ensure that the placement of engineered
fill soils does not result in the creation of preferential failure planes. A typical detail is provided on the Slope
Profile drawings, appended.
In accordance with the Ontario Building Code (Section 4.2.4.15), foundations may be set on fill material
provided that it can be demonstrated that the fill is capable of safely supporting the building and that
detrimental movement of the building will not occur. In this regard, it is recommended that any fill material
placed in future building footprints be engineered and verified through an inspection and testing program.
Engineered fill should consist of suitable, compactable, inorganic soils, which are free of topsoil, organics
and miscellaneous debris. For best compaction results, the fill material should have a moisture content
within about 3 percent of optimum, as determined by Standard Proctor testing.
The engineered fill material should be placed in maximum 300 mm (12 inch) thick lifts and uniformly
compacted to 100 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). If site grading and subgrade
preparation work is carried out in winter months, care should be taken to ensure that the exposed subgrade
soils, and any fill material being used within the engineered fill pad is free of frozen and frost-laden material.
The possible re-use of onsite soils should be subject to review and approval by the geotechnical consultant.
Foundation Design
A soil bearing capacity of 143 kPa (3000 psf) was previously identified in the Atkinson Davies report. This
soil bearing is consistent with the value we would expect for the natural subgrade soils, below the topsoil
and any fill material which may be present at the site. Site inspection by a geotechnical engineer is
recommended to verify the soil bearing capacity during construction. At that time, if there are any loose or
unstable soils present at the founding level, the geotechnical consultant can provide recommendations for
subgrade or foundation enhancements, if required.
The foundation walls will be designed by a structural engineer, to ensure that loading associated with
changes in the grades can be adequately supported, and permanent foundation weeping tile systems will
be incorporated into the design to prevent the build-up of pore-water pressures behind the walls.
Foundations should be provided with damp-proofing and foundation drainage tiles, in accordance with
standard Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements. Perimeter drains should be wrapped with filter fabric,
and set in stone to limit the movement of fines into the drain tiles. The drains should be provided with a
frost-free outlet from which the water can be removed.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
6 | Page
Drain clean-outs and inspection ports can be incorporated into the design of the foundation drainage
system, to provide a mechanism for inspection and cleaning of the drains. Perimeter weeping tile drains
should be provided with a suitable outlet.
The proposed foundation walls will offer more stability and support that the existing foundation walls, since
they will be further supported by perpendicular walls which will be incorporated into the foundations of each
unit. A typical detail (an excerpt from the conceptual design drawings) is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Typical Foundation Detail
Based on the field and laboratory testing during the present geotechnical investigation and our experience with
similar soils, the following soil parameters are recommended for the design of the foundations.
Soil φ γ (kN/m3) Ka Ko Kp
Compact Silt / Silt Till 28 19.5 0.36 0.53 2.78
Finished Grading and Surface Drainage
Where possible, uncontrolled surface water flows from the rooftops and hard surfaces should be directed
away from the face of the slope, to reduce the risk of surface erosion.
The Atkinson Davies report identified the presence of drainage tiles. Although not observed by LDS, it is
recommended that in the event that existing tiles or field drains are exposed during the excavation and site work
for the proposed buildings, that the drains should be re-routed to ensure continued controlled flows into an
appropriate discharge location away from the slope face.
Landscaped Areas
Vegetation on the slope should be maintained, where possible. A program of plantation in landscaped areas
where appropriate, including deciduous trees and deep-rooted vegetation is recommended in landscaped areas.
Final design drawings including the final building location, services etc. should be reviewed by this office to
ensure that the comments and recommendations provided in this report have been properly interpreted.
LPRCA Section 28 Permit
The developer acknowledges that the proposed development at the site (including site grading and building
construction) is subject to permits and approvals from LPRCA in accordance with O. Reg. 178/06, since the property is located within the LPRCA Regulated Lands.
Structurally reinforced foundation wall, designed by a structural engineer
Foundation walls between units will be designed to provide additional support (similar to the function of a buttress wall)
Foundation drainage system is expected to incorporate
foundation drainage boards, and an exterior weeping tile
system to prevent the build-up of pore-water pressures
against the wall.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
7 | Page
The developer is committed to ensure that suitable engineering design and inspection is carried out to
address any issues or concerns which are identified by the Conservation Authority.
Conclusion
As noted in the introduction of Section 3.0 in the PPS, development shall be directed away from areas of
natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property
damage, and not create new or aggravate existing hazards. The findings of this geotechnical slope review
identify that the existing slope is in a stable condition. It is our opinion that the proposed development does
not result in an unacceptable level of risk to public health or safety, and that it will improve the existing site
conditions.
More specifically, PPS Section 3.1.7, states that development and site alteration may be permitted in those
portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor, could
be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where all of the following are demonstrated and
achieved:
development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection
works standards, and access standards;
vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding,
erosion and other emergencies;
new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
no adverse environmental impacts will result.
In accordance with this section of the PPS, the proposed development plans are outside of the flooding
hazard (including consideration for wave uprush), as described previously; the plans incorporate vehicle
access mid-slope and across the toe of the slope, providing good access to the site; fill placement can occur
with imported materials in a safe manner to establish and maintain stable founding soils, the proposed
building foundations can be constructed into the existing slope to accommodate the change in grades,
reducing the potential for rotational slope failures and improving upon the existing conditions which currently
exist at the site; and do not pose a significant risk of environmental impact.
LDS is the second geotechnical consultant which has had involvement in proposed development plans at
the site, and although proposed development plans have evolved for the subject lands, the conclusion that
development could be supported from a geotechnical standpoint has been echoed by both consultants.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
8 | Page
Closing
We trust that this report is satisfactory to your present requirements and we would be pleased to assist you
in subsequent phases of this project through to completion. Should you have any questions, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
Rebecca A. Walker, P. Eng. Principal, Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-200-3742
rebecca.walker@LDSconsultants.ca Attachments: Slope Stability Rating Charts Site Photographs – Still Shots from Drone Footage, April 13 2022 Drawing 1 – Regional Topography Drawing 2 – Aerial Photograph Drawing 3 – Quaternary Geology Drawing 4 – Development Plan Drawing 5 – Topographic Survey Plan
Drawing 6 – Slope Profile A Drawing 7 – Slope Profile B Drawing 8 – Slope Profile C
Geotechnical Review February 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope A
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope
Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m (Elevation 176.4 to 186.8 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
0
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 27
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope?
If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 165 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
10 | Page
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope B
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m (Elevation 175.6 to 186.2 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
2
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 29
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope? If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 145 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
11 | Page
SLOPE RATING CHART - Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes
Site Location: 3 Erieus Street – Slope C
Town/City: Port Burwell
Inspected by: N. Houlton
Project No.: GE-00480
Inspection Date: April 13, 2022
Weather: Overcast
Parameter Rating Value
Slope Rating
Slope Inclination
18 degrees or less (3H:1V or flatter)
18 to 28 degrees (2H:1V to 3H:1V)
28 degrees or more (steeper than 2H:1V)
0
6
16
6
Soil Stratigraphy
shale / limestone
sand, gravel
till
clay, silt
fill
leda clay
0
6
9
12
18
24
9
Seepage from Slope Face
none, or near bottom only
near mid-slope only
near crest only, or from several levels
0
6
12
0
Slope Height
2 m or less
2.1 to 5 m
5.1 to 10 m
more than 10 m m (Elevation 176.2 to 186.3 m)
0
2
4
8
8
Vegetation Cover on Slope Face
well vegetated: heavy shrubs or forested with mature trees
light vegetation: grass, weeds, occasional trees, shrubs
no vegetation: bare
0
4
8
4
Table Land Drainage
table land flat, no apparent drainage over slope
minor drainage over slope, no active erosion
drainage over slope, active erosion, gullies
0
2
4
0
Proximity of Watercourse to Slope Toe
15 m or more from slope toe
Less than 15 m from slope toe
0
6
0
Previous Landslide Activity
No
Yes
0
6
0
Slope Instability Rating 27
Low Potential < 24 Site Inspection only, confirmation, report letter
Slight Potential 25-35 Site Inspection and surveying, preliminary study, detailed report
Moderate Potential > 35 BH Investigation, piezometers, lab tests, surveying, detailed report
Notes: Is there is a water body (stream, creek, river, pond, bay, lake) at the toe of slope? If YES - the potential for toe erosion and undercutting should be evaluated in detail.
LDS Comment – Lake Erie is located approximately 116 m from the southern property limit, and separated
by a parking area and public beach. Refer to flood hazard comments within the attached report.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
12 | Page
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – STILL SHOTS FROM DRONE FOOTAGE, April 13, 2022
Photograph 1: Looking north (oblique) towards the site.
Photograph 2: Looking north towards existing slope across the site. Retaining walls (armourstone block on the west (left) and concrete block (right) are in place to accommodate changes in the site grades sloping down towards the lake.
Geotechnical Review May 2022 3 Erieus Street, Port Burwell GE-00480
13 | Page
Photograph 3: Looking down on the west side of the site. The existing cottage, armourstone retaining wall and wooden stairs are expected to be removed to accommodate the new development.
Photograph 4: Looking down on the east side of the site.
DRAWING NAME Regional Topography
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Ministry of Natural Resources – Make a Topographic
Map www. https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/
MakeATopographicMap/index.html?viewer
=Make_A_Topographic_Map. MATM&locale=en-CA
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 1
Slope Profile A Slope Profile B Slope Profile C
SITE
DRAWING NAME Aerial Photograph, April 2022
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Still shot from LDS Drone Footage, April 13, 2022
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 2
Slope Profile A Slope Profile B Slope Profile C
DRAWING NAME Quaternary Geology
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Quaternary Geology of the Port Burwell Area,
Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Map
2601, Scale 1:50,000, 1998
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 3
SITE
NORTH
DRAWING NAME Development Plan
PROJECT NAME
Slope Stability Assessment
PROJECT LOCATION 3 Erieus Street & 2 Robinson Street Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham
SOURCE:
Site Plan provided by Barry Wade Design Construction
Management, dated December 7, 2021
SCALE
As Shown
PROJECT NO.
GE-00480
DATE
May 2022 DRAWING 4
1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).Notes: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN5
9495PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINECOTTAGECOTTAGEOBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECKNotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 1.66FS = 1.51Rotational FailureMedium DepthFS = 1.82Rotational FailureShallow Depth6SLOPE PROFILE A
GREENSPACEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOTTAGE186.38 FIN GRADENotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 2.17FS = 1.89Rotational FailureMedium DepthFS = 1.63Rotational FailureShallow DepthSLOPE PROFILE B7
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOTTAGE185.27 FIN GRADENotes: 1. Topographic survey and existing cross sections prepared by CJDL (April 2022).2. Conceptual building plans provided by Barry Wade Design3. Lake Erie 100 year Flood Elevation - 175.70 m asl (as per LDS Geotechnical Report)Deep Rotational FailureFS = 2.56Medium DepthRotational FailureFS = 2.29Shallow DepthRotational FailureFS = 2.01SLOPE PROFILE C8
LDS CONSULTANTS INC.
2323 Trafalgar Street
London, Ontario N5V 0E1
www.ldsconsultants.ca
www.sbmltd.ca
6
ATTACHMENT
3. LPRCA letter of May 5, 2022 and cover email, arising from meeting of April 28, 2022
From:Lorrie Minshall
To:Laverne Kirkness
Cc:Aisling Laverty
Subject:RE: Beach House Lane - proposal by Barry Wade Homes - Port Burwell.
Date:May 12, 2022 3:45:55 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage007.pngimage006.pngBeach House Lane Port Burwell.msg
Laverne: We received the Planning response letter and May 2022 Slope Stability Assessment. Thank
you.
Following our April 28th meeting, I modified my written comments as discussed and these are
attached. They say the same thing but with fewer words.
Regarding the Planning response outlined in your May 6th letter, please note that our reference to
PPS 3.1.7 is to subsection (a), not (b). We have expressed the opinion that the protection works
standards and access standards have not been met. I would like to make sure that your updated
Planning Justification Report addresses PPS 3.1.7 (a). It does not need to address subsection (b).
Please have a reread of the PPS section of our comments. The MNRF Tech Guide Chapters 4 and 7,
available on our website, describe the standards.
We will provide an updated comment to the municipality when they circulate the Addendum
described in your May 6th letter.
Regards,
Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng.
Interim Watershed Services Manager
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm Street, Tillsonburg, ON, N4G 0C4
Tel: (519) 842-4242 ext. 228
Toll Free: 1-888-231-5408 Fax: (519) 842-7123
Email: lminshall@lprca.on.ca
Web: www.lprca.on.ca
From: Laverne Kirkness <lkirkness@sbmltd.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Aisling Laverty <alaverty@lprca.on.ca>; Lorrie Minshall <lminshall@lprca.on.ca>
Cc: 'Barry Wade' <barry@barrywade.ca>; Rebecca Walker <rebecca.walker@ldsconsultants.ca>;
Laverne Kirkness <lkirkness@sbmltd.ca>; Marg Underhill <munderhill@bayham.on.ca>
Subject: RE: Beach House Lane - proposal by Barry Wade Homes - Port Burwell.
Lorrie/Aisling: Thank you for the meeting on the 28th of April. Please see our
PLANNING and GEOTECHNICAL response to our discussion. We are currently
preparing the full development application Addendum for submission to the
Municipality but wanted to focus in our the concerns of the CA first.
Laverne Kirkness, BES, RPP, MCIP
Principal Planner, Planning Division Manager
P: 519-471-6667 ex 228
C: 519-668-8060
E:lkirkness@sbmltd.ca
From: Aisling Laverty <alaverty@lprca.on.ca>
Sent: April 28, 2022 8:37 AM
To: Laverne Kirkness <lkirkness@sbmltd.ca>
Cc: 'Barry Wade' <barry@barrywade.ca>; Rebecca Walker <rebecca.walker@ldsconsultants.ca>
Subject: RE: Beach House Lane - proposal by Barry Wade Homes - Port Burwell.
Good morning Laverne,
Confirmed. We will see you at 3:30pm today at our offices in Tillsonburg.
Thanks,
Aisling “Ashleen” Laverty, CPT
Resource Planner | Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm St., Tillsonburg ON N4G 0C4
519-842-4242 ext. 235 | alaverty@lprca.on.ca
From:Lorrie Minshall
To:Aisling Laverty
Subject:Beach House Lane, Port Burwell
I have reviewed the OPA/ZBA application, the Planning Justification Report, the Functional Servicing
Report and the Slope Stability Reports and have the following comments:
Provincial Policy Statement
The development proposal is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 3.1.
3.1.1 Development shall generally be directed, in accordance with guidance developed by the
Province (as amended from time to time), to areas outside of:
a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System and
large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach
hazards;…
3.1.7 Further to policy 3.1.6, and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5, development and
site alteration may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the
effects and risk to public safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial
standards, and where all of the following are demonstrated and achieved:
a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards,
protection works standards, and access standards;
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated.
The guidance referenced in PPS 3.1.1 is the 2001 Technical Guide for Great Lakes – St. Lawrence
River Shorelines (the Tech Guide), Part 4 Erosion Hazard, and Part 7 Addressing the Hazards.
Protection works standards: means the combination of non-structural or structural works and
allowances for slope stability and flooding/erosion to reduce the damage caused by flooding
hazards, erosion hazards and other water-related hazards, and to allow access for their maintenance
and repair. The Tech Guide, Part 7 Addressing the Hazards does not contemplate development on
the slope, i.e. replacing a steep, 9 metre slope with one or more concrete retaining walls. It is stated
that, “protection works must be combined with an allowance for stable slope plus a hazard
allowance” (e.g. pgs. 7-46, 7-58). This proposal does not provide for the slope stability allowance or
the access allowance required to meet public works standards; therefore we advised that the
provincial protection works standards required by PPS 3.1.7 are not met.
Access standards: means methods or procedures to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian
movement, and access for the maintenance and repair of protection works, during times of flooding
erosion hazards and/or other water-related hazards. Applicable to this proposal is the access for the
maintenance and repair of protection works. We advise that the provincial access standards
required by PPS 3.1.7 are not met.
Additional Comments
Should the development proceed, the retaining walls that are part of the individual dwelling units
must be a COMMON element for which an arrangement for perpetual maintenance is made,
including regular inspection and repair.
Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng.
Interim Watershed Services Manager
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm Street, Tillsonburg, ON, N4G 0C4
Tel: (519) 842-4242 ext. 228
Toll Free: 1-888-231-5408 Fax: (519) 842-7123
Email: lminshall@lprca.on.ca
Web: www.lprca.on.ca
www.sbmltd.ca
7
ATTACHMENT
4. Site Plan and related drawings including Sight Lines and Shadows
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A0.1
COVER SHEET
B E A C H H O U S E L A N E - P O R T B U R W E L L , O N T A R I O
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A0.2
INTERIOR RENDERINGS
B E A C H H O U S E L A N E - P O R T B U R W E L L , O N T A R I O
BLOCK B & C
2.77 m north side
181 sm PER UNIT
PROPOSEDPERMITTED
ROW HOUSING
4.58 m
40.234 m
1.86 m
R2
10m
ZONES R2
LOT AREA
FRONT & EXTERIOR
SIDEYARD DEPTH (M)
PERMITTED USES
LOT FRONTAGE
REARYARD DEPTH (M)
INTERIOR SIDEYARD DEPTH
(M)
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT (M)
COVERAGE (%) MAX.
15 m
9 m required
6 m
340 sm PER UNIT
50% MAX.
1.2 m plus .5m per
additional floor
ROW HOUSING
MAIN FLOOR
SF
SECOND FLOOR
TOTAL
SM
912
751 69.8
2,243
84.7
208.4
COMMON AREA
GROSS LOT AREA 3,444
LANDSCAPE AREA
37,080
SF SM
BUILDING AREA 13,749
%AC HEC
0.851 0.344
PARKING REQUIRED.38 SPACES
PROVIDED.
1.5 SPACES PER UNIT
30 SPACES REQUIRED
MAIN FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
SF SM
TOTAL
659 61.2
874
COTTAGE
81.2
1,533 142.42
38.1%
9,257 24.9%
1,277
860
Block A
Block A
6.7mBlock B&C
37 %
OBSERVATION DECK AREA
OBSERVATION DECK AREA
491
205 19
45.621.9% OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
13 % OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
EXIST N
O
P
A
R
KI
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
Z O N I N G D A T A
B U I L D I N G D A T A - B L O C K A
S I T E D A T A
COTTAGE
BH3
BH2
BH1
CB
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
B U I L D I N G D A T A - B L O C K B & C
CBROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREE
BLOCK A
BLOCK C
GREENSPACE
CARPORT
BLOCK B
PROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)THIRD FLOOR 53.8580 178.68
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ERIEUS STREETA1.1
SITE PLAN
PROPOSED RAMP TO U/G PARKING
UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 15 UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 18
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXIT
ADD. 6 VISTOR PARKING TOTAL 14 VISTOR PARKINGS STAIRCASE14,074 1,307
ENTER
UNIT 5
UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 UNIT 9 UNIT 10 UNIT 11
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4
37%
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
CARPORT
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKING
LOT TO ADD PLANTING AREA
P R O P O S E D P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
EMERGENCY
EXIT
CARPORT
UNIT 19
HAGERMAN STREET
COMMON
AMENITY GREENSPACE
2,120 SF 196 SMBBQ ZONE
CENTRELINE CENTRELINECENTRELINEBUILDINGS
DECK SPACE
RETAINING WALL
GREEN SPACE
DRIVEWAY / WALKWAYS
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROUTE
LEGEND
CARPORTS
PROPERTY LINE 334' (101.80m)RIGHT OF WAY
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A1.2EX TREE
PROPERTY LINE 334' (101.80m)178.68POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKING
LOT TO ADD PLANTING AREA ERIUS STREET P R O P O S E D P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
PROPOSED PUBLIC BEACH
PARKING LOT PLANPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYBLOCK B BLOCK C
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
MARCH 21 - 10:00am
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
MARCH 21 - 12:00pm
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
MARCH 21 - 2:00pm
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
7 ERIUS ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
MARCH 21 - 4:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
MARCH 21 - 6:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
JUNE 21 - 10:00am
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
JUNE 21 - 12:00pm
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
JUNE 21 - 2:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
JUNE 21 - 4:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
JUNE 21 - 6:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
SEPTEMBER 21 - 10:00am
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
SEPTEMBER 21 - 12:00pm
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SEPTEMBER 21 - 2:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SEPTEMBER 21 - 4:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SEPTEMBER 21 - 6:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
DECEMBER 21 - 10:00am
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
DECEMBER 21 - 12:00pm
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
DECEMBER 21 - 2:00pm
4 ROBINSON ST
10 ROBINSON ST
6 ROBINSON ST 8 ROBINSON ST
12 ROBINSON ST
BLOCK A
BLOCK B BLOCK C
RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 ROBINSON ST
53%60%49%31%
53%58%45%26%
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A1.3
SHADOW STUDY
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVED
EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED EX.SHED EX.COTTAGETO BE REMOVED
29%
31%18%
22%
99%
86%
20%
92%
70%
79%
65%
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
7 ERIUS ST
20 BROCK ST 22 BROCK ST 9 ERIUS ST
96%
EX.SHEDTO BE REMOVEDTO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVEDEX.SHED
949596GREENSPACE PARKING LOT EDGEBEACH EDGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPARKING LOT EDGEPROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINES C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
S I T E S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
S I T E S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
R O B I N S O N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N
WATERS EDGE186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
WATERS EDGEWATERS EDGEBEACH EDGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
COTTAGECOTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A2
SITE PROFILES
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
185.27 FIN GRAGE
186.38 FIN GRAGE
175.52 FLOOD ELEVATION
175.52 FLOOD ELEVATION
186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT949596PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINES C A L E 1 : 300 REFERENCED FROM: A1
R O B I N S O N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N
186.74 M MAX BUILDING HEIGHT WATERS EDGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
175.52 FLOOD ELEVATION
PARKING PARKING
LIVING ROOM
OBSERVATION DECK
WR BEDROOM 2
MASTER BEDROOM
ROOF
WIC
ENSUITE
ROOF TOP PATIO
BONUS BEDROOM
RECREATION / STUDIO ROOM
DINING
OPTIONAL ELEV
DINING
OPTIONAL ELEV OPTIONAL ELEV
WR
LAUNDRY
STOR
KITCHEN
MECH
OFFICE
OPEN BELOW
153 SF / 14.2 SM
247 SF / 22.9 SM
70 SF
T H I R D F L O O R P L A NM A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A NL O W E R F L O O R P L A N
SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"751 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"607 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"772 SF
T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A T Y P I C A L B L O C K A
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A3
FLOOR PLANS
BLOCK A
B L O C K A
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK
ROBINSON STREET PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESIDEWALK RAMP
L A K E E L E V A T I O N
B L O C K CB L O C K B
S C A L E 1 / 16 " = 1 ' - 0 "
RAMP
ELEVATIONS
A42018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
BLOCK A
B L O C K A - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECKOBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
B L O C K A - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
SIDEWALK
B L O C K A - W E S T E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
B L O C K A - E A S T E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
OBSERVATION DECK
OBSERVATION DECK
COMMON
AMENITY GREENSPACE
BBQ ZONE
PRIVACY FENCE
M A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
659 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"874 SF
T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C
MASTER BEDROOM
ENSUITE
WR
OBSERVATION DECK
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOMBEDROOM
OPEN CARPORT
MECH
STOR
WR FOYER
SKYLIGHT ABOVE SKYLIGHT ABOVE
LF
MF
ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FOUNDATION
B L O C K B - W E S T E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "PROPERTY LINES C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
S E C T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
B L O C K B - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
S C A L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
M A I N F L O O R P L A N S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
659 SFSCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"SCALE 3/16 "=1'-0"874 SF
B L O C K C - E A S T E L E V A T I O N
BEDROOM
MASTER BEDROOM
SKYLIGHT
OPENING
UTILITY
LIVING SPACE
ATTIC
PARKING
OBSERVATION DECK
T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C T Y P I C A L B L O C K B & C
MASTER BEDROOM
ENSUITE
WR
OBSERVATION DECK
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOMBEDROOM
OPEN CARPORT
MECH
STOR
WR FOYER
SKYLIGHT ABOVE SKYLIGHT ABOVE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
A5
BLOCK B AND C
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
ROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
ERIEUS STREETSL.1
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
PHOTO 1
PHOTO 1
EXISTING SIGHTLINES
PHOTO 1
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
ROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEPROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)COTTAGE
COTTAGE
ERIEUS STREETSL.2
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
PHOTO 2
PHOTO 2
EXISTING SIGHTLINES
PHOTO 2
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
ROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEPROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)COTTAGE
COTTAGE
ERIEUS STREETSL.3
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
PHOTO 3
PHOTO 3
EXISTING SIGHTLINES
PHOTO 3
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u pROBINSON STREETEX TREESL.4
EXISTING SIGHTLINES
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
PHOTO 4
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
PROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEPROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)COTTAGE
COTTAGE
ERIEUS STREETPHOTO 4
PHOTO 4
EXIST
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGECOTTAGE
COTTAGE
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
COTTAGE
ROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAYPEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEPROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)COTTAGE
COTTAGE
ERIEUS STREETESL.1
EXISTING SIGHTLINES
E X I S T I N G P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
Existing 20 degree sight line
Existing 31 degree sight line
20 degree sightline
for 6 Robinson St.
31 degree sightline
for 6 Robinson St.
Combined 33
degree sightline
for 4 Robinson St.
BH3
BH2
BH1
CB
2018PORT BURWELL, ON
BEACH HOUSE LANE
2 ROBINSON STREET
b a r r y @ b a r r y w a d e . c a
P.O. Box 355, Port Burwell, ON N0J 1T0
7 7 6 4 9 7 ONT LTD
B a r r y W a d e G r o u p
CB
PSL.1
PROPOSED SIGHTLINES
S I T E P L A N
S C A L E 1 : 2 5 0
EXIST N
O
P
A
R
KI
N
G
T
U
R
N
A
B
O
U
T
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
ROBINSON STREETPROPERTY LINE 100' (30.48m)PROPERTY LINE 169' (51.51m)
RIGHT OF WAY
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYEX TREEBLOCK A
BLOCK C
GREENSPACE
CARPORT
BLOCK B
PROPERTY LINE 334' (101.80m)PROPERTY LINE 132' (40.234 m)COTTAGE
COTTAGE
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ERIEUS STREETPROPOSED RAMP TO U/G PARKING
UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 15 UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 18
FUTURE ACCESS
TO COAL FLATS
EXIT STAIRCASEENTER
UNIT 5
UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 UNIT 9 UNIT 10 UNIT 11
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4
CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
CARPORT
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKING
LOT TO ADD PLANTING AREA
P R O P O S E D P U B L I C B E A C H P A R K I N G L O T
EMERGENCY
EXIT
CARPORT
UNIT 19
HAGERMAN STREET
COMMON
AMENITY GREENSPACE
2,120 SF 196 SMBBQ ZONE
CENTRELINE CENTRELINECENTRELINECOTTAGE
57 degree sightline
for 6 Robinson St.
57 degree sightline
for 4 Robinson St.
87 degree sightline
for 8 Robinson St.RIGHT OF WAY
www.sbmltd.ca
8
ATTACHMENT
5. Sightline Report – Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Sightline Report
Due to the concerns of the neighbors losing sightlines of the waterfront we have conducted a report that reviews the existing sightline conditions and the proposed sightline of the new
development. The properties that are affected are 4, 6 and 8 Robinson Street. During the planning and
building design process we were sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors and had meetings with the abutting landowners to review the proposed development.
The proposed design addresses sightlines, noise control and privacy issues. The building heights of blocks B and C do not exceed the top of the bluff allowing for full view of the water. The elevation of the peaks of the roofs would be at an elevation of 186.74. The elevation at the top of bank which is where the residence are located is at an elevation of 186.74. The buildings B and C also shelter noise sourcing at the public parking lot toward the existing residences. Privacy has been maintained by creating amenity spaces on the existing neighbouring residential buildings. Below is a description of the photos and angles the photos were taken and an explanation how the views are being enhanced. Drawing SL.1 Drawing SL.1 is an existing photo looking south from the deck of cottage located at 4 Robinson
Street. You will note the existing tree that is impeding the view to the lake. This tree would be removed as part of the development enhancing the view to the south of 4 Robinson Street. Drawing SL.2 Drawing SL.2 is an existing photograph from 7 Robinson Street. A line of tree impedes the view
to the south west. Three of these trees would be removed with the possibility of the fourth tree to be removed pending final lot grading plans and consent from the owner of 7 Robinson Street. Drawing SL.3 Drawing SL.3 is an existing photo from 6 Robinson Street. Once again, this tree line to the left of the photo would be removed giving a better view to the beach and lakeshore. Drawing SL.4 Drawing SL.4 is a view looking to the south east through the existing tree line. Once again, this
line of trees would be removed enhancing the view to the east.
Drawing ESL.1
Drawing ESL.4 identifies the aerial view of the property. The site plan identified on this plan illustrates the shaded sight lines from 4,6 and 8 Robinson Street.
4 Robinson Street.
The sight lines from the south west corner of the cottage shows the split views around the existing tree that equals to 33 degrees of view. If you were to refer to page PSL.1 you will see the existing tree will be removed giving a 57-degree view of the lake, increasing the sightlines by 24 degrees. 6 Robinson Street
The sightlines from 6 Robinson Street are flanked by a tree line to the east and a substantial shade tree to the west along with a 8 foot high retaining wall. The angle of sight line is 49 degrees. The proposed development will eliminate the tree line to the east. The building known as Block A would replace the existing shade tree and retaining wall with a three-storey building. Currently for the existing residence the existing south east sightline has no view to the lake or river as the existing grade height conceals any view. The existing angle of sight line will be increased from 20 degrees to 49 degrees, more than doubling the view to the lake.
8 Robinson Street The sightlines from 8 Robinson Street would also be increased by the proposed development.
The existing sightline of 31 degrees would be increased to 45 degrees an increase of 14 degrees by removing the tree line to the east as shown in the photo 4.
Conclusion. Responsible building developments take the local context and adjacent residences into
consideration such that their quality of the residence can be enhanced or maintained. Our analysis shows that there would be improved sightlines and buffering from noise. These would prove to be a positive impact to the neighbourhood. By working with the abutting landowners, we have been able to create a development that fits within the neighbourhood. This development has created a link between the beach and the rest of the Village. This is one of the final pieces of the puzzle in the revitalization of the Village. The high quality of architecture for this development would hopefully set a standard for future developments to follow. The mariner village style of architecture is a natural fit and will be recognized as Port Burwell’s waterfront gateway. In our opinion, the development represents both an appropriate use of land and high-quality architecture and site design, while balancing the many other planning goals and objectives
advanced in Provincial and Municipal planning documents.
Barry Wade Barry Wade Homes Inc
www.sbmltd.ca
9
ATTACHMENT
6. Shadow Study – Barry Wade Homes Inc.
Revised Shadow Study Report Barry Wade Homes Inc. previously provided a Shadow Study in support of the Beach House Lane application submitted to the Municipality of Bayham on February 28, 2022. In response to that submission, Planning Staff has requested submitting a revised Analysis of the Shadow Study in the context of the City of Waterloo Urban Design Manual to consider the compatibility of the proposal. Planning Staff note that shadow studies are typically only required for developments over six storey height (18m), but are recommending a Shadow Study for the proposed three storey
Beach House Lane development to illustrate the shadow impact the proposed development may have on the surrounding residential properties using the 50% test criteria.
Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) two-storey townhouse blocks on the lower section at the properties identified as Blocks B and C (located at 2 Robinson St. and 3 Erieus St., respectively) and one three-storey townhouse identified as Block A (located on the upper section of 2 Robinson St.) representing a total of 21 units with an overall density of 171.6 sq m per unit.
Shadow Impact Study The City of Waterloo has established two guidelines for the consideration of Shadow Studies within the Urban Design Manual: 1. As a principle, at least 50% or more of any property should not be shaded for more than two
interval times (a 4-hour equivalency); or
2. As a principle, at least 50% of any property should be in full sun for at least two interval times (a 4-hour equivalency).
To fulfill the requirements set out in the guidelines, a revised shadow analysis was undertaken for the following periods, as recommended in the City of Waterloo Urban Design Manual:
Dates(s) Times
Spring Shadows, March 21 (equinox) 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm
Summer Shadows, June 21 (solstice) 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm
Autumn Shadows, September 21 (equinox) 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm
Winter Shadows, December 21 (solstice) 10am, 12pm, 2pm
Based on our analysis/review, shadows cast by the lower townhouses on Block B and C have
no impact on the surrounding neighbourhood as they are built into the hill. As with the existing buildings, shadows cast by the proposed upper-level townhouse (Block A) encroach onto the neighbouring residential properties known as 4 and 6 Robinson Street. However, it is our
understanding that the proposed development generally conforms to the 50% test criteria, as demonstrated below. March Equinox The following assesses the shadow impacts of the proposed development on the immediate surrounding properties.
• 4 Robinson Street o Shadow impacts approximately 53% of the lot @ 10 am o Shadow impacts approximately 60% of the lot @ 12 pm
o Shadow impacts approximately 49% of the lot @ 2 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 31% of the lot @ 4 pm o No shadow impact @ 6 pm.
o The lands have less than 50% shadow from approximately 2 pm until sunset, which represents more than a 4-hour equivalency
• 6 Robinson Street o No shadow impacts @ 10 am
o No shadow impacts @ 12 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 18% of the lot @ 2 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 31% of the lot @ 4 pm o No shadow impacts @ 6 pm o The lands have less than 50% shadow from approximately 2 pm until sunset,
which represents more than a 4-hour equivalency Although the development does produce shadow impacts onto adjacent properties, the resulting impacts meet the guidelines. June Solstice
Shadows cast by the development are smaller in June due to the height of the sun in the sky. There are no shadow impacts from the development on the adjacent lands during this interval.
• 4 and 6 Robinson Street
o No shadow impact @ 10 am o No shadow impact @ 12 pm o No shadow impact @ 2 pm
o No shadow impact @ 4 pm o No shadow impact @ 6 pm o There are no shadow impacts on the lands at this interval
September Equinox
Similar to the shadows cast in March, the sun is lower in the sky, particularly in the afternoon. However, the shadows move quickly across the landscape, which minimizes their impacts on adjacent lands.
• 4 Robinson Street
o Shadow impacts approximately 53% of the lot @ 10 am o Shadow impacts approximately 58% of the lot @ 12 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 45% of the lot @ 2 pm
o Shadow impacts approximately 26% of the lot @ 4 pm o No shadow impact @ 6 pm o The lands have less than 50% shadow from approximately 2 pm until sunset, which represents more than a 4-hour equivalency
• 6 Robinson Street o No shadow impacts @ 10 am o Minimal shadow impacts @ 12 pm
o Shadow impacts approximately 20% of the lot @ 2 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 29% of the lot @ 4 pm o No shadow impacts @ 6 pm
o The lands have less than 50% shadow throughout the day, which represents more than a 4-hour equivalency
Although the development produces shadow impacts onto adjacent properties, the resulting impacts meet the guidelines. December Solstice
Shadows are longest in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky and the sun sets by 4:53 pm.
• 4 Robinson Street
o Shadow impacts approximately 92% of the lot @ 10 am o Shadow impacts approximately 99% of the lot @ 12 pm
o Shadow impacts approximately 79% of the lot @ 2 pm o The lands do not meet the guidelines
• 6 Robinson Street o No shadow impact @ 10 am
o No shadow impact @ 12 pm o Shadow impacts approximately 86% of the lot @ 2 pm o There is only one interval where shadow impacts more than 50% of the property;
otherwise, the property is in full sun and meets the guidelines As shown in Figure A1.3 (in blue), even a single storey residence casts shadows onto the adjacent properties. It is important to note the guidelines do not account for the size of impacted lots. A small lot is inherently more likely to be impacted by shadows than a larger lot, which would have more area outside of any shadows. In the case of the subject lands, the majority of the surrounding residential parcels are significantly smaller than the minimum lot size required under the municipal zoning by-laws (800 m2 or 8,611 sf):
• 4 Robinson St. is 234 m2 (2,523 sf), representing 29% of the minimum lot size; and
• 8 Robinson St. is 188 m2 (2032 sf), representing 23% of the minimal lot size. For this reason, shadow impacts resulting from any development of the subject lands (regardless of its height) are likely to impact the small properties.
Conclusion This Shadow Study demonstrates that the shadows cast by the proposed development is generally consistent with the Shadow Study Criteria set out in the City of Waterloo Urban Design Guidelines and no changes to the building design are required.
In our opinion, the Beach House Lane development represents an appropriate use of land, while balancing the many other planning goals and objectives advanced in provincial and municipal planning documents. We trust the enclosed submission addresses your comments. Barry Wade Barry Wade Homes Inc.
MPAC is legislatively responsible for collecting occupant information (name, date of birth, citizenship and school support) for municipal, District Social Services Administration Boards and school board elections, and
keeping up-to-date population figures for every municipality in Ontario.
One of the ways we collect this information is through voterlookup.ca. By
logging into voterlookup.ca, Ontarian's can add their name or the names of
others in their household to our database, confirm or update their electoral information and change their school support. We use this information to create a Preliminary List of Electors, used by municipalities to produce the final Voters’ List for municipal elections, as well as population reporting for various municipal and school board
planning purposes.
To add or confirm your information for future elections, and help improve
the accuracy of population reports, please visit voterlookup.ca.
Council Approves Civility and
Respect Policy
Warden Mary French Raises Pride
Flag
Port Stanley Traffic Study
Council Endorses Corporate Asset
Management Plan
Council Approves Centennial
Avenue and Elm Line Roundabout
Landscaping Design
August 9, 2022
Elgin County Council Highlights
August 9, 2022 www.elgincounty.ca
In this Issue
Council Approves Civility and
Respect Policy
1
Elgin County Council approved Human
Resources Policy 2.80 and 2.80.1 – Civility
and Respect – Policy and Procedures
Against Harassment and Discrimination.
These new policies are a result of many
months of organizational culture work
completed by the County’s management
team. These policies are meant to act as
tools for County leadership and staff to
understand the expectations of the
organization, and to help staff work
through inevitable workplace conflicts as
they arise. The Council report and policies
can be viewed in the August 9, 2022,
County Council Agenda Package.
August 9, 20222
Port Stanley Traffic Study
At its meeting on July 26, 2022, County Council directed staff to complete a traffic study
along County Roads at nine (9) locations within the Village of Port Stanley. Staff
deployed radar traffic data collectors in strategic areas along these County roads and
collected information between July 27, 2022, and August 3, 2022. Staff provided a
summary of the findings at the August 9, 2022 meeting, and the results can be viewed in
the staff report in the August 9, 2022, County Council Agenda Package. Council directed
staff to prepare a follow-up report at its September 14, 2022, Council meeting detailing
costs and maintenance considerations associated with a pilot project including traffic
calming measures on East Road in Port Stanley.
Warden Mary French Raises Pride Flag
On August 9, 2022, Elgin County Warden Mary French proclaimed August 8-14, 2022, as
Pride Week within the County of Elgin. To celebrate the occasion, Warden French raised
the Pride flag with Martin Withenshaw of the Rainbow Optimist Club of Southwestern
Ontario (pictured below). The County of Elgin recognizes that supporting Lesbian, Gay,
Bi-sexual, Transgender, two-spirited, Queer, and all other sexual orientation and gender
identities as full and equal members of our community is a vital and integral part of
strengthening our Municipality.
For the complete August 9, 2022 County Council Agenda Package
please visit the Elgin County website.
August 9, 20223
Council Approves Centennial Avenue and Elm Line Roundabout
Landscaping Design
The County of Elgin is preparing to construct its first roundabout at the intersection of
Centennial Ave and Elm Line. Council considered many options for the landscaping of
the open space in the centre of the roundabout and, with the support of the County’s
Environmental Committee, approved the installation of a naturalized habitat with a
stone buffer for $55,000 in estimated capital costs and $1,000 in estimated annual
maintenance costs. More information about the design can be found in the August 9,
2022, County Council Agenda.
Council Endorses Corporate Asset Management Plan
County Council endorsed the Elgin
County Corporate Asset
Management Plan at their August 9,
2022, meeting. Asset Management
is the process of collecting a variety
of data and information regarding
municipal assets and infrastructure,
and using the data and information
to make the best long-term
decisions in regards to building,
operating, maintaining, renewing,
replacing, and disposing of those
assets. The County’s latest
Corporate Asset Management Plan
was prepared exclusively by staff
and focuses on the County’s
stormwater, sanitary, transportation,
fleet, long-term care homes, and
corporate facilities. The plan can be
viewed here.
Annual Report
2021
Healthy people in vibrant communities.
Leading the way in protecting and promoting
the health of all people in our communities,
resulting in better health.
Evidence
Collaboration
Accountability
Quality
Equity
Forward-thinking
OUR MISSION
OUR VISION
OUR VALUES
Community leadership.
The Southwestern Public Health Board of Health is
comprised of municipal appointees and provincially
appointed Order in Council positions.
The Board is accountable to the Ontario Ministry of Health and the communities
of Oxford County, Elgin County and the City of St. Thomas to ensure we deliver
quality, responsive programs, and services under the Ontario Public Health
Standards as regulated by the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act.
Lori Baldwin-Sands Grant Jones Tom Marks Larry Martin
Board Chair
David Mayberry Stephen Molnar
Joe Preston
Vice Chair
Lee Rowden
Order in Council
David Warden
Order in Council
Cynthia St. John
Chief Executive
Ofcer
Dr. Joyce Lock
Medical Ofcer
of Health
Ted Comiskey
The School Nutrition and Learning Program
is a funded partner of United Way Oxford.
Success made possible
through partnership.
Message from the Board of Health
There is no better window into the importance of local public health than chairing a Board
of Health during a pandemic.
For the duration of 2021, Southwestern Public Health supported the broader health care
system, local businesses, municipalities, education partners, and thousands of individuals and
families. Our staff provided education, infection prevention and control guidance, policy
support, and hundreds of thousands of vaccination appointments.
With their unique knowledge of local communities and the rural landscape, our staff very
effectively connected with formal and informal community leadership, business owners, and a
wide variety of health and social service providers about COVID-19 related restrictions, testing,
and vaccination. This work would not have been possible without the relationships that had
been built over years of service to Oxford County, Elgin County, and the City of St. Thomas.
As a Board, the emphasis of our work remained on Board governance matters centred on our
COVID-19 pandemic response and recruiting a new Medical Officer of Health in anticipation
of Dr. Joyce Lock’s retirement in March 2022.
2021 illuminated extraordinary leadership from the Southwestern Public Health team as a
collective. I know my fellow Board of Health members and I felt great confidence in the
organization’s ability to lead and respond as required during very difficult circumstances.
I thank Cynthia St. John, our CEO, and Dr. Joyce Lock, Medical Officer of Health, for their
perseverance, responsiveness, and professionalism during what certainly was the challenge
of a lifetime.
To the 211,000 residents served by Southwestern Public Health, I know that COVID-19 has
challenged all of us in every way over the past two years. Know that your local public
health professionals are here for you – ready to support our community’s recovery from
these extraordinary times.
Sincerely,
Larry Martin,
Chair
Pictured left: Board Chair, Larry Martin, and CEO, Cynthia St. John, at the official opening of the Woodstock
Mass Immunization Clinic.
Southwestern Public Health nancial picture,
year ending December 31, 2021
2021 Audited Financial Statements
A shifting landscape,
adaptable professionals,
& a community that rallied.
Message from the CEO
We are living in remarkable times. While
there was no less emphasis on COVID-19 in
2021 than there was in 2020, we did begin
the new year with optimism due to the
arrival of the COVID-19 vaccines. The
international scientific community, support-
ed by governments and private business,
worked at an extraordinary pace to bring a
safe and effective vaccine to the world.
While the evolution of the virus and its
tendency to mutate meant that even
individuals who were fully vaccinated could
acquire COVID-19, the vaccines resulted in
a significant reduction in serious illness,
hospitalization, and death. The efficacy of
the vaccination campaign was a welcome
relief for community members and health
care professionals alike as it allowed some
return to normalcy while reducing the
pressure on our health care system.
Our vaccination campaign, supported by
the work of volunteers, hundreds of addi-
tional temporary staff, and external partners
started with visits to the vulnerable
residents of local congregate living homes.
It evolved into the launch of Mass Immuniza-
tion Clinics in Tillsonburg, Woodstock, and
St. Thomas where hundreds upon hundreds
of people were vaccinated per site, per day.
Absolutely none of this would have been
possible without the dedicated and skilled
professionals employed by this organiza-
tion. The landscape in which the staff
worked shifted regularly and required
constant evaluation and adaptation. Their
unwavering commitment to health protec-
tion and health promotion was evident
every step of the way.
The pandemic highlighted both areas of
strength within our health system response,
and elements within our community that
require transformation. Public health is
grateful for the tremendous support of
municipalities, community organizations,
businesses, and our health system partners.
Your obvious commitment to working in
partnership with us allowed a timely and
efficient response to a significant public
health emergency.
Simultaneous to that incredible support,
we observed how poverty, homelessness,
computer access and digital literacy, and
our rural geography created barriers to
health and well-being. We must rally in
new ways to protect our most vulnerable
community members in preparation for
future emergency situations. And we must
remember that public health’s best work is
when we work for health equity for all.
This Annual Report is focused on our
vaccination campaign – the largest in the
history of Canadian public health and some
of the most remarkable work I have seen
over the course of my career.
I know that when we meet again at the end
of 2022, we will reflect on everything we
learned over the course of the pandemic.
We will share our new understanding of the
unintended consequences of the public
health measures necessary to control the
virus and the pausing of our much-needed
public health services along the way. I
remain hopeful that next year’s report will
showcase some of the other important
work that we have done and continue to
do to contribute to our vision of healthy
people in vibrant communities.
With gratitude,
Cynthia St. John,
CEO
Pictured above: Jaime Fletcher, Manager, Vaccine Operations and Chief Nursing Officer; Mary Van Den Neucker, Program
Manager, Healthy Growth and Development; Cynthia St. John, CEO; Megan Cornwell, Communications Manager at the
celebration of 200,000 doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered.
ELGINThamesfordAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2021
While some health care professionals and residents of Long-Term Care Homes within the
Southwestern Public Health region had access to COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020,
Southwestern Public Health’s vaccination campaign began in January 2021.
All data reflects the period of January 1 – December 31, 2021.
AT LEAST ONE DOSE AT LEAST TWO DOSES AT LEAST THREE DOSES
AGES 80+
AT LEAST ONE DOSE
AGES 5-11
AT LEAST ONE DOSE
95.2%
37.6%
Together with our partners we administered nearly 437,000 doses
349,043 DOSES
*At 57 different locations
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS
79,445 DOSES
*At 45 participating pharmacies
SWPH PHARMACIES
6,761 DOSES
*At 19 participating practices
SWPH PRIMARY CARE
OF ALL RESIDENTS
AGED 5+ IN EAST ZORRA
TAVISTOCK HAD AT LEAST ONE DOSE OF A
COVID-19 VACCINE BY DECEMBER 31, 2021
97.4%CALLS TO THE
COVID-19
RESPONSE CENTRE AND VACCINE
BOOKING LINE IN 2021
29,800
DID YOU KNOW?
VISITS TO THE COVID-19
WEBSITE CONTENT IN 2021
1,216,909
57,000 non residents were among those that we vaccinated
Middlesex-London Health Unit 37,895
Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit 6,598
Region of Waterloo Public Health
& Emergency Services 3,031
Huron Perth Public Health 2,014
Brant County Health Unit 1,990
All others 5,470
SWPH PHARMACIES
SWPH PRIMARY CARE
SWPH
Vaccination coverage was higher in older people
We vaccinated most of our eligible residents
SWPH led a successful
vaccination campaign
The complexity of
mass immunization.
Local public health has a long history of
vaccinating children and adults. From routine
childhood vaccinations for illnesses such as
measles, mumps, and rubella, to prophylac-
tic vaccination against rabies, to speciality
clinics for seasonal influenza, vaccination has
been a core function for decades.
The COVID-19 vaccines layered many
complexities onto our previous experiences.
Due to international demand, vaccines
were initially in short supply. This meant
that provincially, difficult decisions about
who would be vaccinated first needed to
be made. It also meant that our work
often had to start and stop depending on
available supply.
As a region, we determined that mass
immunization clinics were the most efficient
means of vaccinating thousands of people
in a short period of time. Each clinic
required dozens of staff each day to handle
everything from the technology needed for
the electronic documentation system, to
parking control, to the administration of the
vaccines themselves. The hiring of hun-
dreds of vaccinators and nonclinical staff
happened within the context of enormous
pressure on health human resources and a
nursing shortage. The clinics themselves
needed to be set up for efficiency of service
and be aligned with infection prevention
and control measures to lower the risk of
transmission within the clinics themselves.
Of course – not everyone could be served
at one of these large-scale clinics. Vaccine
was also shipped to hospitals, long-term
care homes, retirement homes and prima-
ry care practices and administered at
more than fifty locations in the community
– from beaches to fall fairs to libraries!
4198 individuals who were homebound,
residing in group homes and seniors
apartments and experienced barriers to
attending clinics were vaccinated in their
own homes and dozens of individuals
with mobility challenges were vaccinated
in their cars in the clinic parking lots.
Before we could administer more than
349,000 doses, our vaccine logistics team
had to receive more than 100 specialized
vaccine shipments. The handling of this
vaccine was technically complex and
My parents (dad is 92, mom is 87) had their first vaccines
today at Goff Hall in Woodstock. I accompanied them at dif-
ferent times this afternoon and was very impressed with
the welcoming, helpful and professionalism of all staff we
came into contact with. The entire process was seamless
and even when we had to wait our turn a bit, we were
treated with the utmost respect and dignity. My parents
were extremely impressed with the entire process and will
certainly become your biggest cheerleaders.
required storage at ultra low temperatures
(Pfizer -70 degrees or below, and Moderna
at -20 degrees or below) in specialty
freezers. Vaccine had to be thawed, and,
in the case of Pfizer, reconstituted (mixed
with saline) at the time of vaccination.
Vaccine must be used within 30 days of
thawing and a vial of Modera must be
used within 6 hours of puncture. Staff paid
careful attention to lot numbers and
expiry dates. The goal was to waste no
doses of this valuable supply!
And in addition to all these logistical
complexities, was the documentation.
First, second, third and subsequent boost-
er doses, five different vaccines, multiple
dosages, tens of thousands of clients,
printed vaccination receipts, and the
inventory was all to be managed in
COVAXOn, the first provincial vaccination
database. This database was used by all
health care providers administering
COVID-19 vaccine and allowed the
Ministry of Health centralized access to
vaccine stock and rates of administration.
Thank you to the hundreds of temporary
and permanent staff, volunteers, and
community partners who quickly learned
new skills and put forward the best of
their education, knowledge, and experi-
ence to create a friendly, efficient, and
safe experience for more than 200,000
community members. Vaccination was
key to moving us to a different stage of
the pandemic – one in which the risks
were much lower for our most vulnerable
community members.
Susan MacIsaac,
Director, Vaccine Operations
Jaime Fletcher,
Manager, Vaccine Operations
and Chief Nursing Officer
“
As of December 31, 2021
• 209 clinics in St. Thomas (1672 hours of service)
• 208 clinics in Woodstock (1664 hours of service)
• 67 clinics in Tillsonburg (670 hours of service)
Southwestern Public Health expresses its heartfelt condolences to the
loved ones of the individuals who lost their lives to COVID-19 in 2021.
St. Thomas Site
1230 Talbot St.
St. Thomas, ON
N5P 1G9
Woodstock Site
410 Buller St.
Woodstock, ON
N4S 4N2
1-800-922-0096
swpublichealth.ca
August 9, 2022
Honourable Michael Kerzner
Solicitor General of Ontario
830 Sheppard Ave. W.,
Toronto ON M3H 2T1
Michael. Kerzner@pc. ola. org
Dear Solicitor General Kerzner:
Re: Mandatory Firefighter Certification
The Ontario Government has been making great improvements to the legislation which
governs the manner in which municipalities conduct their business. One such piece of
legislation is the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 and particularly, the
requirements for firefighter certification.
While the Town of South Bruce Peninsula supports, in principle, the updates to
requirements for volunteer and full-time fire service professionals, we must provide our
comments in order for the Province to understand the great burden that the regulations
will place on municipalities. Council discussed this issue at their regular Council
meeting held on August 2, 2022 and adopted resolution R-296-2022 directing that you
are contacted for assistance.
Smaller municipalities such as ours, are not fortunate enough to have full-time
firefighters. Our emergency personnel are all volunteers with the exception of our Fire
Chief who is a full-time employee and our Deputy Fire Chief who is a part-time
employee. It is difficult for our volunteers to dedicate the time to obtaining full
certification in the manner legislated , as the fire service is not their primary employment.
We have found that the average retention period for volunteers is three to five years
meaning that once fully trained, most of our volunteers would leave the service or may
even leave the service before they are fully trained and certified.
As you can imagine, this places a huge financial burden on our taxpayers as the
certification is an additional cost which is funded wholly from the tax base. No grant
funding or other financial assistance has been offered from the Province.
We are under the understanding that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many
municipal governments and the Fire Chiefs across Ontario have raised concerns
regarding the legislated requirements for certification. We are respectfully requesting
that meaningful consultation and collaboration with the commenting parties takes place
O PO Box 310,315 George Street
Wiarton, Ontario NOH 2TO
\. Tel: 519-534-1400
1-877 -534-1400
~ Fax:519-534-4862
3} www.southbrucepeninsulacom
quickly so that municipalities can better manage their finances and workforce where
emergency service provision is concerned .
We look forward to hearing from you and to discussing our position on this important
matter with you further.
Yours very truly,
nice J ayor
nice. ·a uthbruce eninsula.com
19-534 200
Enclosure (1)
cc: Premier Doug Ford, MPP Rick Byers, AMO, OSUM, All Ontario Municipalities,
Ministry of the Solicitor General (Ministry Office)
O PO Box 310,315 George Street
Wiarton, Ontario NOH 2TO
\. Tel: 519-534-1400
1-877 -534-1400
'il:ii Fax: 51 9-534-4862
3) www.southbrucepeninsulacom
TOWN OF
SOUTH BRUCE
~~ N~
PENINSULA
Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes -
August 2, 2022
41. Notice of Motion -Mayor Jackson -Mandatory Firefighter Certification
Manager of Emergency Services/Fire Chief Wilson explained that the regulation was
passed and only slightly amended. The financial burden is quite large to municipalities.
The average retention of a fire fighter is 3-5 years. In order to become fully trained, it
would take 3 years.
R-296-2022
It was Moved by J. Jackson, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried
Whereas municipal governments provide essential services to the residents and businesses
in their communities;
And whereas the introduction of new Provincial policies and programs has an impact on
municipalities;
And whereas municipal governments are generally supportive of efforts to modernize and
enhance the volunteer and full-time fire services that serve Ontario communities;
And whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) believes in principle that
the fire certification is a step in the right direction, however it has not endorsed the draft
regulations regarding firefighter certification presented by the Province;
And whereas municipalities and AMO are concerned that the thirty-day consultation period
was insufficient to fully understand the effects such regulations will have on municipal
governments and their fire services;
And whereas Fire Chiefs have advised that the Ontario firefighter certification process will
create additional training and new cost pressures on fire services;
And whereas the Ontario government has not provided any indication that they will offer
some form of financial support to deliver this service;
And whereas AMO, on behalf of municipal governments, in a letter to Solicitor General
Jones dated February 25, 2022, made numerous comments and requests to address the
shortcomings in the draft regulations;
The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer
46 Talbot Street West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 1J7 Office: 519-773-3164 Fax: 519-765-1446 www.aylmer.ca
August 4, 2022
Honourable Sylvia Jones
Minister of Health and Deputy Premier
Sylvia.Jones@pc.ola.org
Re: Warming and Cooling Centre Policy
Dear Honourable Sylvia Jones,
At their meeting of July 13, 2022, Aylmer Town Council adopted the following resolution
regarding a request for increased federal and provincial funding for Health Units to
develop uniform and comprehensive local responses to extreme heat and cold events:
That Report CAO 49-22 entitled Warming and Cooling Centre Policy, be received
for information; and
That Council approve adoption of the Warming and Cooling Centre Policy; and
That Council request increased federal and provincial funding for Health Units to
develop uniform and comprehensive local responses to extreme heat and cold
events; and,
That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Environment and Climate
Change, Minister of Health Canada, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry
Ontario, Ontario Minister of Health, Ontario municipalities and the Southwestern
Public Health Unit.
Thank you,
Owen Jaggard
Deputy Clerk / Manager of Information Services | Town of Aylmer 46 Talbot Street West, Aylmer, ON N5H 1J7
519-773-3164 Ext. 4913 | Fax 519-765-1446
ojaggard@town.aylmer.on.ca | www.aylmer.ca Cc:
Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Health
Honourable Graydon Smith, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Ontario, Ontario Municipalities Delivered by email to: Sylvia.Jones@pc.ola.org; Steven.Guilbeault@parl.gc.ca;
hcminister.ministresc@hc-sc.gc.ca, Graydon.Smith@pc.ola.org
Township of Puslinch
7404 Wellington Road 34
Puslinch, ON N0B 2J0
www.puslinch.ca
July 21, 2022
RE: Consent Agenda item 6.8 Town of East Gwillimbury - Resolution -Summary and Implications
of Provincial Bill 109 More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 and 6.9 Township of West Lincoln -
Summary and Implications of Provincial Bill 109 - More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
Dear Premier,
Please be advised that Township of Puslinch Council, at its meeting held on July 13, 2022
considered the aforementioned topic and subsequent to discussion, the following was resolved:
Resolution No. 2022-234: Moved by Councillor Sepulis and
Seconded by Councillor Bulmer
That the Consent Agenda item 6.8 and 6.9 listed for JULY 13, 2022 Council meeting be
received; and
Whereas the Township of Puslinch is in receipt of correspondence from the Town of East
Gwillimbury, dated June 15, 2022, and from West Lincoln Township Council dated June
28, 2022 requesting the Government of Ontario to revisit the provisions of Bill 109 and
work with all stakeholders, including municipalities represented by the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario to deliver legislation that allows municipalities to plan, grow
and deliver communities that adhere to local, provincially-approved Official Plans, rather
than strict statutory timelines;
Be it resolved that Council receives and supports the request and,
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen’s
Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
VIA EMAIL:
premier@ontario.ca
That, a copy of this Motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario,
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Regional Chairs in Ontario, the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and all Ontario municipalities.
CARRIED
As per the above resolution, please accept a copy of this correspondence for your information
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Courtenay Hoytfox
Municipal Clerk
CC:
The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing steve.clark@pc.ola.org
Regional Chairs in Ontario
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) amo@amo.on.ca
All Ontario Municipalities
Town of East Gwillimbury
19000 Leslie Street, Sharon, Ontario L0G 1V0 I 905-478-4282 I Fax: 905-478-2808
www.eastgwillimbury.ca
Corporate Services
Tara Lajevardi, Hon.B.A.
Municipal Clerk/Director of Legislative Services 905-478-4282 ext. 3821 tlajevardi@eastgwillimbury.ca
June 15, 2022
Sent via email: premier@ontario.ca Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Legislative Building
Queen's Park Toronto ON M7A 1A1 Dear Premier Ford:
Re: Summary and Implications of Provincial Bill 109: More Homes for Everyone Act,
2022 For your information and records, at its electronic meeting held on June 7, 2022 the
Council of the Town of East Gwillimbury enacted as follows:
WHEREAS the Town of East Gwillimbury is Canada’s fastest growing
municipality (with more than 5,000 residents) according to 2021 Census Canada data; and
WHEREAS the Council of the Town of East Gwillimbury has significant
concerns regarding the impact of Bill 109 on the community planning process,
and the ability of municipalities to deliver on initiatives to address housing supply and attainability, and
WHEREAS the refund provisions in Bill 109 will result in existing taxpayers
subsidizing development applications as well as lost revenue and increased
staff costs for municipalities; and
WHEREAS the prescription of what constitutes a complete application does not
address differing levels of complexities and the unique circumstances and
diverse landforms that exist across the province, nor does it recognize the
collaborative process and relationships between parties that deliver results for municipalities; and
WHEREAS limiting conditions on Draft Plan of Subdivision does not address
the unusual and often challenging circumstances best understood by local
municipal staff and elected officials;
Town of East Gwillimbury
19000 Leslie Street, Sharon, Ontario L0G 1V0 I 905-478-4282 I Fax: 905-478-2808
www.eastgwillimbury.ca
Corporate Services
Tara Lajevardi, Hon.B.A.
Municipal Clerk/Director of Legislative Services 905-478-4282 ext. 3821 tlajevardi@eastgwillimbury.ca
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of East
Gwillimbury requests that Government of Ontario revisit the provisions of Bill 109 and work with all stakeholders, including municipalities represented by the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario to deliver legislation that allows
municipalities to plan, grow and deliver communities that adhere to local,
provincially-approved Official Plans, rather than strict statutory timelines; and
THAT a copy of this Motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, MPP Caroline Mulroney, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
all York Region Mayors and Regional Chairs in Ontario; and
THAT a copy of this Motion be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and all Ontario municipalities for their consideration.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact the undersigned. Yours truly,
Tara Lajevardi, Hon.B.A. Municipal Clerk
cc: The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Caroline Mulroney, MPP York – Simcoe York Region Mayors and Regional Chairs
Association of Municipalities Ontario
All Ontario municipalities
CLERK’S DEPARTMENT
318 Canborough St. P.O. Box 400
Smithville, ON
L0R 2A0 T: 905-957-3346 F: 905-957-3219
www.westlincoln.ca
June 28, 2022
Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Legislative Building Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier Ford:
Re: Summary and Implications of Provincial Bill 109: More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
This correspondence is to confirm that on June 27, 2022, West Lincoln Township Council adopted the following resolution regarding the Summary and Implications of Provincial Bill 109: More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
That, the correspondence from the Town of East Gwillimbury, dated June 15, 2022,
requesting the Government of Ontario to revisit the provisions of Bill 109 and work with all
stakeholders, including municipalities represented by the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario to deliver legislation that allows municipalities to plan, grow and deliver
communities that adhere to local, provincially-approved Official Plans, rather than strict
statutory timelines; be received and supported; and,
That, a copy of this Motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, MPP
Caroline Mulroney, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Regional Chairs in
Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and all Ontario municipalities
If any further information is required, please contact the undersigned at 905-957-5136.
Yours truly,
Joanne Scime Clerk
cc.The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and HousingThe Honourable Caroline Mulroney, MPP York-SimcoeRegional Chairs in OntarioAMOAll Ontario Municipalities
X:\cl-Clerks\Council-2022\Letters\PremierofOntario-Bill 109 – More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk
DATE: August 18, 2022
REPORT: CAO-38/22 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO THE ELGIN ELECTION JOINT COMPLIANCE AUDIT
COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA), as amended, requires that every municipality appoint
a Compliance Audit Committee prior to October 1st in the year of a Municipal Election. At its June 2, 2022 meeting, Council received Report CAO-24/22 and passed the following motion:
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report CAO-24/22 RE Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be received for information; AND THAT the by-law to establish an Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be brought forward for Council’s consideration. By-law No. 2022-039 was subsequently adopted at the same meeting, which formally established a Terms of Reference for the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee (JCAC). The Town of Aylmer has taken the lead on advertising and recruiting for applicants to the JCAC. DISCUSSION
Advertising for prospective Committee Members was undertaken in May and June of 2022 through advertisements in local newspapers, contacting previous members of the 2018 Joint
Committee, and by posting advertisement information on each Municipal webpage. Elgin County Clerks have had the opportunity to review applications received and are
recommending the following individuals to serve on the Joint Elgin Compliance Audit Committee
for the 2022 Municipal Election:
Christene Scrimgeour – is a Chartered Account and is familiar with the Municipal Act
and Municipal Elections Act. She is an auditor for several Elgin County Municipalities
and has previously served on the Joint Elgin Election Compliance Audit Committee.
Andrew Wright – is a lawyer at Siskinds LLP that specializes in Municipal Law. He is
familiar with all applicable legislation as a result of his profession and has previously
served on the Joint Elgin Election Compliance Audit Committee.
Daniel Ross – is a retired lawyer and businessperson from the Elgin County area. He
served on the City of London and joint Middlesex County Compliance Audit Committees
in 2018 and has accepted these positions again for 2022.
Dr. Zachary Spicer – is an Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and
Administration at York University. He specializes in municipal governance and public
policy and has application-based experience with the Municipal Elections Act as a
Senior Policy Advisor with the Province of Ontario. He also has employment experience
as a Municipal Advisor with the Province of Ontario’s Central Municipal Services Office,
where he supported municipalities throughout the 2018 Municipal Election, including
supporting several compliance audit committees.
Based on the appropriateness of qualifications and significant experience demonstrated by the above listed candidates, staff are recommending that Council endorse the appointment of Christene Scrimgeour, Andrew Wright, Daniel Ross and Dr. Zachary Spicer to sit on the Joint
Elgin Compliance Audit Committee. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-38/22 re Appointments to the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit
Committee be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council endorses the appointment of Christene Scrimgeour, Andrew Wright,
Daniel Ross, and Dr. Zachary Spicer to sit on the Joint Elgin Compliance Audit Committee for the period of 2022-2026;
3. AND THAT the appropriate by-law to confirm these appointments be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Thomas Thayer, CMO CAO|Clerk
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: August 18, 2022
REPORT: CAO-39/22 SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED – COMMENT PERIOD FOR USE OF THE
VIENNA COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RESERVE FUND
BACKGROUND The Vienna Community Centre (VCC) was deemed surplus by Municipal Council at its June 17, 2021 meeting and was sold to the Vienna Lion’s Club as authorized by By-law No. 2022-018. The sale process was conducted in accordance with the Municipality’s Sale of Surplus Municipal Lands Policy. At its May 19, 2022 meeting, Bayham Council received Report CAO-19/22 re Vienna Community Centre – Disposition of Reserve Fund and Allocation of Proceeds of Sale and passed the following motion: Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT Report CAO-19/22 re Vienna Community Centre – Disposition of Reserve Fund and Allocation of Proceeds of Sale be received for information;
AND THAT the Vienna Community Centre Reserve Fund be closed and the remaining balance of $42,324.13 be donated to the Vienna Lion’s Club for the future capital and
building maintenance needs of the Vienna Community Centre (VCC); AND THAT the Municipality of Bayham establish a Vienna Capital Improvement Reserve Fund to support ongoing capital improvements and/or new capital projects in Vienna; AND THAT the net proceeds from the sale of the VCC, being $476,722.65, be allocated into
the Vienna Capital Improvement Reserve Fund AND THAT the Treasurer report back on investment options for the Vienna Capital Improvement Reserve Fund in June 2022; AND THAT a public comment period be commenced in July 2022 to ascertain input from Vienna residents on proposed recreational amenities in Vienna; AND THAT staff report back on the public comment period results in August 2022.
In accordance, the Municipality conducted a public comment period to receive public input from Vienna residents on how a portion of the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund (VCIRF) funds could be allocated for projects in the village. The advertisement was placed on the Municipal website and distributed through our Voyent Alert! system. It was also published in the Aylmer Express. The comment period opened on July 19, 2022
and closed on August 9, 2022. DISCUSSION
The VCIRF was established to support ongoing capital improvements and/or new capital projects in
Vienna.
18 comments were received on the use of the VCIRF funds, the majority of which came from
residents of Vienna, per the notice. The comments provided by residents outside of Vienna have
been included in the comment package, attached, but are not elaborated upon in this Report. The
same applies to suggested projects outside of Vienna and thus, outside the scope of the VCIRF’s
established intent.
The general nature of the suggested improvements are noted below:
Improvements to the Vienna Community Park including, a multi-use court/enclosure –
basketball, pickleball, street hockey, etc., an in-ground outdoor swimming pool, a walkway,
and/or a basketball court and pavilion.
Improvements to the Vienna Memorial Park including, a canoe and kayak launch, walkway,
diagonal off-street parking, and enhanced beautification
Historic main-street lighting and main-street beautification in Vienna
Additional suggestions included providing the net proceeds of sale back to the Vienna Lions Club
for accessibility upgrades, or investing the funds in a high-interest GIC outside of the Municipality’s
usual banking and investment arrangements.
History
Council made formal decision to surplus and commence disposition of the VCC in June 2021, in
accordance with the Municipality’s Sale of Surplus Municipal Lands Policy, which included the
proper direction to surplus, direction to sell by method, and a month-long comment period, above
requirement under Policy.
Council received Report CAO-19/22 on May 19, 2022 at a Regular Meeting of Council. At the time,
and in accordance with the Municipality’s Procedural By-law, notice of the meeting was given via
Agenda being posted on the Friday preceding the meeting. The Municipality’s Procedural By-law
contains an Open Forum, which permits residents to attend and speak to Agenda items and provide
their input to Council on said items at a Regular Meeting of Council. By way of Report CAO-32/22
re Trial of Open Forum – Procedural By-law, no members of the public utilized the Open Forum
function to speak to the options outlined in Report CAO-19/22 or provide additional input on options,
despite the option to do so.
Previous Donation of VCCRF to Vienna Lions Club
Council ultimately motioned to donate the remaining Vienna Community Centre Reserve Fund
balance to the Vienna Lion’s Club in the amount of $42,324.13 and allocate the net proceeds of
sale into the newly-established Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund (VCIRF) to
recognize that these funds were received via the sale of a long-standing Vienna asset and should
remain in the community for future use.
These VCIRF funds have since been invested through Council motion in June 2022. These monies
are now invested for a minimum of one year and cannot be removed from the investment without
substantial penalty. Accordingly, staff recommend against any immediate provision of the VCIRF
funds to the Vienna Lions Club.
VCC as an Emergency Centre
Clarification is needed regarding the status of the Vienna Community Centre as an emergency
centre for Bayham. Upon sale, the Municipality sought registration of a notice on the land title which
would permit ongoing use of the VCC parking lot for park patrons, and confirm the potential of
utilizing the VCC as an emergency centre for Bayham. The intent was to establish the potential use
in the future rather than immediate use. Currently, the VCC is not included in the Municipality’s
Emergency Response Plan as an emergency centre or other identified facility for emergency
purposes (operations centre or evacuation centre). Under the current arrangement, any
accessibility upgrades would be the responsibility of the new owners of the VCC.
Vienna Community Park Improvements
With respect to the physical recreation improvements and in the opinion of staff, a court and
pavilion at the Vienna Community Park is the best option. A basketball court and pavilion were
included in the 2022-2031 Capital Budget (Item PR-03), which also included a walkway and was, at
the time, considered grant-contingent. The Municipality was able to complete a walkway through
the 2022 Sidewalk program. The remainder of PR-03 is outstanding and could be funded through
the VCIRF, depending on what Council wishes for a basketball versus a multi-purpose court as also
provided for in the comments. The only aspect suggested during the comment period not supported
by staff is the in-ground, outdoor pool. Given its potential costs, staffing, ancillary structures, and
water testing, there are greater capital and ongoing operating costs associated with this than other
potential upgrades requiring less space. The benefit of improvements in the Vienna Community
Park is the existence of the adjacent VCC and its parking lot, available to park users.
Vienna Memorial Park Improvements
Much of the suggested Vienna Memorial Park improvements were also brought up during the 2022-
2031 Capital Budget comment period in 2021. The walkway could be considered through the
Municipality’s Sidewalk program at a future date, if approved by Council. Any works adjacent to the
Otter Creek and in the Vienna Memorial Park that could impact the watercourse would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, ultimately requiring their approval to
continue with works inside their regulated area. It should also be noted that no formalized parking
exists at the Vienna Memorial Park and any further improvements at the park should also consider
the establishment of lined parking.
Updated costs for these projects are not provided at this time. The Staff Report presents an
overview of the public comments received and seeks Council’s direction regarding projects to
further investigate and return to Council with costing.
As a primary option, staff recommend proceeding with obtaining cost estimates for the multi-
purpose court and pavilion in the Vienna Community Park, as the balance of approved Capital Item
PR-03. A secondary option would be the canoe/kayak launch in the Vienna Memorial Park, and
associated parking and walkway.
Staff also recommend the balance of the VCIRF not utilized for the ultimate, chosen project(s) be
allocated in the VCIRF for long-term core capital needs in Vienna, consistent with the Municipality’s
Asset Management Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Comments, received July 19, 2022 – August 9, 2022 RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-39/22 re Public Comments Received – Comment Period for Use of the
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council direct staff regarding how to proceed with allocation of funds from the
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund for an identified community project(s), if applicable.
Respectfully submitted by, __________________________ Thomas Thayer, CMO CAO|Clerk
1
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jon Culford
August 9, 2022 4:27 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund | Public Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Please receive these comments for the use of the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund.
1. As these funds were realized from the sale of the VLCC, it is only morally appropriate that the entire amount
received from that sale be returned to the seller, the Vienna Lions Club. A public comment period was not
provided when the VCIRF was established and therefore it is not reasonable to expect that residents would have
submitted a request to have those funds returned until this current public comment period.
The Lions being aware of the surplus back in 2021 (determined by the municipality) is irrelevant in this matter.
What is relevant is the large public outcry to keep the VLCC AND confirmation from the mayor that the decision
was made in 2015 to sell the VLCC, therefore leaving it to atrophy and become a budgetary drain on the
municipality in 2021. Meaning, the decision was made to unload the VLCC from the municipality assets without
proper public engagement or input.
2. Since no other village or hamlet in Bayham have a capital budget, it is problematic and unethical under the
circumstances of the sale of the VLCC those proceeds are put into capital project funding for Vienna. This would
set a precedent that villages and hamlets should start to fund their own capital projects, which would create a
dilemma for things like water systems and road works for example.
Regards,
Jon Culford
1
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
B CC
August 9, 2022 4:24 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund Lo
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing this letter as a resident of Vienna as per the notice published on the MOB website.
Since 2015 , the VLCC upkeep seems to be non-existent as far as capital expenditures . Capital budgets were
created by MOB staff approved by past and current council every year even though they were missing fund
allocations toward the care of the building from 2015 to present. The only cost I see is the recent furnace
cost (replacement of water furnace to gas) and as we all know - that was for the sole purpose of selling it.
To allow the superior & best-condition building, identified in the 2014 facility audit, to deteriorate over the
past EIGHT years is very concerning.
The building has not had accessibility issues addressed per MOB (even after being awarded a grant that was
returned around 2015) or any other needed maintenance issue addressed such as ramp repairs, condition of
the parking lot, plumbing , accessibility issues , etc.
With the recent sale to the Vienna Lions, this building has restrictions registered on title allowing the
community centre to be used as an emergency centre - if needed. Being that the MOB, approved the
budgeted estimate of $540,000 for 'accessibility upgrades to the VLCC' in the 2022-2031 budget. It is this
very figure that the MOB used as the cost pressure and justification to selling it. The treasurer used a Class
D conceptual estimate that apparently was very accurate.
Being that the MOB stipulated the use of the VLCC as an emergency centre be registered on title with the
recent sale , the MOB should be giving the money back to the Vienna Lions so that required capital
improvements can be made including 'accessibility' - since it is now recognized as an emergency centre.
Brigette Clark-Carmichael
2
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Meagan Elliott
August 9, 2022 2:31 PM
Consultations
serge.pieters
Vienna Fund comment
Serge Peters 2:15 pm phone call -
This should not be used for capital projects – all other villages need same amenities.
There are no recreational facilities in Vienna other than skate park which is paid by Vienna Lions.
VLCC has not been maintained since 2015 and should have been.
VLCC did not raise as much money as other halls – all funds is basically from Lions. People of Vienna wanted a hall but
the facility has not been used to its full potential. Money put into Straffordville but not Vienna – if anything was ever put
in it was from the Lions.
Straffordville got their elevator but Vienna got the shaft.
VLCC was always to be used as an emergency centre and was not maintaining it.
Overall, all or part of the money should be donated back to the Lions since they are who kept putting money in over all
these years even though they sold the building to MOB in 1967 for $1.
Meagan Elliott, BA
Deputy Clerk
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
Office: (519) 866-5521
melliott@bayham.on.ca
3
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dwnevill August 9, 2022 2:24 PM
Consultations
Re: Vienna recreational improvements
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
On 08/09/22 02:20 PM, "dwnevill" wrote:
Suggestion for recreational improvement in Vienna
I would like to suggest relocating the skate park ramps to the family park behind the Community
centre.
It would be a great addition to the existing playground equipment and soccer field. This would give the
whole family options to enjoy in one central location.
This location is located in a residential area where it is more central and more convenient for everyone
to enjoy. It is also more supervised by neighbours than downtown in the business area, close to the the
Otter creek and busy highway.
It would require a new concrete pad, and the relocation of the the existing ramps, and possibly the
addition of some new ramps.
The existing skate park location could be returned to the basketball court it was originally. It is fenced,
the mounting poles for the nets are still there, just need to add the backboards and nets and it's back in
business.
On a health and safety note, the advantage of relocating the skate park would also reduce the risk of
serious injury as people have to cross the busy, fast travelled highway.
It would also keep people safe from the waters of the Otter creek, that is barely 10 feet from the skate
area, and closer and more dangerous in the spring.
It is sad but a fact that some people tend to stop into the existing skate park for the wrong reasons.
Likely because it is located on the busy highway in the business section away from eyes of the local
villagers. There is constantly garbage and broken alcohol bottles littering the skate park, and individuals
using it as a hang out.
I think the change would be for the better if it was relocated to the centre of the residential area. It is
more of a family atmosphere that big and small could enjoy at the same time, whether it's soccer,
playground equipment or the skate ramps. Something for everyone.
Thanks for the consideration.
4
David Nevill
5
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bruce Bolin
August 9, 2022 1:53 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Suggestions Re: Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund- VCIRF
1. In 2023 or sooner, upgrade the VLCC for the deferred but still needed accessibility
upgrades. These upgrades will greatly improve the usefulness of the VLCC to be used as an
emergency centre, plus aid the Lions in their ability to host more community functions and
bring in rental income for the ongoing support of the VLCC.
2. With the remainder of the VCIRF, retain it until the end of 2024. Starting in 2023 and
continuing through 2024 (24 months) offer matching grants to the Vienna Lions, Bayham
Historical Society, and any other appropriate Vienna centric community organization for the
funds they can raise during the 24 months. The funds as of the end of 2024 could then be
apportioned to the community groups in proportion to the funds raised by each group. This
would leverage the VCIRF’s impact for the benefit of Vienna and Bayham.
3. Do not fund capital improvements that would initiate significant and unnecessary future
operating costs or maintenance costs.
Please note that I acknowledge that I am not a resident of Vienna, and I therefore understand my
opinion has not been solicited. However, I am providing it anyway. I am a Bayham taxpayer who
spends considerable time in Vienna, am one with ancestors buried in Vienna, am an executive
member of the Vienna Lions, and am a past president of the Bayham Historical Society, vice
president of the Otter Valley Naturalists, founding member of the Otter Valley Photography
Club, treasurer of the Bayham Community Policing Committee, and treasurer of the Lake Erie North
Shore Landowners Association.
Bruce Bolin
b.bolin@computer.org
9 August 2022
6
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rob Walsh
August 9, 2022 1:51 PM Consultations
$$$
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system. Please use caution when
clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Build a kayak and canoe launch in the park
Sent from my iPhone
7
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
laura cott
August 9, 2022 10:40 AM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund - Public Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing this letter as a resident of Vienna as per the notice published on the MOB website.
Since 2015 , the VLCC upkeep seems to be non-existent as far as capital expenditures . Capital budgets were
created by MOB staff approved by past and current council every year even though they were missing fund
allocations toward the care of the building from 2015 to present. The only cost I see is the recent furnace
cost (replacement of water furnace to gas) and as we all know - that was for the sole purpose of selling it.
To allow the superior & best-condition building, identified in the 2014 facility audit, to deteriorate over the
past EIGHT years is very concerning.
The building has not had accessibility issues addressed per MOB (even after being awarded a grant that was
returned around 2015) or any other needed maintenance issue addressed such as ramp repairs, condition of
the parking lot, plumbing , accessibility issues , etc.
With the recent sale to the Vienna Lions, this building has restrictions registered on title allowing the
community centre to be used as an emergency centre - if needed. Being that the MOB, approved the
budgeted estimate of $540,000 for 'accessibility upgrades to the VLCC' in the 2022-2031 budget. It is this
very figure that the MOB used as the cost pressure and justification to selling it. The treasurer used a Class
D conceptual estimate that apparently was very accurate.
Being that the MOB stipulated the use of the VLCC as an emergency centre be registered on title with the
recent sale , the MOB should be giving the money back to the Vienna Lions so that required capital
improvements can be made including 'accessibility' - since it is now recognized as an emergency centre.
If for some LEGAL reason this cannot be done, I would like to see recreational amenities such as a walking
track at the Vienna Community park, basketball court/net at this same park, a youth-size soccer net, splash
pad, gazebo. Or a bandshell at Vienna memorial for festivals.
Laura Edwards
Aug 9/22 @ 10:33 a.m.
9
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Cole
August 9, 2022 10:21 AM
Consultations
Vienna funds
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I have had quite a few people saying that they would like to see the Lions have the funds that came from the sale of the
Vienna Community Center returned to them as there are repairs that are needed that were neglected for so long by the
municipality. The mortgage is putting a huge strain on the Lions financially. This would be an excellent idea as Without
the mortgage they could be of better help to the community as they have been in the past. The goal of the Lions is to
help the community.
There is also a need for the children of the area to have something to do in the park behind the VLCC such as basket ball
hoops with a pad that could be used for roller skating as well and used as an ice rink in the winter. A band shell with
lights to have music with dancing in the park like we had in the past to get families together would be awesome.
Thank you Pat Cole 25 Centre Street Vienna
Sent from Mail for Windows
10
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barry Wade
August 9, 2022 8:02 AM Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Fund
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
The Port Burwell Beach is a regional draw not to mention used by all within Bayham including Vienna. I
would ask that Mobity-Mats be included as one of the budget line items.
Barry Wade
Group of Companies
Design | Build | Manage
Box 355 Port Burwell. ON
Office: 519-521-6860
email: barry@barrywade.ca
web: www.barrywade.ca
1
August 9, 2022
Mayor Ketchabaw, CAO Thomas Thayer and Council, consultations@bayham.on.ca,
Regarding the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund
As a resident of Vienna, I am submitting my comments on how a portion of these funds
could be spent to fund capital projects and recreational amenities in the village.
I realize that the Municipality no longer owns the Vienna Lions Community Centre, but
while it did, the building was mostly neglected. Each year, the budget included
improvement projects that would have brought the building up to standard but those
projects failed to reach completion. As owners of the building, it was up to the
Municipality to maintain the building and to do the necessary repairs as needed. But the
deteriorated condition of the building shows that this did not take place.
The VLCC has accessibility issues. An elevator once included in the budget was never
installed and the existing ramp is in serious disrepair. The cracks in the cement and the
rust on the railing are so bad that repairs are needed immediately. The rust on the east
doors compromises the integrity of the doors and frames. The vents on the west side are
all rusted and the wood frames, holding the metal covers have deteriorated and warped.
There is a hole underneath the deck on the east side of the building. The parking lot also
needs to be repaired. This all needs immediate attention now but should have been part of
on-going repairs through the years. Had the building been maintained at reasonable costs
each year, the work needed now would not be so overwhelming.
The municipality was aware of this when they sold the building to the Vienna Lions.
As a non-profit organization the Vienna Lions will never become rich by owning the
VLCC. But a Community Centre was never intended to make anyone rich. The Vienna
Lions have played a major role in the existence of the VLCC since it’s inception and any
money made from their many fundraisers and events has been returned to the community.
The Lions only goal for purchasing the building was to ensure that they could continue to
serve the Community by providing a much-needed place for events and activities of all
kinds for people of all ages, backgrounds and needs. The hall is perfect dances, exercise
classes and many other recreational activities.
The VLCC is the ONLY large public building in Vienna!
It will serve the Municipality as a safe haven in case of emergencies, therefore, this
building is very important, not just for Vienna, but for the whole Municipality.
Accessibility requirements must be addressed. It’s a worthwhile investment for the
Municipality to make this happen.
Thankfully, the money gained by the Municipality from the sale of the building is
reserved for funding capital projects and for improving recreational amenities within
2
Vienna. Even though the Municipality no longer owns the building, contributing to its’
improvement will benefit the residents in Vienna and the Municipality.
I recommend that the Municipality spend some the reserved funds to cover the necessary
repairs that the Municipality neglected to fix while the building was in their ownership
and care.
For the youth in the village, basketball courts or volleyball nets might provide a better
pastime than doing wheelies on Plank Line. And some benches strategically placed in
shaded areas would be a blessing for those who need a rest on their daily walks.
Photos are enclosed to show some of the much-needed repairs at the VLCC.
Rose Sofalvi Beuk, Vienna, Ontario
3
4
5
6
7
1
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patti Culford
August 8, 2022 7:35 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund | Resident Feedback
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
This email is regarding requests for public comments about the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund.
I would like it stated that my desire is for the funds to be:
1. Returned to the Vienna Lions Club or (at minimum);
2. Construct some sort of kayak/canoe staging area at Vienna Memorial Park so that residents and tourists can
have easier access to Otter Creek
Regards,
Patti Culford
2
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Churchill
August 8, 2022 10:01 AM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund Suggestion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Re-Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund Suggestion
In regards to the Vienna Community Improvement Reserve fund we are submitting a suggestion. We are not
directly from Vienna but live within the Bayham Municipality rurally.
This suggestion might be of interest to the residents living in Vienna and will hopefully be brought forward to
them. It consists of an enclosure which would provide at least 4 options for residents & our municipality to
actively participate in. The enclosure is a basketball, street hockey, 1 tennis court & 2 pickleball courts all in
one. It would be usable for spring, summer & fall. I am submitting photos of what it looks like & it can be seen
at Owen Court in St. Thomas.
Good luck to the residents of Vienna,we sincerely hope the area continues to grow & accommodate what is
important to them by putting the reserve fund to good use.
Regards
Christine & Michael Churchill
6731 Woodworth rd.,
Port Burwell, On. N0J1To
519-317-2155

3



Sent from my iPad
4
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
pamela walsh
August 7, 2022 10:17 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve Fund
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Please install a public dock in the park so that people can launch their canoes and kayaks. Right now they risk breaking
their necks by sliding around in mud up to their knees under the bridge.
Thank you,
Pamela Walsh
5
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chowlett
August 7, 2022 4:40 PM
Consultations
Vienna Community Improvement Reserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
My name is Danielle Nezezon, and my family and I moved to Vienna from Kitchener in the summer of 2021.
Having lived in the suburbs most of my life, there are certain aspects that I miss but I have also embraced
country living. One amenity that I miss, is having a year-round pool and community centre together. Having a
child who is in need of swimming lessons, we have to drive a minimum of 20 minutes to either Aylmer or
Tillsonburg for a 30 minute lesson.
There are many families in Bayham who would utilize a facility such as this for life saving swimming lessons
as well as recreational swims. Additionally, there are many adults of many ages that would benefit from lane
swims, aquatic aerobics, & related aquatic exercises.
Not only would swimming related activities be beneficial to people of all ages, but social, community, and
sport activities would be as well, which could include:
◇Children's after school/weekend activities
◇Baby & toddler programs
◇Social benefits such as showers, stag and does, weddings, etx.
◇Recreational sports
◇Fitness & yoga programs
◇Interest activities such as paint lessons, reading groups, cooking classes, etc.
◇Expo events like home shows, craft shows, and festivals that could run year round
◇Summer, March Break, and PA day camps
Community centres - especially those with pools, were always busy with activities when we lived in Kitchener.
The community centre in Straffordville doesn't have the availability nor the capacity to accommodate the
aforementioned activities/events. As only one family, we have struggled to find care for our own child within
the township during the summer months, March Break, etc. There are countless other families that would very
likely support this same idea.
I feel that this would be an amazing way to improve the community which would generate revenue for the
township by means of rental and activity fees, and would bring people in from Port Burwell, Vienna,
Straffordville, Calton, Richmond, and other surrounding towns/villages. There would also be jobs available for
life guard staff, admin personnel, activity coordinators, janitorial, and maintenance staff.
I hope you take this into consideration and that the reserve fund has a budget to accommodate this kind of
community improvement.
6
Yours in good health,
Danielle Nezezon,
46 Chapel Street
Vienna, ON
7
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie Marlatt
August 7, 2022 10:48 AM Consultations
Money from the sale
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
One other thing we wish to mention,
The VLCC has been neglected by council since 2015. NO grants were applied for , no repairs done to. We think council
owes it to the Lions not only to give that money back, but in good faith, fix the repairs that they had budgeted for. That
money should definitely NOT be used for infrastructure. In our honest opinion, the money is for our community
center/Lions. All the other suggestion such as splash pad, boat launch ect. should be in the budget.
Sincerely
Rick and Deb Marlatt
8
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tami Emerson
August 5, 2022 9:21 AM
Consultations
Vienna VCC proceeds
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am a resident of Vienna ON.
My suggestions for use of money from the sale of VCC is as follows;
-Improved and beautified historic streetlights.
-safe and inviting kayak launch at the park by the creek
-a path to the launch site, proper seating or picnic area at launch site or along the path
-diagonal parking to allow more cars at the parks *both parks*
-seating for children at skateboard Park
-cross walk at park to cross hwy 19
-embellishment at cenotaph
All of my suggestions are for improving the main thoroughfare through town.
If you wish to contact me further I can be reached at
Tami Emerson
92 Edison Dr
519-521-3743
Or by email
Thank you!
Tami Emerson
9
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie Marlatt
July 26, 2022 8:08 PM
Consultations
Money from the sale of the VLCC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Ketchabaw and councilors,
My suggestion, along with every resident in Vienna that first comes to mind, is to give the money back to the Lions, so
they can continue to manage the VLCC themselves. I realize most of you do not engage on Facebook/social media , but
this is where the residents are voicing their HONEST opinions about the money. Please listen to them. The Lions have
proven that this can be done with new members and many volunteers. They do so much good for the community and
would like to continue without the worry of a high mortgage hanging over the heads. They do need the elevator that
was earmarked for the VLCC and this money would help with that.
If you are not willing to do that, then my second suggestion, would be to put the money into a high return GIC, not
with a bank (they are garbage), I am taking about an investment company like Dejardens.
Next, my suggestion would be to install a proper launch pad down by the Otter River on Plank Rd, a splash pad,
indoor/outdoor swimming pool; it could be enclosed for the winter ,tennis court or pickleball court , and walking track
up near the VLCC green space, although everything I have mentioned could be in the parks and rec. budget. We need to
get our children off electronics and back to healthy activities.
I also strongly suggest to beautify the main street of Vienna . For a few years now, I have purchased the hanging pots
from Family flowers in Aylmer. They have cost me $600.00. The amount of positive feedback from these flower pots
have been astounding. I do not feel the money should be used for them but I do feel money from the Parks and rec.
budget should be purchasing them. The vacant lot beside the memorial park needs to be cleaned up, so our park can be
extended. The pines that are there and getting old and woody and need to be replaced with proper shade trees.
I truly hope you are reading these letters and listening to the public, as we care for our Village.
Sincerely,
Deb Marlatt
10
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anna Chibueze
July 25, 2022 3:13 PM
Consultations
Vienna park improvement
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello. I would like to see a basketball court and a pavilion near the playground added to the park in Vienna.
Thank you.
Anna Chibueze
Resident of Bayham
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2022-056 BEING A BY-LAW TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE ELGIN ELECTION JOINT COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR THE 2022 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended requires the Council of a municipality to establish a Compliance Audit Committee before October 1st in an election year to deal with matters regarding election campaign finances and contributions;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham established the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election and adopted its Terms of Reference by By-law No. 2022-039 on June 2, 2022;
AND WHEREAS it is now deemed necessary to appoint members to the Elgin Election
Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election; THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the following individuals be appointed to the Elgin Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the term November 15, 2022 to November 14, 2026: • Christene Scrimgeour
• Andrew Wright
• Daniel Ross • Dr. Zachary Spicer 2. THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the final passing thereof.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2022.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2022-057 BEING A BY-LAW TO REPEAL BY-LAW NO. 2019-020 AND BY-LAW NO. 2019-029
WHEREAS By-law No. 2019-020 being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with MEU Consulting to provide services for the enforcement of by-laws and provincial offences was passed on March 7, 2019; AND WHEREAS By-law No. 2019-029 appoints William Menzie and Officers of MEU to act
in the capacity of Municipal Law Enforcements Officer / Provincial Offences Officer for the Municipality of Bayham was passed on April 4, 2019; AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Bayham was advised on July 19, 2022 that MEU is
ceasing operations effective immediately;
AND WHEREAS staff report CAO-37/22 was presented to Council on July 21, 2022 advising of such termination of service;
THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT By-law No. 2019-020 and By-law No. 2019-029 are hereby repealed;
2. AND THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the final passing
thereof. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 18th DAY
OF AUGUST 2022.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK
AMENDMENT NUMBER 28
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
SUBJECT: Vienna Farms Ltd.
4964 and 4968 Plank Road
The following text constitutes Amendment Number 28 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
THIS Amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
by By-law No. 2022-058, in accordance with Section 17 of the PLANNING ACT, on the 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-058
THE Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham, in accordance with the provisions of the PLANNING ACT, hereby enacts as follows:
1) THAT Amendment No. 28 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby adopted.
2) THAT the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make an application to the County of Elgin for approval of the aforementioned Amendment No. 28 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham.
3) THAT no part of this By-law shall come into force and take effect until approved by Elgin County.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
AMENDMENT NO. 28
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation on
the 2.48 ha (6 acre) parcel of land from “Agriculture” to “Site Specific Agriculture” to
permit a permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling (hereafter “the subject
dwelling”) in an existing dwelling with floor area of 304.9 m2 (3,282 ft2) to accommodate
a maximum twenty-nine (29) seasonal offshore farm workers on the existing apple farm
administration and storage lot at 4964 and 4968 Plank Road, where the workers are
transported daily to and from nine (9) leased farm parcels.
The Official Plan Amendment would facilitate the concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment
application to change the Zoning By-law regulations from Agricultural (A1) Zone to Site
Specific Agricultural (A1-__) Zone to permit: proposed large scale supplementary farm
dwelling as mentioned above; minimum 2.3 ha (5.7 acres) farmland area worked per
labourer; minimum amenity area for the subject dwelling of 500 m2 (5,382 ft2); existing
reduced lot area in the A1 Zone; and, reduced existing building yard setbacks, in Zoning
By-law Z456-2003.
2. LOCATION
The area affected by this amendment is an agricultural lot in an agricultural area, located
on Part 1, Registered Plan 11R876, Concession 2, Lot 14, on the east side of Plank
Road, north of Glen Erie Line and the Village of Port Burwell, and known municipally as
4964 and 4968 Plank Road, an Elgin County road.
3. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are characterized as an undersized agricultural lot used for apple
collection and storage and farm operation office activities. The apples are grown,
harvested and collected from nine (9) leased orchard farms with approximately 283 ha
(700 ac) of orchards in the area on parcels totaling 364 ha (900 ac) area. The workers
are bussed to/from these locations from the subject lands. The farm operation employs
10 full time employees and hires up to 144 offshore seasonal workers. They employ up
to 9 seasonal labourers in the early season; approximately 45 in the spring and gradually
increase up to 144 workers for the fall harvest season. Additionally, up to 2 seasonal
workers are employed in the winter months for repair and maintenance purposes
associated with the warehouse building.
The subject lands are bounded by a utility corridor to east, a single detached dwelling to
the south, a small farm holding with a single detached dwelling to the north and vacant
natural heritage lands associated with the Big Otter Creek to the west. The subject
dwelling is located on the north portion of the lot in proximity to Plank Road;
approximately 40 m (131 ft) from the office building and 80 m (262 ft) from the large
storage building on site; with private access and existing landscape features, in the form
of grassed areas and several rows of trees, providing amenity space and buffering to the
farm activities. There is a dwelling located approximately 40 m to the north of the
subject dwelling with some existing buffering by way of a hedge/tree row on both
properties, evident in recent aerial photography. The applicants have offered to consider
visual barriers to mitigate potential land use conflict to the neighbouring residential use.
The proposed amendment is consistent to agricultural policies in the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2020 (hereafter “PPS”) and the Elgin County Official Plan. The PPS permits
and protects agricultural-related uses on prime agricultural land. Section 2.3.3.1
specifically promotes and protects all sizes of, and intensities of agricultural uses and
Section 2.3.3.2 promotes and protects all types and sizes of farm operation. The
definition of agricultural use includes accommodation for full time farm help based on the
size and nature of the farm operation. The farm operation could be considered an
important part of a viable agricultural system and agri-food network as defined in the
PPS. The PPS does not set a limit on the size or scale of supplementary farm dwellings.
The Elgin County Official Plan Section C2.5 permits accessory accommodation on farm
properties for seasonal farm help, provided that: the size and nature of the farm
operation requires additional employment; the lands are appropriately zoned; and that
the local Official Plan permits the type of use. The proposed amendment would permit
the use in the Official Plan and would facilitate site-specific zoning to permit the
proposed use.
The proposed amendment is consistent to the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan
(Bayham Official Plan) agriculture policies for large scale supplementary farm dwellings.
Official Plan Section 2.1.1.2 permits and encourages all types, sizes, and intensities of
agricultural uses and normal farm practices; and Agriculture-related uses and secondary
uses will also be permitted in the “Agriculture” designation provided they are compatible
with agricultural uses and do not contribute to land use conflicts.
The preferred form of supplementary farm dwelling in the Bayham Official Plan are
small-scale temporary buildings with floor area maximum of 167 m² (1,800 sq. ft.) with
labourers working primarily on the same farm parcel as the dwelling, however, large
scale supplementary dwellings are permitted, subject to specific criteria in the Official
Plan, by way of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.
The applicants have provided supporting information for the criteria set out in Official
Plan Section 2.1.10 Supplementary Farm Dwellings and 2.1.11 Large Scale
Supplementary Farm Dwelling confirming that: the size and nature of the farm operation
warrants the need for a large amount of seasonal labour; new permanent buildings are
not proposed and services exist; and, the subject dwelling has existing amenity area,
access and services. The proposed permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling
is consistent to the agricultural policies in the Bayham Official Plan for agricultural uses
and large scale supplementary farm dwellings, subject to site-specific Zoning By-law
regulations, and development agreement and site plan control agreement with the
Municipality to ensure the subject dwelling is used for its intended purpose.
4. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
a) Section 2.1.11 of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby amended to
add the following subsection:
3. Notwithstanding Section 2.1.11 the existing dwelling located in Concession 2, Part
Lot 14, and municipally known as 4964 and 4968 Plank Road may be used as a
Large Scale Supplementary Farm Dwelling to house up to a maximum of twenty-nine
(29) seasonal workers during the apple growing season being transported to and
from leased farm parcels in the area, in the existing dwelling with gross floor area
maximum of 305 m2.
The subject lands subject to this Amendment as designated “Agriculture” may be
used, developed, and zoned to permit a Large Scale Supplementary Farm Dwelling in
accordance to Section 2.1.11 of the Official Plan, as amended.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 29
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
SUBJECT: Bonnefield Canadian Farmlands LP III
56237 Chute Line
The following text constitutes Amendment Number 29 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
THIS Amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
by By-law No. 2022-059, in accordance with Section 17 of the PLANNING ACT, on the 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-059
THE Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham, in accordance with the provisions of the PLANNING ACT, hereby enacts as follows:
1) THAT Amendment No. 29 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby adopted.
2) THAT the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make an application to the County of Elgin for approval of the aforementioned Amendment No. 29 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham.
3) THAT no part of this By-law shall come into force and take effect until approved by Elgin County.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
AMENDMENT NO. 29
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation on
the 54 ha (134 acre) vacant parcel of land from “Agriculture” to “Site Specific Agriculture”
to permit a permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling in a new dwelling with
floor area of 321 m2 (3,445 ft2) to accommodate a maximum twenty-four (24) seasonal
offshore farm workers, where the workers are transported from time to time to and from
seven (7) other farm parcels within the farm operation.
The Official Plan Amendment would facilitate the concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment
application to change the Zoning By-law regulations from Agricultural (A1-A) Zone to
Site Specific Agricultural (A1-A-xx) Zone to permit: proposed large scale supplementary
farm dwelling as above; minimum 2.3 ha (5.7 acres) farmland area worked per labourer;
minimum amenity area for the subject dwelling of 500 m2 (5,382 ft2); and, to recognize
the length of the growing season, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003.
2. LOCATION
The area affected by this amendment is an agricultural lot in an agricultural area, located
at Concession 3, Lot 19 and 20, on the south side of Chute Line, west of Toll Gate Line,
and known municipally as 56237 Chute Line.
3. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are characterized as an agricultural lot used for apple cultivation and
are vacant of buildings with two existing accesses to Chute Line. The farm operation
grows, harvests and collects apples at a large warehouse building at 4964 and 4968
Plank Road, on nine (9) parcels with approximately 283 ha (700 ac) of orchards on
parcels totaling 364 ha (900 ac) area. The workers would work on the subject parcel as
well as being bussed to/from the other farm parcels. The farm operation employs 10 full
time employees and hires up to 144 offshore seasonal workers. They employ up to 9
seasonal labourers in the early season; approximately 45 in the spring and gradually
increase up to 120-144 workers for the fall harvest season. Additionally, up to 2
seasonal workers are employed in the winter months for repair and maintenance
purposes associated with the warehouse building parcel.
The subject lands are located on the south side of Chute Line, west side of Toll Gate
Road and known as 56237 Chute Line. The property has lot frontage of 607 m (1,991 ft)
and lot depth of 924 m (3,031 ft). The subject lands are vacant and farmed for apples
and is located approximately 1.5 km east of the village of Vienna. The subject lands
include a gravel yard with an area of approximately 1.3 ha (3.3 acre), to which there are
two accesses to Chute Line. The proposed bunkhouse would be located to the western
side of the westernmost access, approximately halfway between the existing pond and
the access. The applicant intends to plant several rows of trees to screen the property.
There are tributaries to a creek system located on the subject lands, however, these
features are not in proximity to the proposed bunkhouse lands. The nearest extent of
LPRCA Regulation Limit lands is approximately 60 m (197 ft) to the south.
Surrounding uses to the west comprise a single-detached dwelling on a large wooded lot
and agricultural uses further to the west. The dwelling is approximately 170 m (557 ft)
from the proposed bunkhouse and based on a desktop review of Google Streetview
imagery the bunkhouse is located at a higher elevation than the dwelling lands with
some natural vegetative buffer. Land uses to the north and south are agricultural aside
from a dwelling lot immediately abutting with frontage along Chute Line. The dwelling
appears to be approximately 230 m (754 ft) from the proposed bunkhouse and there
appears to be natural vegetative buffer. Lands uses to the east include several smaller
rural lots, some with dwellings and mostly wooded and the nearest dwelling to the
bunkhouse is approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) away.
The proposed bunkhouse would have floor area of 321 m2 and include three (3)
separate units which could accommodate a maximum of 8 labourers per unit for a total
maximum capacity of 24 labourers. The application proposes an outdoor amenity area
devoted to the workers with a treed hedge to be planted and new private septic and
water services.
The proposed amendment is consistent to agricultural policies in the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2020 (hereafter “PPS”) and the Elgin County Official Plan. The PPS permits
and protects agricultural-related uses on prime agricultural land. Section 2.3.3.1
specifically promotes and protects all sizes of, and intensities of agricultural uses and
Section 2.3.3.2 promotes and protects all types and sizes of farm operation. The
definition of agricultural use includes accommodation for full time farm help based on the
size and nature of the farm operation. The farm operation could be considered an
important part of a viable agricultural system and agri-food network as defined in the
PPS. The PPS does not set a limit on the size or scale of supplementary farm dwellings.
The Elgin County Official Plan Section C2.5 permits accessory accommodation on farm
properties for seasonal farm help, provided that: the size and nature of the farm
operation requires additional employment; the lands are appropriately zoned; and that
the local Official Plan permits the type of use. The proposed amendment would permit
the use in the Official Plan and would facilitate site-specific zoning to permit the
proposed use.
The proposed amendment is consistent to the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan
(Bayham OP) agriculture policies for large scale supplementary farm dwellings. Bayham
OP Section 2.1.1.2 permits and encourages all types, sizes, and intensities of
agricultural uses and normal farm practices; and agriculture-related uses and secondary
uses will also be permitted in the “Agriculture” designation provided they are compatible
with agricultural uses and do not contribute to land use conflicts.
The preferred form of supplementary farm dwelling in the Bayham OP are small-scale
temporary buildings with floor area maximum of 167 m² (1,800 sq.ft) with labourers
working primarily on the same farm parcel as the dwelling, however, large scale
supplementary dwellings are permitted, subject to specific criteria in the Official Plan, by
way of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.
The applicants have provided supporting information for the criteria set out in Official
Plan Section 2.1.10 Supplementary Farm Dwellings and 2.1.11 Large Scale
Supplementary Farm Dwelling confirming that: the size and nature of the farm operation
warrants the need for a large amount of seasonal labour; the applicant indicates that this
additional supplementary dwelling would provide needed additional capacity to the
existing bunkhouse dwellings on other farm operation lands; and, adequate amenity
area is proposed, roadway access exists and private water and sewer services would
need to be installed. The proposed permanent large scale supplementary farm dwelling
is consistent to the agricultural policies in the Bayham Official Plan for agricultural uses
and large scale supplementary farm dwellings, subject to site-specific Zoning By-law
regulations, and development agreement and site plan control agreement with the
Municipality to ensure the subject dwelling is used for its intended purpose.
4. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
a) Section 2.1.11 of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby amended to
add the following subsection:
2.1.11.5 Notwithstanding Section 2.1.11 the supplementary farm dwelling located
in Concession 3, Lot 19 and 20, and municipally known as 56237 Chute
Line may be used as a Large Scale Supplementary Farm Dwelling to
house up to a maximum of twenty-four (24) seasonal workers during the
apple growing season being transported to and from leased farm parcels
in the area, in the a dwelling with gross floor area maximum of 322
square metres.
The subject lands subject to this Amendment as designated “Agriculture”
may be used, developed, and zoned to permit a Large Scale
Supplementary Farm Dwelling in accordance to Section 2.1.11 of the
Official Plan, as amended.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 30
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
SUBJECT: Michael and Reta Glen and Barry Wade Homes Inc.
2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street
The following text constitutes Amendment Number 30 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
THIS Amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham by By-law No. 2022-060, in accordance with Section 17 of the PLANNING ACT, on the 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-060
THE Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham, in accordance with the provisions of the PLANNING ACT, hereby enacts as follows:
1) THAT Amendment No. 30 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby adopted.
2) THAT the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make an application to the County of Elgin for approval of the aforementioned Amendment No. 30 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham.
3) THAT no part of this By-law shall come into force and take effect until approved by Elgin County.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 18th day of August 2022.
MAYOR CLERK
OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
AMENDMENT NO. 30
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation on
the 0.36 ha (134 acre) land assembly from “Residential” to “Site-Specific Multi-Unit
Residential” to permit a 19-unit, 3 building townhouse condominium development with
maximum net density of 53 units per hectare. The permitted density in the Multi-Unit
Residential designation is 35 units per hectare, therefore, a site-specific Official Plan
permission is necessary to recognize increased maximum net density for specific to the
subject lands. The land use change would necessitate amendment to Official Plan
Schedule ‘D’ Port Burwell: Land Use and Constraints to define the location of the site-
specific Official Plan designation.
The Official Plan Amendment would facilitate the concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment
application to change the Zoning By-law regulations from Village Residential 1 (R2) and
Holding – Village Residential 1 (R2(h2)) zones to Site-specific Village Residential 2 (R2-
xx) zone to permit: townhouse use, lot area per unit of 181 m2 whereas 340 m2 is the
permitted minimum; setback distance for a driveway to a street intersection of 0.9 m
whereas 9.0 m is the permitted minimum; front yard setback of 1.8 m whereas 6.0 m is
the permitted minimum; rear yard depth of 4.5 m whereas the permitted minimum is 9.0
m; and to remove the ‘h2’ holding symbol by way of entering into a development
agreement with the municipality, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003.
2. LOCATION
The area affected by this amendment are lands known municipally as 2 Robinson Street
and 3 Erieus Street in the village of Port Burwell, and legally described as LT 6 & 7 E/S
ROBINSON ST PL BAYHAM T/W E204755 & PT LT 7 W/S ERIEUS ST PL 12 BAYHAM
PT 2 11R3556; BAYHAM and are located on the east side of Robinson Street, west side
of Erieus Street, north side of Hagerman Street and south of Brock Street.
3. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are characterized as one vacant parcel (3 Erieus Street) and an
existing single-detached dwelling (2 Robinson Street) to be removed. The lands are
currently designated Residential which does not permit the proposed form of townhouse
condominium development. The proposal includes permission for an increase to the
permitted maximum net density for townhouse use in the Multi-Unit Residential of 53
units per hectare whereas 35 units per hectare is the permitted maximum. The reason
for the proposed density is to maximize the efficient use of the underutilized and
desirable Lake Erie shoreline lands and to add a new type of residential housing option.
The area has existing municipal water and sewer services for servicing the development.
The subject lands have lot frontage of 40.2 metres (132.9 feet) on Robinson Street, an
irregular lot depth of 101.8 metres (334 feet) maximum and lot area of 0.36 hectares
(0.89 acres). Surrounding land uses include single-detached residential uses to the
north, open space (Port Burwell Beach and Memorial Park and Lake Erie) to the east
and south, and open space (vacant Port Burwell harbour lands) to the west. Further
north on Robinson Street is the village centre and commercial area. The proposed
townhouse includes 3 “Blocks”, Block ‘A’ includes 4 units and has 2 storeys above a
basement floor with underground parking, including 2 private parking spaces and a
private staircase for each unit; Block ‘B’ and Block ‘C’ have 7 and 8 units respectively,
are 2 storeys in height and have 2 parking spaces under a portion of each units deck
overhang acting as a carport. The foundations of the buildings are to act as the retaining
infrastructure for the development and stability of the Lake Erie shoreline bank, replacing
an existing concrete retaining wall on the subject lands.
The proposed amendment is consistent to intensification of development within
settlement areas with municipal water and sewer services in the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2020 (hereafter “PPS”). PPS Section 1.1.3.1 directs growth and development
to settlement areas; and Section 1.1.3.6 indicates that new development should occur in
settlement areas adjacent to the built up area and should have a compact form, mix of
uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public
service facilities. The subject lands are located in the settlement area of Port Burwell and
proposes a compact form and type of residential land use that would be an efficient use
of land and would make use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities.
The proposal is in conformity to Elgin County Official Plan policies for residential
intensification within a Tier 1 Settlement Area that is fully municipally serviced and will
introduce a wider range of housing types into the area.
The proposed site-specific density permission would provide for efficient use of
underutilized, fully serviced settlement area lands and the proposed development
conforms to certain applicable policies of the Municipality’s Official Plan, particularly
those relating to residential intensification within settlement areas and access to full
municipal servicing.
4. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
a) Section 4.5.3 of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby amended by
adding the following subsection:
4.5.3.12 Notwithstanding Section 4.5.3.4 the townhouse condominium
development on lands known historically as LT 6 & 7 E/S ROBINSON ST
PL BAYHAM T/W E204755 & PT LT 7 W/S ERIEUS ST PL 12 BAYHAM
PT 2 11R3556; BAYHAM or 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street may
have a net residential density of 53 units per hectare.
The lands subject to this Amendment as designated “Site-Specific Multi-
Unit Residential” may be used, developed, and zoned to permit a
nineteen-unit townhouse condominium development.
b) Schedule ‘D’ of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham is hereby amended by
changing the symbol for land use designation from “Residential” to “Multi-Unit
Residential”, for the lands outlined in bold on the following Schedule:
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z748-2022 BLATZ
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. Z456-2003, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to amend Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Section 12.12 Exceptions – Mobile Home Park (MH) Zone by adding the following clause:
12.12.3.4 Additional Permitted Uses
One mobile home park manager residential dwelling unit in a portion of an existing accessory building.
3) THIS By-law comes into force:
a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the
expiration of the prescribed time; or
b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the
approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
READ A FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME THIS 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022.
______________________________ ______________________________
MAYOR CLERK
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS ____ DAY OF ____________ 20__.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-061 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 18, 2022 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other
action by the Council at the Council meeting held August 18, 2022 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 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2022.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK