HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 01, 2022 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers – HYBRID
Thursday, December 1, 2022
7:00 p.m.
The December 1, 2022 Council Meeting will allow for a hybrid meeting function – you may
attend in person or virtually through the live-stream on the Municipality of Bayham’s
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpY8wjivr1zSsi0tvbgtUrg
1. CALL TO ORDER & INAUGURAL PROCEEDINGS
A. Call to Order – CAO|Clerk
B. Declaration of Elected Offices
C. Statements by Council Elect
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. CJDL re Sanitary Pumping Station Capacity Study
6. DELEGATIONS
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held November 3, 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
2022 Council Agenda December 1, 2022
2
11.1.1 Receive for Information
11.1.2 Requiring Action
A. New Hope Baptist Church re Request for Reflectors
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 re Proposed Revised Official Plan and Zoning By-Law
Amendment – M & R Glen C/O Barry Wade Homes Inc.
B. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Application – Vienna
Ridge 34T-BA2201
12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Southwestern Public Health re Medical Officer Recommends Masking Indoors
B. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of
October 5, 2022
C. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re 2023 Draft Budget
D. Watson & Associates re Bill 23
E. GoVaxx COVID-19 Vaccine Clinic – December 14 and 21, Vienna Lions Community
Centre
F. Elgin County Christmas Listings
G. Elgin County re Request for Traffic Study
H. Township or Warwick re CN Railway Contribution Requirements
I. Dorion Township re OMAFRA Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program
Administrative Fee
13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Ken Andrews, SHF re Community Outdoor Skating Rink
2022 Council Agenda December 1, 2022
3
13.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-65/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Transfer of a Portion of Clarke
Road
14. BY-LAWS
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
16. OTHER BUSINESS
A. March 11, 2020 Museums Bayham Board Minutes
16.1 In Camera
A. Confidential Report re labour relations, employee negotiations (Compensation)
B. Confidential Report re labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources)
16.2 Out of Camera
17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-075 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
18. ADJOURNMENT
SANITARY PUMPING STATION
CAPACITY STUDY
EDEN
STRAFFORDVILLE
VIENNA
PORT BURWELL
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
22028
25 November 2022
i
25 November 2022 22028
BAYHAM SANITARY PUMPING STATION CAPACITY STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Existing Conditions 1
3.0 Design Criteria 3
3.1 Existing Development Design Criteria 3
3.2 Proposed/Future Development Design Criteria 3
4.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.1 (Eden)4
4.1 Eden SPS No. 1 Existing Conditions 4
4.2 Eden SPS No.1 Potential Growth 5
4.3 Eden SPS No.1 Capacity 6
4.4 Eden SPS No.1 Upgrade Potential 7
4.5 Eden SPS No.1 Recommendations 8
5.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.2 (Straffordville)8
5.1 Straffordville SPS No.2 Existing Conditions 8
5.2 Straffordville SPS No.2 Potential Growth 9
5.3 Straffordville SPS No.2 Capacity 10
5.4 Straffordville SPS No.2 Upgrade Potential 11
5.5 Straffordville SPS No.2 Recommendations 12
6.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.5 (Straffordville)12
6.1 Straffordville SPS No.5 Existing Conditions 12
6.2 Straffordville SPS No.5 Potential Growth 13
6.3 Straffordville SPS No.5 Capacity 14
6.4 Straffordville SPS No.5 Upgrade Potential 14
6.5 Straffordville SPS No.5 Recommendations 15
7.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.6 (Vienna)16
7.1 Vienna SPS No.6 Existing Conditions 16
7.2 Vienna SPS No.6 Potential Growth 17
7.3 Vienna SPS No.6 Capacity 18
7.4 Vienna SPS No.6 Upgrade Potential 18
7.5 Vienna SPS No.6 Recommendations 19
ii
8.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.7 (Port Burwell)19
9.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.8 (Port Burwell)20
10.0 Wastewater Treatment Plant (Port Burwell)21
11.0 Summary & Conclusions 22
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Average Daily Inflows (2-year Average)2
Table 2 Existing Tributary Populations 2
Table 3 Per Capita Sewage Rates 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Eden SPS No.1 Potential Unit Build-Out 6
Figure 2 Straffordville SPS No.2 Potential Unit Build-Out 10
Figure 3 Straffordville SPS No.5 Potential Unit Build-Out 14
Figure 4 Vienna SPS No.6 Potential Unit Build-out 17
Figure 5 Existing Conditions Summary 23
Figure 6 Unallocated Capacity (90% COA Limit)24
Figure 7 Unallocated Capacity (90% Pump Operating Flow)25
APPENDIX ‘A’
Appendix A1: Eden SPS No.1
Eden Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Eden SPS No.1 to Straffordville)
Eden SPS No.1 Sanitary Design Sheet
Eden SPS No.1 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A2: Straffordville SPS No.2
Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Straffordville SPS No.2 to MH 8)
Straffordville SPS No.2 Sanitary Design Sheet
Straffordville SPS No.2 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A3: Straffordville SPS No.5
Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Straffordville SPS No.5 to Vienna)
Straffordville SPS No.5 Sanitary Design Sheet
Straffordville SPS No.5 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A4: Vienna SPS No.6
Vienna Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Vienna SPS No.6 to Port Burwell)
Vienna SPS No.6 Sanitary Design Sheet
Vienna SPS No.6 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A5: Port Burwell SPS No.7
Port Burwell Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Port Burwell SPS No.7 to MH ST11)
Port Burwell SPS No.7 Sanitary Design Sheet
Port Burwell SPS No.7 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A6: Port Burwell SPS No.8
Port Burwell Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Port Burwell SPS No.8 to MH 57A)
Port Burwell SPS No.8 Sanitary Design Sheet
Port Burwell SPS No.8 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A7: Existing Certificate of Approvals (COA) and Environmental Compliance Approvals
(ECA)
Page 1
25 November 2022 22028
BAYHAM SANITARY PUMPING STATION CAPACITY STUDY
VILLAGES OF EDEN, STRAFFORDVILLE, VIENNA & PORT BURWELL
1.0 Introduction
The Municipality of Bayham has retained CJDL Consulting Engineers Ltd. to complete an updated sanitary
pumping station study to assess the reserve capacity and critical time frame for future expansion to
accommodate ongoing growth. This assessment is focused on the sanitary pumping stations and
forcemains within the Villages of Eden, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell. A brief review of the Port
Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant has also been included for reference. Potential problem areas along
with possible improvements and time frames will also be identified. It should be noted that a separate
evaluation of Sanitary Pumping Station (SPS) No.3 & No.4 in Straffordville has been excluded from this
report, due to limited growth opportunity within their tributary areas served. Further capacity review of
these stations may be completed and included as an addendum to this study, if requested by the
Municipality.
Within the capacity review of each pumping station, the feasibility of sanitary conveyance from each
property was not evaluated, nor was the capacity of the existing gravity sanitary collection system. The
capacity of the existing gravity sewer system and the feasibility of sanitary conveyance for new
development will need to be reviewed by the Municipality and/or the proponent of the development on a
case-by-case basis.
2.0 Existing Conditions
To evaluate existing capacity and plan for future growth, a set of design criteria were established to reflect
the behaviour of the existing sanitary conveyance system.
Annual volumetric sewage flows to each pumping station were provided by the Municipality of Bayham.
These annual volumes were used to determine an average daily inflow. It should be noted the inflows to
SPS No.2 (Straffordville), No.7 & No.8 (Port Burwell) are based on estimated flow distributions, as noted
below, and not recorded flows, since these stations are not equipped with flow meters.
INFLOWSPS No.2 (Straffordville) = INFLOWSPS No.1 (Eden) + 80% (INFLOWSPS No.5 (Straffordville) – INFLOWSPS No.1 (Eden))
INFLOWSPS No.7 (Port Burwell) = 15% (INFLOWSPS No.8 (Port Burwell))
INFLOWSPS No.8 (Port Burwell) = 90% (INFLOWWWTP – INFLOWSPS No.6 (Vienna))
The 2-year average daily inflow for each pumping station is noted in Table 1 below.
Page 2
Table 1 Average Daily Inflows (2-year Average)
Average Daily Inflow
(m3/d)
Average Daily Inflow
(l/s)
Eden SPS No.1 99 1.15
Straffordville SPS No.2 283 3.28
Straffordville SPS No.5 329 3.81
Vienna SPS No.6 504 5.83
Port Burwell SPS No.7 30 0.35
Port Burwell SPS No.8 199 2.30
Port Burwell WWTP 725 8.39
The Municipality was able to provide the number of sanitary connections within each village as of July
2022. In total, there are 1,247 connections to the sanitary collection system in Eden, Straffordville, Vienna
and Port Burwell.
Based on the 2021 Canadian Census data reported by Statistics Canada, the average household size for
Bayham was 3.1 people per dwelling. This 3.1 people per dwelling has been used as the basis for tributary
population estimation for each pumping station. The tributary population for each station is shown in
Table 2 below.
Table 2 Existing Tributary Populations
Existing Number
Sanitary Connections People Per Connection Existing Tributary
Population
Eden SPS No.1 134
3.1
416
Straffordville SPS No.2 301 934
Straffordville SPS No.5 65 202
Vienna SPS No.6 328 1017
Port Burwell SPS No.7 57 177
Port Burwell SPS No.8 378 1172
Port Burwell WWTP 1247 3866
Based on the average daily inflows shown in Table 1 and the tributary population for each station shown
above, the per capita sewage rate for each village was determined by dividing the average inflow by the
tributary population. The per capita sewage flow values are shown in below.
Table 3 Per Capita Sewage Rates
Average Daily Inflow
(l/s)
Existing Tributary
Population
Per Capita Sewage Rate
(l/cap/d)
Eden SPS No.1 1.15 416 240
Straffordville SPS No.2 3.28 934 210
Straffordville SPS No.5 3.81 202 215
Vienna SPS No.6 5.83 1017 200
Port Burwell SPS No.7 0.35 177 170
Port Burwell SPS No.8 2.30 1172 170
Port Burwell WWTP 8.39 3866 190
Page 3
The highest per capita sewage rate is for the village of Eden, at 240 l/cap/d. To facilitate a conservative
design, this sewage generation rate was used for all villages evaluated, although as shown above, actual
generation rates are lower. It should be noted that infiltration and commercial/industrial sewage flows are
all captured in this per capita sewage rate.
3.0 Design Criteria
Based on the existing conditions noted above, design criteria were developed for both existing and future
development to evaluate the capacity of each pumping station.
3.1 Existing Development Design Criteria
The criteria used for existing development are as shown below and are based on the existing conditions
above;
Population = 3.1 People/Unit x Number of Existing Units Served
Sewage Rate = 240 l/cap/d
Uncertainty Factor = 1.0 (no uncertainty carried for existing development)
Harmon Peaking Factor (based on existing tributary population)
Infiltration included in average daily inflows recorded for each station
3.2 Proposed/Future Development Design Criteria
The design criteria used for estimation of proposed/future development was based on the existing
conditions noted above, and the current Village/Hamlet Residential 1 Zoning from the Bayham Zoning By-
Law Z456-2003, assumed for new development.
The Village/Hamlet Residential 1 Zoning in Eden and Straffordville requires a minimum lot size of 900m2
and a minimum lot frontage of 20m, where municipal sanitary sewers are provided. Based on an average
local Right-Of-Way (ROW) width of 20m, the 20m minimum lot frontage requires an additional 200m2 for
half the ROW width for each lot. This is a total of 1,100m2 of minimum land area per lot, which allows for a
maximum unit density of 9 units per hectare (uph). Using a unit density of 9 uph and 3.1 people per unit
provides a population density of 28 people per hectare for Eden and Straffordville. It should be noted that
individual site shapes and restrictions, as well as potential Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBA) requests and
the desire from the Provincial Government to intensify development, may change the final density of
future build-out.
The Village Residential 1 Zoning in Vienna and Port Burwell requires a minimum lot size of 800m2 and a
minimum lot frontage of 15m, where municipal sanitary sewers are provided. Based on an average local
ROW width of 20m, the 15m minimum lot frontage requires an additional 150m2 for half the ROW width
for each lot. This is a total of 950m2 of minimum land area per lot, which allows for a maximum unit
density of 10 units per hectare (uph). Using a unit density of 10 uph and 3.1 people per unit provides a
population density of 31 people per hectare for Vienna and Port Burwell. As noted above, individual site
shapes and constraints, as well as potential ZBA requests may change the final density of future build-out.
For any proposed development, if the unit yield being proposed was known, the design population was
based on the number of units multiplied by 3.1 people per unit.
The sanitary design criteria from the Bayham Design & Construction Standards indicates a sewage flow
rate of 365 l/cap/d (excl. infiltration). Based on the existing conditions noted above, the actual sewage
rate is at most 240 l/cap/d (incl. infiltration). To ensure a conservative capacity evaluation without
Page 4
overestimating sewage flows, a 15% contingency was carried over the existing sewage rate, resulting in a
per capita flow of 275 l/cap/d (excl. infiltration) for proposed and future development. The Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Design Guidelines for Sewage Works recommends sewage
flow rates be in the range of 225 – 450 l/cap/d (MECP, 2008).
The infiltration rate of 0.1 l/s/ha has been carried for proposed/future development of vacant land. For
any existing development that is not currently connected to the sanitary collection system, an equivalent
land area to new development was used by dividing the number of existing units by the proposed/future
unit density, which was then used with the design rate of 0.1 l/s/ha to estimate infiltration inflows.
Based on the above, the design criteria for proposed/future development is as follows;
Population (Eden & Straffordville) = 28 ppl/ha OR proposed number of units x 3.1 ppl/unit
Population (Vienna & Port Burwell) = 31 ppl/ha OR proposed number of units x 3.1 ppl/unit
Sewage Rate = 275 l/cap/d
Infiltration Rate = 0.1 l/s/ha (based on proposed/future development equivalent land area)
Uncertainty Factor = 1.1 (10% uncertainty)
Harmon Peaking Factor (based on estimated population)
4.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.1 (Eden)
4.1 Eden SPS No. 1 Existing Conditions
The Village of Eden is provided sanitary service through a network of gravity sewers that convey flows for
134 existing connections to one sanitary pumping station located on a 750m2 parcel on the northwest side
of Plank Road (County Road No.19), south of Eden Line (County Road No.44).
This sanitary pumping station (henceforth referred to as SPS No.1) was designed by Acres & Associated in
2000 and constructed between 2000 – 2002. The station consists of one 3.0mø precast concrete wet well
that is approx. 7.4m deep and contains two submersible sewage grinder pumps (one duty and one
standby). The existing pumps are 16.8hp Sulzer ABS PIR PE125 models with a 50mmø discharge. An
overflow from the pumping station to the Gilvesy-Baldwin Municipal Drain is provided in the event of an
emergency bypass, although the Municipality has indicated no bypass event has occurred to date. The
pumping station includes a bypass chamber and a small building housing a standby generator. The existing
pumps discharge to a 100mmø forcemain of approx. 4.5km in length that outlets to a 250mmø gravity
sewer at the north end of Straffordville.
The Eden sanitary system falls under Certificate of Approval (COA) #6422-AVYQJX (MECP, 2018). Under this
COA, the existing pumping station is rated for a peak outflow of 7.0 l/s.
Based on the existing conditions noted in Section 2.0 above, the Eden pumping station currently has an
average inflow of 1.15 l/s and an existing tributary population of 416 people. This tributary population
provides a Harmon Peaking Factor of 4.014 and an existing peak flow of 4.60 l/s, which is 66% of the 7.0 l/s
design flow.
The Municipality of Bayham was able to provide their recorded daily pump run times for all pumping
stations for 2021 and 2022 up to October 12, 2022. From the daily pump run time records, an average
daily pump run time was calculated. Based on the data provided, the pumps in Eden SPS No.1 run for 1.80
hours/day per pump (alternating cycles). From the volumetric flow records the Municipality provided, an
actual pump outflow was able to be calculated by dividing the average volumetric flow by the average
daily pump run time. Based on these values, Eden SPS No.1 was found to be operating at 7.7 l/s, which is
Page 5
greater than the design flow of 7.0 l/s.
From the pump curve provided by the manufacturer, at a flow rate of 7.7 l/s, the existing pumps provide
45.4m of pressure head (64.5 PSI).
Based on the original design drawings of the pumping station and forcemain, a system head curve was
generated (see SPS No.1 system head curve included in Appendix A1). In order to reflect the in-situ
conditions, the system head curve was calibrated to match the pressure head being provided by changing
the roughness coefficient of the pipe. By calibrating the system head curve, the roughness coefficient (C-
Value) was found to be C = 117. This is rougher than a typical design value of C = 130, as recommended in
the MECP Design Guidelines (MECP, 2008). Through discussions with Municipal Staff, it was learned that
there are issues with scaling build-up in the forcemain, specifically at the low-point of the forcemain where
it crosses Little Otter Creek, that are believed to be due to the hard water (high mineral content) from
Eden. The Municipality conducts an annual swabbing of this location that appears to remedy the issue,
through observing lower pump run times recorded after the swabbing is completed.
4.2 Eden SPS No.1 Potential Growth
The Municipality of Bayham retained IBI Group to complete a vacant land inventory assessment in 2019.
IBI Group prepared mapping for each village that outlined potential developable land and the projected
lot yield for each parcel.
CJDL has prepared a sanitary tributary figure appended to this report that outlines the existing area
served, as well as parcels of future and proposed development. The parcels chosen for proposed and
future development are based on the vacant land inventory assessment and the current village limits.
Proposed development is based on known applications for development. The unit yield and population for
proposed development is based on the known number of lots being requested. The unit yield and
population for future development is based on the design criteria noted in Section 3.0 above, which is
generated from the current Hamlet Residential 1 zoning in Eden. For areas of existing development that
are not currently connected to the sanitary system, the future tributary population was based on the
number of existing lots with 3.1 people per lot.
The Municipality requested that the Meadows Mobile Home Park be included in the future units for
potential connection to the sanitary system, although they are outside the current village limits. The
ultimate build-out of the mobile home park, based on previous development/servicing studies completed
for the Developer, have been carried in the future units served.
Based on the tributary figure appended to this report, the following unit breakdown is generated;
Page 6
Figure 1 Eden SPS No.1 Potential Unit Build-Out
As is shown above, there are currently 134 lots served by the Eden sanitary system. The only proposed
development is on the east side of Plank Road (County Road No.19), referred to as the 11:28 Properties
Inc. subdivision, and is currently requesting 33 lots. It is understood there is potential for another
development across the road by another proponent, but at this time no applications have been filed.
Based on potential future connections within the village limits, and the Meadows Mobile Home park,
there is an estimated 456 additional units that could be tributary to SPS No.1 in the future.
The actual and estimated unit yields above indicate a total estimate of 623 units/lots could be served by
SPS No.1 upon full build-out of the tributary area. It should be noted that per the 2021 Census data, the
Municipality of Bayham had a population growth rate of -4.1% from 2016 to 2021, but had a growth rate
of +5.8% from 2011 to 2016, +3.9% from 2006 to 2011, +5.5% from 2011 to 2006, and +2.3% from 1996 to
2001. This data appears to indicate the Municipality has historically experienced population growth year
over year, although the latest census data indicates a decrease in population, meaning the build-out of
this full tributary could extend over decades with potential surges of growth depending on new
development timing.
4.3 Eden SPS No.1 Capacity
The MECP does not have a specific procedure for evaluating the capacity of sanitary pumping station.
MECP procedure D-5-1 for Calculating and Reporting Uncommitted Reserve Capacity at Sewage and Water
Treatment Plants outlines a general procedure for calculating uncommitted reserve capacity in sewage
treatment plants. A similar procedure has been followed for the evaluation of reserve capacity in the
sanitary pumping stations. Procedure D-5-1 indicates that reserved capacity is for existing development
and any draft approved development. This same interpretation of reserved capacity has been carried in
the evaluation of the pumping station capacity in Bayham.
Based on the unit build-out identified in Section 4.2 above, and as shown in the Eden Sanitary Tributary
Figure, there is no draft approved development within the tributary of Eden SPS No.1, meaning the
reserved capacity is only for existing development.
From the sanitary design sheet included in Appendix A1, existing development consists of 134 sanitary
connections with an average inflow of 1.15 l/s and a peak sewage flow of 4.60 l/s, which is 66% of the COA
Page 7
design flow of 7.0 l/s. This indicates Eden SPS No.1 has a reserved capacity of 66%.
MECP Procedure D-5-1 does not identify a maximum reserved capacity for sewage treatment plants, but
does note that upgrades can take 3 – 5 years for treatment plants and the Municipality should look ahead
to plan for a maximum reserved capacity to accommodate any surges or emergency conditions. Based on
this, a maximum 90% reserved capacity limit was suggested to leave 10% of uncommitted reserve capacity
for any unexpected surges or emergency conditions before upgrades are in place.
Based on the current COA peak design flow of 7.0 l/s, a 90% capacity limit is a peak design flow of 6.3 l/s.
This 90% capacity design flow allows for development of 32 new units/lots within Eden. It should be noted
the land area for the new units was estimated based on a density of 9 uph to calculate the design
infiltration.
4.4 Eden SPS No.1 Upgrade Potential
From Section 4.3 above, it is noted that Eden SPS No.1 can only accommodate 32 new units before
reaching 90% of the current COA design flow. In order to accommodate potential future growth of up to
623 total units/lots served, alternative upgrade directions were reviewed.
As is noted in Section 4.1 above, the existing pumps within Eden SPS No.1 are pumping sewage flow at 7.7
l/s, which is greater than the COA design flow of 7.0 l/s. The most economical initial upgrade is for the
Municipality to pursue amending their COA design flow to this 7.7 l/s outflow, to mimic current
conditions. Based on the actual outflow of 7.7 l/s, the 90% capacity limit would be 6.93 l/s, which could
accommodate an additional 12 new units, on top of the currently available 32 new units (44 new units
total). This is not a significant increase to the capacity of Eden SPS No.1, but depending on development
proposals received, may be a viable option.
To accommodate peak sewage flows greater than 7.7 l/s, the existing pumps within Eden SPS No.1 would
need to be upsized, or an equalization tank would need to be installed to store sewage during peak hours
and pump them throughout the day, effectively mitigating the peak inflow. Municipal staff have indicated
they would prefer to avoid a holding tank due to limited land area on the pumping station property, and
to avoid potential issues with sewage odours and septicity.
It should be noted that adding or replacing equipment within an existing pumping station
building/structure, where the rated capacity is not exceeded, is considered a Schedule A project under the
Municipal Class EA process. Increasing the capacity of the pumping station by adding or replacing
equipment in an existing building/structure is considered a Schedule A+ project. Increasing the capacity of
the pumping station by adding or replacing equipment, within a new building/structure is considered a
Schedule B project. The establishment of a sewage flow equalization tank is also considered a Schedule B
project under the current Municipal Class EA process.
The existing 100mmø PVC DR18 Class 150 forcemain has a normal operating pressure range up to 105.5m
head (150.0 PSI), but can handle surge pressures well beyond this limit. To evaluate the ultimate pump
upgrade limit, before the forcemain becomes the restricting factor, the calibrated system head curve was
utilized to determine the outflow at 105.5m head (150.0 PSI), which is 11.95 l/s. The design outflow of
11.95 l/s allows for 98 additional new units to be developed, on top of the current capacity for 32 new
units and the additional capacity for 12 new units based on actual pump outflows (142 new units total). It
should be noted that 105.5m head cannot be readily supplied by a single pump (as-is the current
conditions). Two pumps connected in series would be required to facilitate supply 105.5m head, with each
individual pump providing approximately half the required head. Detailed upgrade designs and estimated
Page 8
costs have not yet been generated, but it is currently assumed that a submersible pump will be required
within the wet well, with an in-line pump installed at grade to supply the required head. A standby
submersible pump will be required within the wet well, and potentially a standby in-line pump at grade as
well. The existing standby generator, pump starters and other station infrastructure will need to be
reviewed to confirm further upgrades are not required to facilitate this configuration.
Any development beyond the 142 new units noted above, that can potentially be accommodated through
pump upgrades, would require upsizing or twinning of the existing 4.5km long forcemain from Eden SPS
No.1 to Straffordville.
4.5 Eden SPS No.1 Recommendations
Based on the review of Eden sanitary pumping station No.1, the following recommendations are
proposed;
1.The Municipality implement a regular maintenance procedure for swabbing of the existing
forcemain at locations of noted scaling.
2.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 32 new units/lots for connection to the Eden sanitary
system prior to improvements.
3.The Municipality review potential future development and limit sewage allocation to available
capacity.
4.The Municipality apply to MECP to increase the rated capacity on the ECA for Eden SPS No. 1 to
7.7 l/s to reflect the measured flows over the past 2 years. This would increase the maximum
number of new units/lots by 12, from 32 up to 44 new units/lots.
5.A detailed cost comparison of the options to upsize the existing pumps vs. adding a flow
equalization tank (or both) should be initiated. Pump upgrades can be completed as a Schedule A+
Class Environmental Assessment, whereas an equalization tank requires a Schedule B Class
Environmental Assessment.
6.Based on the estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in Eden to
accommodate future development, consider implementing a site-specific development charge for
new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades. Front ending agreements are
also an alternative.
7.The Municipality construct the preferred solution and continue to monitor sewage flows and
capacities as development proceeds.
5.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.2 (Straffordville)
5.1 Straffordville SPS No.2 Existing Conditions
The village of Straffordville is provided sanitary service through a network of gravity sewers that convey
flows to four (4) pumping stations within the village limits (SPS No.2, 3, 4 & 5). Straffordville sanitary
pumping station No.2 (SPS No.2) receives flows from Eden SPS No.1 that discharges to Straffordville at the
north limit of the village, Straffordville SPS No.3 & 4, as well as the gravity sewer system within
Straffordville north of Main Street and West of Garner Road. Based on records provided from the
Municipality, and the Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure appended to this report, SPS No.2 serves 435
total existing sanitary connections (134 from Eden SPS No.1, 34 from Straffordville SPS No.3, 7 from
Straffordville SPS No.4 and 260 within Straffordville through gravity sewers).
Straffordville sanitary pumping station No.2 is located on the southeast side of Plank Road (County Road
No.19), north of First Street and adjacent to the Straffordville Library, on an approximately 700m2 parcel.
Page 9
SPS No.2 was designed by Acres & Associated and was constructed between 2000 – 2002. The station
consists of one 3.0mø precast concrete wet well that is approx. 7.6m deep and contains two submersible
sewage grinder pumps (one duty and one standby). The existing pumps are 10.1hp Sulzer ABS XFP PE2
100E models with a 100mmø discharge. An overflow from the pumping station to an existing municipal
drain storm sewer to the north is provided in the event of an emergency bypass, although the Municipality
has indicated no bypass event has occurred to date. The pumping station includes a bypass chamber and a
small building housing a standby generator. The existing pumps discharge to a 150mmø forcemain of
approx. 370m length that outlets to the Straffordville gravity sanitary sewer system, south of Main Street.
The Straffordville sanitary system falls under Certificate of Approval (COA) #6422-AVYQJX (MECP, 2018).
Under this COA, the existing pumping station is rated for a peak outflow of 22.5 l/s.
Based on the existing conditions noted in Section 2.0 above, the Straffordville pumping station currently
has an average inflow of 3.28 l/s (based on estimated volumetric flows), and an existing tributary
population of 1,350 people (from Eden and within Straffordville). This tributary population provides a
Harmon Peaking Factor of 3.712 and an existing peak sewage flow of 12.16 l/s, which is 54% of the 22.5 l/s
design flow.
From the recorded daily pump run times provided by the Municipality, the 2-year average daily run time
for SPS No.2 was 1.70 hours/day per pump (alternating cycles). From the estimated volumetric flow
records from the Municipality, the pump was found to actually be operating at 23.3 l/s, which is greater
than the design flow of 22.5 l/s.
From the pump curve provided by the manufacturer, at a flow rate of 23.3 l/s, the existing pumps provide
15.4m of head (21.9 PSI).
Based on the original design drawings for the pumping station and forcemain, a system head curve was
generated (appended to the report). This system head curve was then calibrated, similar to Eden SPS No.1,
to reflect in-situ pumping conditions. The roughness coefficient for the system was found to be C = 125,
which is just under the typical design value of C = 130 from the MECP Design Guidelines, but is within the
recommended design range of C = 120 to C = 140 (MECP, 2008). The Municipality did not note any issues
with scaling in this forcemain, which is supported by there being no intermediate low-spots within this
forcemain profile for scaling to accumulate.
5.2 Straffordville SPS No.2 Potential Growth
Similar to the procedure for Eden SPS No.1, the vacant land inventory completed by IBI Group was utilized,
along with the current village of Straffordville limits to evaluate potential development and future lands
tributary to Straffordville SPS No.2.
Parcels chosen for proposed development were based on submitted development applications or known
development proposals to be submitted shortly. Unit yield and design populations for proposed
development are based on the number of units with 3.1 people per unit, if known, or the maximum
density accommodated by the Village Residential 1 zoning within Straffordville. Future tributary lands
consist of a combination of vacant land for development and existing lots that are not currently connected
to the Straffordville sanitary system. Unit yields and design populations for future development are based
on the maximum allowable density of Village Residential 1 zoning in Straffordville, or the number of
existing lots with 3.1 people per unit, where applicable. The tributary areas and design populations served
are shown on the Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure appended to this report.
Page 10
Based on the description above, and as shown on the Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure, the potential
build-out of lands tributary to Straffordville SPS No.2 (including lands served by Eden SPS No.1) is as
follows;
Figure 2 Straffordville SPS No.2 Potential Unit Build-Out
Figure 2 shows above that there is currently 435 units/lots served by Straffordville SPS No.2, including 134
units/lots from Eden SPS No.1. There are two properties tributary to SPS No.2 that applications have been
submitted for, or are understood to be coming shortly, and are shown as proposed. These two properties
are located in the northwest of Straffordville, on Sandytown Road. The westerly parcel has been submitted
for draft plan approval and proposes 39 lots. The easterly parcel has not yet been submitted for draft plan
approval, and the unit yield of 103 lots was based on the density of 9 uph, based on the Village Residential
1 zoning in Straffordville. This results in a total of 175 units being proposed, including proposed units in
Eden. The potential future build-out of SPS No.2 is based on the remaining vacant land within the
Straffordville village limits that is tributary to SPS No.2, as well as any existing lots that are not currently
connected to the sanitary system, including the full future build-out of Straffordville and the Meadows
Mobile Home Park. This results in a potential of 1,000 future units/lots tributary to Straffordville SPS No.2,
including those lands in Eden, in addition to existing and proposed units.
The actual and estimate unit yields above indicate a total estimate of 1,610 units/lots that could be
tributary to Straffordville SPS No.2 upon full build-out of the tributary area. As noted in Section 4.2 above,
the growth rate in Bayham varies greatly from year to year and the full build-out of this tributary area
could take decades or could advance much quicker than historical records show.
5.3 Straffordville SPS No.2 Capacity
Based on the unit build-out identified in Section 5.2 above, and as shown in the Straffordville Sanitary
Tributary Figure, there is no draft approved development within the tributary of Straffordville SPS No.2,
meaning the reserved capacity, as defined in MECP Procedure D-5-1, is only existing development.
From the Straffordville SPS No.2 sanitary design sheet included in Appendix A2, and as noted above, there
are 435 existing units/lots tributary to SPS No.2, with an average inflow of 3.28 l/s and a peak sewage flow
of 12.16 l/s, which is 54% of the COA design flow of 22.5 l/s. This indicates Straffordville SPS No.2 has a
reserved capacity of 54%.
Page 11
Using the 90% reserved capacity limit, as justified above in Section 4.3, the COA design flow of 22.5 l/s
provides for a peak flow limit of 20.25 l/s. This 90% capacity limit allows for development of 116 new
units/lots in Straffordville, along with the additional 32 new units/lots in Eden, for a total of 148 new
connections within the Straffordville SPS No.2 tributary area. It should be noted the land area used to
estimate infiltration from the number of new units is based on an equivalent density of 9 uph.
5.4 Straffordville SPS No.2 Upgrade Potential
From Section 5.3 above, it was found that Straffordville SPS No.2 currently has capacity for a total of 148
new units/lots from Eden and Straffordville (within the SPS No.2 tributary area) up to 90% of the COA
design flow of 22.5 l/s. Based on the proposed development in Eden and Straffordville (within the SPS
No.2 tributary area), there are a total of 175 new units/lots proposed, pending submission of the easterly
Sandytown Road property.
As noted in Section 5.1 above, the current pumps in SPS No.2 are operating at 23.3 l/s, which is greater
than the COA design flow of 22.5 l/s. Similar to the review of Eden SPS No.1, the most economical option
to provide additional capacity in Straffordville SPS No.2 is to amend the COA design flow to match the
current operating flow rate of the pumps (23.3 l/s). This increased design flow provides a 90% capacity
flow of 20.97 l/s, which can accommodate 162 new units/lots, which is 14 more than under the current
COA limit.
To accommodate more than 162 new units/lots within the Straffordville SPS No.2 tributary (incl. Eden),
the pumps in the station will need to be upsized, to avoid requiring a holding tank to mitigate peak flows.
The existing 150mmø PVC DR18 Class 150 forcemain has a normal operating pressure range up to 105.5m
head (150.0 PSI), but can handle surge pressure well in excess of this operating range. Similar to Eden SPS
No.1, the ultimate pump upgrade limit has been reviewed based on a maximum system head of 105.5m
(150.0 PSI). The calibrated system head curve appended to this report was used to determine the station
piping, that is currently 100mmø ductile iron, will need to be upsized to 150mmø at a flow of 27.0 l/s, to
avoid exceeding the MECP maximum velocity of 3.0 m/s (MECP, 2008). This station piping upsizing limit
equates to 282 new units/lots within the SPS No.2 tributary area (including Eden).
The ultimate forcemain capacity for this pumping station is limited by the velocity within the forcemain.
The maximum outflow before exceeding the MECP maximum of 3.0 m/s (MECP, 2008) is 57.0 l/s. The
system head required at this flow rate is only 56.4m head (80.2 PSI). This maximum forcemain flow rate of
57.0 l/s equates to a maximum of 932 new units/lots within the tributary of SPS No.2 (including Eden). This
ultimate forcemain capacity is slightly below the potential future build-out of 1,175 new units/lots. The
recorded sewage inflows should be confirmed closer to the time of full build-out to determine the
potential for forcemain upsizing/twinning in the future.
Although this existing forcemain is close to having the capacity required to serve the potential future build-
out of the SPS No.2 tributary area (including Eden), there are further downstream capacity restrictions in
Vienna that would need to be addressed before reaching this forcemain capacity limit, see Sanitary
Pumping Station No.6 review below for further details.
Page 12
5.5 Straffordville SPS No.2 Recommendations
Based on the review of Straffordville sanitary pumping station No.2, the following recommendations are
proposed;
1.The Municipality implement flow monitoring for SPS No.2, similar to other sanitary pumping
stations in Bayham.
2.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 148 new units/lots for connection to the SPS No.2
tributary area (including Eden).
3.The Municipality monitor recorded inflows (if flow monitoring is implemented) to determine if
pump upgrade options need to be evaluated to handle greater sewage inflows.
4.The Municipality determine estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in
Straffordville to accommodate future development and from this implement a development
charge for new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades.
5.The Municipality conduct a subsequent sanitary capacity review in 2024.
6.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.5 (Straffordville)
6.1 Straffordville SPS No.5 Existing Conditions
As noted in Section 5.0 above, the village of Straffordville is provided sanitary service through a network of
gravity sewers that convey flows to four (4) pumping stations within the village limits. Straffordville
pumping station No.5 (SPS No.5) receives flows from all of Straffordville and Eden. Flows within
Straffordville that are north of Main Street are tributary to SPS No.2 (including Eden SPS No.1,
Straffordville SPS No.3 & Straffordville SPS No.4) and are then pumped through a 150mmø forcemain
south of Main Street. SPS No.5 receives gravity inflows from within Straffordville, south of Main Street.
Based on records provided from the Municipality, and the Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure appended
to this report, SPS No.5 serves 499 total existing sanitary connections (134 from Eden SPS No.1, 301 from
Straffordville SPS No.2, and 64 within Straffordville through gravity sewers).
Straffordville sanitary pumping station No.5 is located on the west side of Plank Road (County Road No.19)
at the south limit of Straffordville, on an approximately 520m2 parcel. SPS No.5 was designed by Acres &
Associated and was constructed between 2000 – 2002. The station consists of one 3.6mø precast concrete
wet well that is approx. 5.7m deep and contains two submersible sewage grinder pumps (one duty and
one standby). The existing pumps are 57.7hp Sulzer ABS XFP PE4 105J models with a 100mmø discharge.
An overflow from the pumping station to an existing storm sewer on Plank Road is provided in the event of
an emergency bypass, although the Municipality has indicated no bypass event has occurred to date. The
pumping station includes a bypass chamber and a small building housing a standby generator. The existing
pumps discharge to a 200mmø forcemain of approx. 6 km length that outlets to the Vienna gravity sanitary
sewer system at the northeast limit of the village.
As noted in Section 5.1 above, the Straffordville system falls under Certificate of Approval (COA) #6422-
AVYQJX (MECP, 2018). Under this COA, the existing pumping station is rated for a peak outflow of 34.8 l/s.
Based on the existing conditions noted in Section 2.0 above, the Straffordville pumping station currently
has an average inflow of 3.81 l/s, and an existing tributary population of 1,549 people (incl. Eden). This
tributary population provides a Harmon Peaking Factor of 3.669 and an existing peak sewage flow of 13.97
l/s, which is 40% of the 34.8 l/s design flow.
Page 13
The 2-year average daily pump run time was calculated to be 0.64 hours/day per pump (alternating cycles),
based on the run time records provided by the Municipality. From the recorded volumetric flow records
provided, the pump was found to be operating at 72.4 l/s, which is much greater than the design flow of
34.8 l/s. This is believed to be a known condition, as factory testing certificates from the pump
manufacturer indicate an anticipated design flow of 78.7 l/s, which is of the same magnitude as the actual
operating flow.
From the pump curve provided by the manufacturer, at a flow rate of 72.4 l/s, the existing pumps provide
35.05m head (49.8 PSI).
Based on the original design drawings for the pumping station and forcemain, a system head curve was
generated (appended to the report). This system head curve was calibrated differently than the previous
two stations. Due to the high flow rate, the roughness coefficient varied substantially based on using
different roughness coefficients. Therefore, to calibrate the system head curve to reflect existing in-situ
conditions, the roughness coefficient was left at the MECP recommended design value of C = 130 (MECP,
2008), and the control point for evaluating the required head based on elevation and forcemain length was
changed to find an intermediate high point (as shown on the schematic profile appended to the report)
that resulted in the system head matching the head provided by the pump at the current outflow rate. The
Municipality did not note any issues with scaling in the forcemain, which is supported by there being no
substantial intermediate low-spots within the forcemain for substantial scaling to accumulate.
6.2 Straffordville SPS No.5 Potential Growth
The potential growth within the SPS No.5 tributary area expands on the potential growth within the
tributary area of SPS No.2 and SPS No.1, as both of these stations convey flows to Straffordville SPS No.5.
The vacant land inventory completed by IBI Group was utilized, along with the current village of
Straffordville limits to evaluate potential development and future lands tributary to Straffordville SPS
No.5.
Of the two potential parcels for development, one was understood to be evaluating potential
development applications within the near future, and as such was considered proposed development. This
parcel is commonly referred to as the Blondeel Lands and is located on the west side of Plank Road
(County Road No.19). The maximum density of 9 uph according to the Village Residential 1 zoning was
used to estimate a potential of 188 units/lots within this parcel.
The second parcel for potential development within the immediate tributary of SPS No.5 was directly
south of the Blondeel Lands and is not currently known to have any plans for development in the near
future, and was therefore considered future development.
The potential build-out of the tributary of Straffordville SPS No.5 (incl. both SPS No.1 and SPS No.2) is
shown below;
Page 14
Figure 3 Straffordville SPS No.5 Potential Unit Build-Out
As shown in Figure 3 above, Straffordville SPS No.5 currently serves 499 existing units/lots (incl. Eden SPS
No.1 and Straffordville SPS No.2). There is currently 363 additional units/lots identified as proposed based
on submitted development applications or understood near future submissions. Based on potential build-
out of the full Eden and Straffordville village limits, as well as the Meadows Mobile Home Park, there is
potential for an additional 1,036 units/lots tributary to SPS No.5 in the future. As noted for SPS No.1 and
SPS No.2, the growth rate in Bayham has varied greatly from historical records and the development of
this tributary would likely occur over a substantial period of time, with potential for small surges of growth
depending on new development.
6.3 Straffordville SPS No.5 Capacity
Similar to SPS No.1 and SPS No.2, there is no draft-approved development within the tributary area of
Straffordville SPS No.5, meaning the reserved capacity, as defined in MECP Procedure D-5-1, is only
existing development.
Based on the calculations provided in sanitary design sheet for Straffordville SPS No.5, included in
Appendix A3, and as noted above, there are 499 existing units/lots served by SPS No.5, with an average
inflow of 3.81 l/s and a peak sewage flow of 13.97 l/s, which is 40% of the COA design flow of 34.8 l/s. This
indicates Straffordville SPS No.5 has a reserved capacity of 54%.
Using the previously mentioned 90% reserved capacity limit, the COA design flow of 34.8 l/s provides for a
peak flow capacity of 31.32 l/s. This 90% capacity limit allows for development of 317 new units/lots total
(32 from Eden SPS No.1, 116 from Straffordville SPS No.2 and 169 from Straffordville SPS No.5). It should
be noted the land area used to estimate infiltration from the number of new units is based on an
equivalent density of 9 uph.
6.4 Straffordville SPS No.5 Upgrade Potential
From Section 6.4 above, it was noted that Straffordville SPS No.5 currently has capacity for a total of 317
new units/lots from Eden and Straffordville, up to 90% of the COA design flow of 34.8 l/s. Based on the
proposed development in Eden and Straffordville, there are a total of 363 new units/lots proposed,
pending application submission for some developments that are anticipated in the near future.
Page 15
Based on the pump run times provided, and as noted in Section 6.1 above, the current pumps are
operating at 72.4 l/s, over double the current COA design flow of 34.8 l/s. As previously mentioned, the
desired flow from these pumps noted in the manufacturers test certificate was 78.7 l/s, which supports
that the current outflow rate was set higher than the COA design flow, whether intentional or not.
The most economical option for this pumping station to handle future growth is to apply for an increased
design outflow for the current COA, to match the existing pump flow of 72.4 l/s. This increased design flow
would provide a 90% capacity flow of 65.16 l/s, which could accommodate a total of 1,034 new units/lots,
well in exceedance of the proposed 363 new units/lots.
Similar to the upgrade potential for SPS No.1 and SPS No.2, the ultimate capacity of the forcemain was
evaluated to determine at what point pump upgrades would no longer be the limiting factor. The existing
200mmø PVC DR18 Class 150 forcemain has a normal operating pressure range up to 105.5m head (150.0
PSI), but can handle surge pressure well in excess of this operating range. The calibrated system head curve
appended to this report indicates that under the current pump outflow of 72.4 l/s, the velocity in the
150mmø ductile iron station piping is 3.8 m/s, which exceeds the MECP maximum of 3.0 m/s (MECP, 2008).
The maximum flow rate based on the velocity limit within the station piping is 57.5 l/s.
Irrespective of the station piping velocity, the maximum outflow through the 200mmø forcemain is 98.0 l/s
before the velocity in the forcemain would exceed the MECP maximum of 3.0 m/s. The system head
required at this flow rate is 60.2m head (85.6 PSI). The ultimate forcemain capacity flow rate of 98.0 l/s
equates to 1,748 new units/lots within Eden and Straffordville. This ultimate forcemain capacity is greater
than the potential future build-out of all of Eden and Straffordville (1,399 new units/lots). Based on this, it
is not anticipated that the existing 200mmø forcemain from Straffordville SPS No.2 to Vienna will need to
be upsized/twinned due to capacity reasons.
Although this existing forcemain has more than the required capacity to serve the potential future build-
out of Eden and Straffordville, there are further downstream capacity restrictions in Vienna that would
need to be addressed before being able to utilize the full capacity of this forcemain, see Sanitary Pumping
Station No.6 review below for further details.
6.5 Straffordville SPS No.5 Recommendations
Based on the review of Straffordville sanitary pumping station No.5, the following recommendations are
proposed;
1.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 317 new units/lots for connection to the SPS No.5
tributary area (including Eden).
2.The Municipality further investigate the current pumping station flow rate to determine if
maximum MECP flow velocities are currently being exceeded in the station piping.
3.The Municipality monitor recorded inflows to determine if pump upgrade options need to be
evaluated to handle greater sewage inflows.
4.The Municipality determine estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in
Straffordville to accommodate future development and from this implement a development
charge for new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades.
5.The Municipality conduct a subsequent sanitary capacity review in 2024.
Page 16
7.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.6 (Vienna)
7.1 Vienna SPS No.6 Existing Conditions
The village of Vienna is provided municipal sanitary service through a network of gravity sewers that
convey flows to one (1) pumping station within the village limits. Vienna sanitary pumping station No.6
(SPS No.6) receives sewage flows from Eden SPS No.1, Straffordville SPS No.2, 3, 4 & 5, as well as the
gravity sewer system within Vienna. Based on the records provided from the Municipality, and the Vienna
Sanitary Tributary Figure appended to this report, SPS No.6 serves 827 total existing sanitary connections
(134 from Eden SPS No.1, 260 from Straffordville SPS No.2, 34 from Straffordville SPS No.3, 7 from
Straffordville SPS No.4, 64 from Straffordville SPS No.5 and 328 within Vienna through gravity sewers).
Vienna sanitary pumping station No.6 is located at the south limit of Front Street, on the west side, on an
approximately 560m2 parcel. SPS No.6 was designed by Acres & Associated and was constructed between
2000 – 2002. The station consists of one 3.6mø precast concrete wet well that is approx. 9.6m deep and
contains two submersible sewage grinder pumps (one duty and one standby). The existing pumps are 69.7
hp Sulzer ABS XFP PE4 100J models with a 100mmø discharge. An overflow from the pumping station to
Big Otter Creek is provided in the event of an emergency bypass, although the Municipality has indicated
no bypass event has occurred to date. The pumping station includes a bypass chamber and a small building
housing a standby generator. The existing pumps discharge to a 250mmø forcemain of approx. 5.4 km in
length that outlets to the Port Burwell gravity sanitary sewer system on Chatham Street, at the intersection
of Nova Scotia Line.
The Vienna sanitary system falls under Certificate of Approval (COA) #6422-AVYQJX (MECP, 2018), similar
to Eden and Straffordville. Under this COA, the existing pumping station is rated for a peak outflow of 45.0
l/s.
Based on the existing conditions noted in Section 2.0 above, the Vienna pumping station currently has an
average inflow of 5.83 l/s, and an existing tributary population of 2,566 people (incl. Eden and
Straffordville). This tributary population provides a Harmon Peaking Factor of 3.499 and an existing peak
sewage flow of 20.41 l/s, which is 45% of the 45.0 l/s COA design flow.
From the recorded daily pump run times provided by the Municipality, the 2-year average daily run time
for SPS No.6 was 1.30 hours/day per pump (alternating cycles). From the volumetric flow records from the
Municipality, the pump was found to be actually operating at 54.4 l/s, which is greater than the COA
design flow of 45.0 l/s.
From the pump curve provided by the manufacturer, at a flow rate of 54.4 l/s, the existing pumps provide
61.6m head (87.6 PSI).
Based on the original design drawings for the pumping station and forcemain, a system head curve was
generated (appended to the report). This system head curve was calibrated, similar to Eden SPS No.1 and
Straffordville SPS No.2, to reflect in-situ pumping conditions. The roughness coefficient for the system was
found to be C = 110, which is rougher than the typical design range of C = 120 to C = 140 from the MECP
Design Guidelines (MECP, 2008). The Municipality has not noted any issues with scaling in this forcemain,
but has indicated they will investigate this further. There is one intermediate low-point in the forcemain
towards the north limit of Brown Road, where scaling could be accumulating, although there could be
other locations of scaling or other issues beyond scaling that are causing the forcemain to act rougher
than design.
Page 17
7.2 Vienna SPS No.6 Potential Growth
The village of Vienna has a large amount of undeveloped land within the current village limits. Due to
natural site constraints, such as existing ravines, woodlands and Big Otter Creek, there is a significant
portion of the village that is considered undevelopable. Without reviewing the natural features of each
property on a site-by-site basis, the current Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) regulation
limits were added to the Vienna Sanitary Tributary Figure to identify natural site constraints. For future
development of vacant land, the area within the LPRCA regulation limits were excluded. The LPRCA
regulations limits were not considered for any existing development in Vienna.
The vacant land inventory completed by IBI Group was utilized, but contrary to the vacant land inventory,
undeveloped land within the LPRCA regulation limits were not considered.
Parcels shown as proposed development were based on submitted development applications or known
development proposals to be submitted in the near future. Unit yield and design populations for proposed
development are based on the number of units with 3.1 people per unit, if know, or the maximum density
accommodated by the Village Residential 1 zoning within Vienna (10 uph). Future tributary lands consist of
a combination of vacant land for development and existing lots that are not currently connected to the
Vienna sanitary system. The tributary areas and design populations served are shown on the Vienna
Sanitary tributary Figure appended to this report.
Based on the methodology noted above, and as shown on the Vienna Sanitary Tributary Figure, the
potential build-out of lands tributary to Vienna SPS No.6 (incl. Eden and Straffordville) is as follows;
Figure 4 Vienna SPS No.6 Potential Unit Build-out
Figure 4 shows above there is currently 827 existing units/lots served by Vienna SPS No.6 (including Eden
and Straffordville). There is one property within Vienna that is understood to have been submitted for
draft plan approval in the southeast of Vienna (shown as VP1 on Tributary Figure). The second parcel
shown as proposed is understood to be considering development proposals in the near future. Based on
this, there is a total of 395 new units/lots proposed in Eden, Straffordville and Vienna.
The ultimate future build-out of Vienna is based on the current village limits and LPRCA regulation limits.
As described in Section 3.2 above, the Village Residential 1 zoning in Vienna allows for a maximum density
Page 18
of 10 uph, which has been used to estimate design populations for vacant lands. Based on the future
development areas shown on the Vienna Sanitary tributary Figure, there is potential for a total of 2,230
additional new units/lots in the future (including Eden and Straffordville). As noted for SPS No.1, SPS No.2,
and SPS No.5, the growth rate in Bayham has varied greatly from historical records and the development
of this tributary would likely occur over a substantial period of time, with potential for small surges of
growth depending on new development.
7.3 Vienna SPS No.6 Capacity
Currently there is no known draft-approved development within the tributary area of Vienna SPS No.6
(including Eden and Straffordville), meaning the reserved capacity, as defined in MECP Procedure D-5-1, is
only based on existing development.
Based on the calculations provided in the sanitary design sheet for Vienna SPS No.6, included in Appendix
A4, and as noted above, there are 827 existing units/lots served by SPS No.6, with an average inflow of
5.83 l/s and a peak sewage flow of 20.41 l/s, which is 45% of the COA design flow of 45.0 l/s. This indicates
Vienna SPS No.6 has a reserved capacity of 45%.
Using the previously mentioned 90% reserved capacity limit, the COA design of 45.0 l/s provides for a peak
flow capacity of 40.5 l/s. This 90% capacity limit allows for development of 347 new units/lots total (32
from Eden SPS No.1, 116 from Straffordville SPS No.2, 169 from Straffordville SPS No.5 and 30 from Vienna
SPS No.6). It should be noted the land area used to estimate infiltration from the number of new units is
based on an equivalent density of 10 uph.
7.4 Vienna SPS No.6 Upgrade Potential
Section 7.3 above indicates Vienna SPS No.6 currently has capacity for a total of 347 new units/lots from
Eden, Straffordville and Vienna, up to 90% of the COA design flow of 45.0 l/s. Based on the proposed
development in Eden, Straffordville and Vienna, there are a total of 395 new units/lots proposed, subject
to application submissions for some developments that are anticipated in the near future.
Based on the pump run times and volumetric flow records provided by the Municipality, the current
pumps are operating at 54.4 l/s, which is greater than the 45.0 l/s COA design flow. Without any physical
upgrades, the Municipality could request to amend their current COA to match the actual pump operating
flow. This increased design flow would provide a 90% capacity flow of 48.96 l/s, which could
accommodate a total of 522 new units/lots in Eden, Straffordville and Vienna, exceeding the proposed 395
new units/lots.
The existing 250mmø PVC DR18 Class 150 forcemain was evaluated to determine the limit at which pump
upgrades no longer provide increased inflow capacity. The existing DR18 Class 150 forcemain has a normal
operating pressure range up to 105.5m head (150.0 PSI), and is able to handle surge pressures well in
excess of this operating range. The calibrated system head curve appended to this report for Vienna SPS
No.6 indicates under current conditions the flow velocity in the 150mmø ductile iron station piping is 4.14
m/s, which is well in excess of the MECP maximum of 3.0 m/s (MECP, 2008). The maximum flow rate based
on the velocity limit within the station piping is 57.5 l/s.
Irrespective of the station piping velocity, the maximum outflow through the 250mmø forcemain is 79.55
l/s before the system head would exceed 105.5m head (150.0 PSI). This maximum forcemain flow capacity
of 79.55 l/s equates to a maximum of 1,154 new units/lots in Eden, Straffordville and Vienna. This ultimate
forcemain capacity is well below the potential future build-out of 2,625 new units/lots in Eden,
Page 19
Straffordville and Vienna.
To accommodate future growth beyond 1,154 new units/lots, the existing 250mmø would need to be
upsized or twinned, to avoid requiring a holding tank to mitigate peak inflows.
Based on the above, Vienna SPS No.6 would likely require upgrades to facilitate additional flow capacity
before Straffordville SPS No.2 or Straffordville SPS No.5.
Although the existing forcemain does not have capacity to serve the ultimate build-out of Eden,
Straffordville and Vienna, the timing to reach 1,154 new units/lots could extend over decades. Recorded
inflows should be monitored to evaluate existing system capacities and plan for future development.
7.5 Vienna SPS No.6 Recommendations
Based on the review of Vienna sanitary pumping station No.6, the following recommendations are
proposed;
1.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 347 new units/lots for connection to the SPS No.6
tributary area (including Eden and Straffordville).
2.The Municipality further investigate the current pumping station flow rate to determine if
maximum MECP flow velocities are currently being exceeded in the station piping.
3.The Municipality monitor recorded inflows to determine if pump upgrade options need to be
evaluated to handle greater sewage inflows.
4.The Municipality determine estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in
Vienna to accommodate future development and from this implement a development charge for
new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades.
5.The Municipality conduct a subsequent sanitary capacity review in 2024.
8.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.7 (Port Burwell)
The village of Port Burwell is provided municipal sanitary service through a network of gravity sewers that
convey flows to two (2) pumping stations on the east side of Big Otter Creek. Once flows are pumped to
the west side of Big Otter Creek, they flow by gravity to the Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) located at the south limit of Chatham Street.
Port Burwell sanitary pumping station No.7 (SPS No.7) receives inflows from a surrounding gravity sewer
network consisting of 52 existing sanitary connections. SPS No.7 is located on the south side of Brock
Street between Strachan Street and Erieus Street, on an approx. 235m2 parcel. SPS No.7 was designed by
Giffels Associates Limited (1983). The station consists of one 2.4mø precast concrete wet well that is
approx. 4.7m deep and contains two submersible sewage grinder pumps (one duty and one standby). The
existing pumps are 3 hp Flygt 3085.060 models with a 100mmø discharge. SPS No.7 pumps flows north of
Wellington Street to SPS No.8 though a 100mmø forcemain.
Based on existing conditions, SPS No.7 has an average inflow of 0.35 l/s, and an existing tributary
population of 162 people. This tributary population provides a Harmon Peaking Factor of 4.180 and an
existing peak sewage flow of 1.45 l/s, which is 46% of the 3.18 l/s COA design flow.
The 90% COA design limit of 2.86 l/s allows for up to 26 new units/lots. The current pump outflow was
found to be 3.9 l/s, which allows for 38 new units/lots if the COA is amended to reflect this increased
outflow.
Page 20
The existing 100mmø PE Series 45 forcemain has a maximum operating pressure of 31.5m head (45 PSI),
which allows for a maximum flow through the forcemain of 9.85 l/s, which could accommodate up to 161
new units/lots within the SPS No.7 tributary in the future.
Based on the above review of Port Burwell SPS No.7, the following recommendations are proposed;
1.The Municipality implement flow monitoring for SPS No.7, similar to other sanitary pumping
stations in Bayham.
2.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 26 new units/lots for connection to the SPS No.7
tributary area.
3.The Municipality monitor recorded inflows (if flow monitoring is implemented) to determine if
pump upgrade options need to be evaluated to handle greater sewage inflows.
4.The Municipality determine estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in
Straffordville to accommodate future development and from this implement a development
charge for new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades.
5.The Municipality conduct a subsequent sanitary capacity review in 2024.
9.0 Sanitary Pumping Station No.8 (Port Burwell)
As stated in Section 8.0 above, the village of Port Burwell is provided municipal sanitary service through a
network of gravity sewers that convey flows to two (2) pumping stations on the east side of Big Otter
Creek. Once flows are pumped to the west side of Big Otter Creek, they flow by gravity to the Port Burwell
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at the south limit of Chatham Street.
Port Burwell sanitary pumping station No.8 (SPS No.8) receives inflows from a surrounding gravity sewer
network and pumped outflows from SPS No.7 for a total existing tributary of 356 existing sanitary
connections. SPS No.8 is located on the northwest side of Robinson Street, on the east side of the Port
Burwell Bridge, and is located on an approx. 195m2 parcel. SPS No.8 was designed by Giffels Associates
Limited (1983). The station consists of one 2.4mø precast concrete wet well that is approx. 5.1m deep and
contains two submersible sewage grinder pumps (one duty and one standby). The existing pumps are 7.5
hp Flygt 3127.180 models with a 100mmø discharge. SPS No.8 pumps flows west across the Port Burwell
Bridge through a 150mmø forcemain.
Based on existing conditions, SPS No.8 has an average inflow of 2.30 l/s, and an existing tributary
population of 1,105 people. This tributary population provides a Harmon Peaking Factor of 3.772 and an
existing peak sewage flow of 8.69 l/s, which is 46% of the COA design flow of 18.8 l/s.
Based on the vacant land inventory completed by IBI Group, and the current Port Burwell village limits,
there is potential for 14 proposed new units/lots and 93 future new units/lots, for a total of 107 potential
new units/lots tributary to SPS No.8.
The 90% COA design limit of 16.92 l/s allows for up to 164 new units/lots, but this is restricted by the
current operating flow of the pumps, which is 15.3 l/s (based on run times and volumetric flows provided).
From the current actual outflow of the pumps (15.3 l/s), the 90% capacity flow limit is 13.77 l/s, which
allows for 99 new units/lots within the SPS No.8 tributary area (incl. SPS No.7).
The existing 150mmø forcemain consists of PE Series 60 and PVC SDR 32.5 pipe, which has a maximum
operating pressure of 35.1m head (50.0 PSI), which allows for a maximum flow through the forcemain of
41.9 l/s, which could accommodate up to 715 new units/lots within the SPS No.8 tributary area in the
future (incl. SPS No.7).
Page 21
Based on the above review of Port Burwell SPS No.8, the following recommendations are proposed;
1.The Municipality implement flow monitoring for SPS No.8, similar to other sanitary pumping
stations in Bayham.
2.The Municipality allow for a maximum of 99 new units/lots for connection to the SPS No.8
tributary area.
3.The Municipality monitor recorded inflows (if flow monitoring is implemented) to determine if
pump upgrade options need to be evaluated to handle greater sewage inflows.
4.The Municipality determine estimated costs of upgrading the existing sanitary infrastructure in
Straffordville to accommodate future development and from this implement a development
charge for new connections to provide financial support for future upgrades.
5.The Municipality conduct a subsequent sanitary capacity review in 2024.
10.0 Wastewater Treatment Plant (Port Burwell)
Within the Municipality of Bayham, the sanitary flows from Eden, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell
are conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located at the south end of Chatham Street in
Port Burwell.
The Port Burwell WWTP was upgraded to a parallel stream Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) as designed by
Acres & Associated. Following completion of upgrades to the main treatment plant, further enhancements
were completed for the exfiltration gallery and effluent outfall in 2005 to relieve saturation of the
surrounding grounds. In 2018, the aeration blowers and sludge maintenance system were upgraded. The
WWTP currently operates under MECP Certificate of Approval (COA) #6422-AVYQJX (MECP, 2018), with an
average design inflow of 1,060 m3/d. The Municipality indicated the maximum effluent outflow capacity of
the WWTP is 2,650 m3/d.
Under existing conditions, the Port Burwell WWTP serves 1,247 sanitary connections. The quarterly
reports posted by the Municipality indicate a 2-year average daily inflow of 725 m3/d, which is 68% of the
COA average daily inflow. It should be noted the Municipality has recorded exceedances of the COA
average daily inflow over past years, believed to be due to wet weather inflows. The Municipality has
indicated they are pursuing options to complete significant upgrades to the Port Burwell storm sewer
systems, which would help mitigate stormwater inflows to the WWTP.
Based on the 90% flow capacity limit, the WWTP can accommodate a maximum average daily inflow of
954 m3/d. Currently, there are no draft-approved developments tributary to the WWTP, meaning the
reserved capacity according to MECP Procedure D-5-1 is based on existing development, noted above to
be 68% of the COA design inflow.
Based on the 90% flow capacity limit of 954 m3/d, the WWTP has capacity to accommodate up to 393 new
units/lots in Eden, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell. From Sections 4.0 -9.0 above there is a total of
409 new units/lots proposed, subject to future development submissions for lands understood to be
pursuing development in the near future.
Based on the potential future build-out of all of Eden, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell, there is a
total of 2,732 new units/lots that could be developed.
It is recommended that inflows to the wastewater treatment plant continue to be monitored and
evaluated to ensure future growth can be accommodated. A detailed review of the WWTP hydraulic and
treatment capacity should be evaluated as design inflows approach the 90% design limit to ensure
Page 22
upgrades can be planned and in place before development becomes limited by the WWTP capacity.
It is further recommended that the Municipality evaluate the financial impact of potential WWTP upgrades
to implement a sanitary development charge for new connections, to fund the cost of future
infrastructure.
11.0 Summary & Conclusions
The Sanitary Pumping Station Capacity Study reviewed pumping stations No. 1 (Eden), No. 2
(Straffordville), No.5 (Straffordville), No.6 (Vienna), No.7 (Port Burwell), No.8 (Port Burwell) and a
preliminary review of the WWTP. Based on the capacity review above, the following conclusions were
made;
1.Eden SPS No.1 is operating at 66% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 32 new
units/lots within Eden.
2.The Municipality should pursue potential upgrades for Eden SPS No.1 to facilitate future growth.
3.Straffordville SPS No.2 is operating at 54% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 148 new
units/lots within Eden and the portion of Straffordville tributary to SPS No.2.
4.The Municipality should implement flow monitoring for Straffordville SPS No.2.
5.Straffordville SPS No.5 is operating at 40% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 317 new
units/lots within Eden and Straffordville.
6.Vienna SPS No.6 is operating at 45% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 347 new
units/lots within Eden, Straffordville and Vienna.
7.Port Burwell SPS No.7 is operating at 46% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 26 new
units/lots within the portion of Port Burwell tributary to SPS No.7.
8.The Municipality should implement flow monitoring for Port Burwell SPS No.7.
9.Port Burwell SPS No.8 is operating at 46% capacity and can accommodate a maximum of 99 new
units/lots within the east side of Port Burwell, including the area tributary to SPS No.7.
10.The Port Burwell WWTP appears to be operating at 68% capacity and can likely accommodate a
maximum of 393 new units/lots within Eden, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell.
More detailed conclusions/recommendations are included in the individual sections for each pumping
station, particularly for Eden.
The charts provided below are a visual summary of the existing conditions, unallocated capacity based on
the current COA design flows, and unallocated capacity based on the current pump operating flows.
Recent changes in Provincial Legislation relating to additional residential units (ARUs) permitted on
existing developed lots will potentially impact capacity availability. Flow monitoring to deter
Page 23
Figure 5 Existing Conditions Summary
134 134 134 134 134
301 301 301 301
64 64 64
328 328
52 52
52
304
304
134
435
499
827
52
356
1183
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
SPS No.1 SPS No.2 SPS No.5 SPS No.6 SPS No.7 SPS No.8 WWTPHOUSING UNITS (3.1 PEOPLE/UNIT)PUMPING STATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Port Burwell
(SPS No. 8)
Port Burwell
(SPS No. 7)
Vienna
Straffordville (SPS No.5)
Straffordville (SPS No.2)
Eden
Page 24
Figure 6 Unallocated Capacity (90% COA Limit)
Note: The number of units indicated above represent the maximum number of new housing units that can
be built in each community to reach 90% of the Certificate of Approval (COA) limit. The chart assumes the
maximum number of units are built in the furthest upstream communities and shows the remaining
capacity available for the downstream community.
Page 25
Figure 7 Unallocated Capacity (90% Pump Operating Flow)
Note: The number of units indicated above represent the maximum number of new housing units that can
be built in each community to reach 90% of the pumping station operating capacity. The chart assumes
the maximum number of units are built in the furthest upstream communities and shows the remaining
capacity available for the downstream community.
Page 26
** ** **
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Alex Muirhead, EIT Peter Penner, P. Eng.
APPENDIX ‘A'
Appendix A1: Eden SPS No.1
Eden Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Eden SPS No.1 to Straffordville)
Eden SPS No.1 Sanitary Design Sheet
Eden SPS No.1 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A2: Straffordville SPS No.2
Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Straffordville SPS No.2 to MH 8)
Straffordville SPS No.2 Sanitary Design Sheet
Straffordville SPS No.2 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A3: Straffordville SPS No.5
Straffordville Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Straffordville SPS No.5 to Vienna)
Straffordville SPS No.5 Sanitary Design Sheet
Straffordville SPS No.5 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A4: Vienna SPS No.6
Vienna Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Vienna SPS No.6 to Port Burwell)
Vienna SPS No.6 Sanitary Design Sheet
Vienna SPS No.6 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A5: Port Burwell SPS No.7
Port Burwell Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Port Burwell SPS No.7 to MH ST11)
Port Burwell SPS No.7 Sanitary Design Sheet
Port Burwell SPS No.7 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A6: Port Burwell SPS No.8
Port Burwell Sanitary Tributary Figure
Forcemain Schematic Profile (Port Burwell SPS No.8 to MH 57A)
Port Burwell SPS No.8 Sanitary Design Sheet
Port Burwell SPS No.8 System Head Curve & Calculations
Appendix A7: Existing Certificate of Approvals (COA) and Environmental Compliance Approvals
(ECA)
E1(134 EX. CONNECTIONS)41.6ha416PEP14.49ha103PEF17.06ha115PEF90.93ha27PEF810.00ha280PEF65.91ha166PEF53.64ha102PEF45.25ha 147PEF31.78ha16PEF29.58ha53PEF71.58ha45PPirrie Creek
Moores Creek
Little Jerry Creek
Little Otter Creek
Mooseberge
r
D
r
a
in
Scanlon Dra
i
n
South O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Fernley D
r
a
i
n
Big Otter
C
r
e
ek
EF1014.4ha475PCyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comVILLAGE OF EDEN1EDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLF O
R
M
E
R
C
P
R
A
I
L
L
A
N
D
G R A Y S T.E D E N L I N EF O R M E R C P R A I L L A N D C O U N T Y R O A D N o. 4 4 R I D G E
L I N E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
N
o
.
1
9
T R A V I
S
S
T
.
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
N
o
.
1
9
-
P
L
A
N
K
R
O
A
D
I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:02:37 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:EDEN TO STRAFFORDVILLESANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:12000VER. 1:100022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:190STATIONSTATIONREVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY1190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:01:08 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:10 Persons/ha 28 Persons/ha (i.e. 9 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:240 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:- l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26 l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0 No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
E1 TOTAL EXISTING EDEN GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416 4.014 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =1.15
1.15
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =4.60
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =7.00
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =66%
EP1 11:28 PROPERTIES INC. SUBDIVISION GROSS 4.49 4.49 -33 103 103
TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS 4.49 -33 103 4.240 1.529 0.449 1.98
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING GROSS 46.09 -167 519 3.966 5.974 0.449 6.42
1.96
6.42
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =7.00
PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =92%
EF1 55833 EDEN LINE GROSS 7.06 7.06 -37 115 115
EF2 EX. DEVELOPMENT FUT. CONNECTION GROSS 9.58 9.58 -17 53 53
EF3 56704 - 56760 & 6696 EDEN LINE SEVERANCES GROSS 1.78 1.78 -5 16 16
EF4 56766 EDEN LINE GROSS 5.25 5.25 28 47 147 147
EF5 56886 EDEN LINE GROSS 3.64 3.64 28 32 102 102
EF6 PLANK ROAD NORTH WEST GROSS 5.91 5.91 28 53 166 166
EF7 PLANK ROAD NORTH EAST 1 GROSS 1.58 1.58 28 14 45 45
EF8 PLANK ROAD NORTH EAST 2 GROSS 10.00 10.00 28 90 280 280
EF9 EDEN LINE EAST GROSS 0.93 0.93 28 8 27 27
EF10 THE MEADOWS MOBILE HOME PARK GROSS 14.40 14.40 -153 475 475 BASED ON FUTURE BUILD-OUT OF MOBILE HOME PARK OF 153 UNITS TOTAL (GOLDER, JULY 1990)CURRENT BUILD-OUT IS 53 UNITS WITH A DESIGN FLOW OF 3.12 l/s
TOTAL FUTURE GROSS 60.13 456 1426 3.695 18.450 5.244 23.69
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING GROSS 106.22 623 1945 3.595 23.365 5.693 29.06
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =12.19
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =29.06
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =7.00
PUMP STATION CAPACITY ( EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =415%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
NEW UNITS GROSS 3.60 3.60 28 32 100 100 4.244 1.486 0.360 1.85
TOTAL 45.20 166 516 3.967 5.935 0.360 6.29
1.86
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =6.29
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =6.30 DESIGN FLOW =7.00 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
NEW UNITS GROSS 4.90 4.90 28 44 137 137 4.204 2.016 0.490 2.51
TOTAL 46.50 178 553 3.951 6.423 0.490 6.91
2.12
PEAK INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY 6.91
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =6.93 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =7.70 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
NEW UNITS GROSS 15.80 15.80 28 142 441 441 4.002 6.179 1.580 7.76
TOTAL 57.40 276 857 3.842 10.335 1.580 11.91
4.27
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =11.91
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =11.95 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =11.95 l/s
100%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas for future development has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (9.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Area EF2 "Ex. Development Fut. Connection" = 17 connections / 9.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.19 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha.COA FLOW LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =
32 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COA
DESIGN FLOW
COA DESIGN CAPACITY =
44 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
142 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAIN
CAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =
LOCATION AREA POPULATION
AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross Total Pop.∆ Area (ha)Total Area
(ha)PER ha. NO. CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET
PJP
1 of 1
ACTUAL EDEN
FLOW CONDITIONS
NEW DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
Sewage
(l/s)Infiltration (l/s)
22028
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8 EDEN SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 1)
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF EDEN (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
AVM
FALL
(m)
DROP
ACROSS
LOWER
MANHOLE (m)Full Flow
Velocity (m/s)Length (m)Pipe Size
(mm)Type of PipeDesign Flow (l/s)
DOWN
STREAM
INVERT
(m)n Min Slope
(%)Capacity (l/s)
SEWER
UPSTREAM
INVERT
(m)
DESIGN FLOW
Peaking Factor, M
EXISTINGPROPOSED1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the maximum lot area of 900m2 + 200m2 road area for 20m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 9 units/ha MAX.FUTUREAVERAGE INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d.FORCEMAINOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =CURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY =
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
FM Low Point is approx. 2830m away at Inv. = 196.43
Outlet is approx. 4522m away at Inv. = 224.98
C =107 C =117 C =127
v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)
Length (l)4522 m 0 -1.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.97 0 -2.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.05 0 -2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.13
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)107.19 mm 1 -1.97 0.11 0.00 0.006 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.27 0.00 -0.69 1 -2.05 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.07 0.00 -0.96 1 -2.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.92 0.00 -1.19
2 -1.97 0.22 0.00 0.023 0.02 0.22 0.00 4.56 0.02 2.66 2 -2.05 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 3.87 0.02 1.88 2 -2.13 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 3.32 0.02 1.25
3 -1.97 0.33 0.01 0.049 0.04 0.33 0.01 9.66 0.04 7.83 3 -2.05 0.33 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.01 8.19 0.04 6.27 3 -2.13 0.33 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.01 7.04 0.04 5.03
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 23 m 4 -1.97 0.44 0.01 0.084 0.07 0.44 0.01 16.45 0.07 14.72 4 -2.05 0.44 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.44 0.01 13.94 0.07 12.12 4 -2.13 0.44 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.44 0.01 11.98 0.07 10.07
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)107.19 mm 5 -1.97 0.55 0.02 0.126 0.10 0.55 0.02 24.85 0.11 23.26 5 -2.05 0.55 0.02 0.11 0.10 0.55 0.02 21.07 0.11 19.37 5 -2.13 0.55 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.55 0.02 18.10 0.11 16.31
6 -1.97 0.66 0.02 0.177 0.15 0.66 0.02 34.82 0.16 33.39 6 -2.05 0.66 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.66 0.02 29.52 0.16 27.97 6 -2.13 0.66 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.66 0.02 25.36 0.16 23.72
7.7 -1.97 0.85 0.04 0.28 0.24 0.85 0.04 54.98 0.27 53.87 7.7 -2.05 0.85 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.85 0.04 46.60 0.27 45.37 7.7 -2.13 0.85 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.85 0.04 40.04 0.27 38.70
8 -1.97 0.89 0.04 0.302 0.26 0.89 0.04 59.29 0.29 58.26 8 -2.05 0.89 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.89 0.04 50.26 0.29 49.10 8 -2.13 0.89 0.04 0.22 0.26 0.89 0.04 43.18 0.29 41.91
High Water Level (HWL)227.11 m 9 -1.97 1.00 0.05 0.375 0.33 1.00 0.05 73.73 0.37 72.93 9 -2.05 1.00 0.05 0.32 0.33 1.00 0.05 62.50 0.37 61.56 9 -2.13 1.00 0.05 0.27 0.33 1.00 0.05 53.70 0.37 52.64
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)227.03 m 10 -1.97 1.11 0.06 0.456 0.41 1.11 0.06 89.59 0.46 89.07 10 -2.05 1.11 0.06 0.39 0.41 1.11 0.06 75.95 0.46 75.27 10 -2.13 1.11 0.06 0.33 0.41 1.11 0.06 65.25 0.46 64.44
Low Water Level (LWL)226.95 m 11 -1.97 1.22 0.08 0.544 0.49 1.22 0.08 106.87 0.55 106.64 11 -2.05 1.22 0.08 0.46 0.49 1.22 0.08 90.59 0.55 90.20 11 -2.13 1.22 0.08 0.40 0.49 1.22 0.08 77.84 0.55 77.30
Outlet Invert 224.98 m 11.95 -1.97 1.32 0.09 0.634 0.58 1.32 0.09 124.57 0.65 124.65 11.95 -2.05 1.32 0.09 0.54 0.58 1.32 0.09 105.59 0.65 105.49 11.95 -2.13 1.32 0.09 0.46 0.58 1.32 0.09 90.73 0.65 90.47
Gravity 9.81 m/s2 13 -1.97 1.44 0.11 0.74 0.69 1.44 0.11 145.57 0.77 146.01 13 -2.05 1.44 0.11 0.63 0.69 1.44 0.11 123.39 0.77 123.64 13 -2.13 1.44 0.11 0.54 0.69 1.44 0.11 106.02 0.77 106.10
14 -1.97 1.55 0.12 0.849 0.80 1.55 0.12 166.96 0.90 167.78 14 -2.05 1.55 0.12 0.72 0.80 1.55 0.12 141.53 0.90 142.13 14 -2.13 1.55 0.12 0.62 0.80 1.55 0.12 121.60 0.90 122.03
15 -1.97 1.66 0.14 0.965 0.92 1.66 0.14 189.69 1.03 190.91 15 -2.05 1.66 0.14 0.82 0.92 1.66 0.14 160.79 1.03 161.79 15 -2.13 1.66 0.14 0.70 0.92 1.66 0.14 138.16 1.03 138.96
Flair Entry
Exit
Reducer
90° Bend
45° Bend
22° Bend
Gate Valve (fully open)
Swing Check Valve
Tee (branch)
Tee (straight)
Mag Meter
SPECIFIED DATA
Forcemain (100mmØ PVC DR 18 CLASS 150)
Station Piping (100mmØ Class 52 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.45
0.22
2.5
0.15
Total 100mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, Reducer, 90° Bend (3), Tee Branch, Plug
Valve (open) (2), 45° Bend (4)6.50
1
0.2
0.5
Total 100mmØ Forcemain
22° Bend (0), 45° Bend (14), Exit 7.30
0.3
HT (m)Q (l/s)
0.4
0.9
EDEN SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.1 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
1
Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 107mmØ PVC ForcemainQ (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 107mmØ PVC Forcemain107mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)HT (m)
105.49m HEAD
11.95 l/s PUMP
45.37m HEAD
7.7 l/s PUMP
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Head (m)Q (l/s)
Eden Sanitary Pumping Station No.1
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 107mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 107mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 107mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
1.8ha22S3(7 EX. CONNECTIONS)11.1ha106S2(34 EX. CONNECTIONS)16.8ha199S4(64 EX. CONNECTIONS)PPP63.4ha806S1(260 EX. CONNECTIONS)PSF512.45ha349PSF37.91ha222PSF44.74ha22PSF212.65ha355PSF111.05ha310PSF70.62ha16PSF610.32ha289PSF81.66ha47PSF93.50ha98PSP211.51ha323PSP15.89ha121PSF1020.95ha587PSF114.01ha113PPirrie Creek
Moores Cree
k
Little Jerry Creek
Little Otter Cree
k
Mooseberge
r
D
r
ai
n
Scanlon Dra
i
n
South Otter C
r
e
e
k
Fernley
D
r
a
in
Big Otter
C
r
ee
kCyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comVILLAGE OF STRAFFORDVILLE2EDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLS A N D Y T O W N R OADS A N D Y T O W N RDAD
M A I N S T .O L D C H A P E L S T .D U K E S T .F I F T H S T .F O U R T H S T .W E S T S T .
G A R N E R R OADW A R D W A L K L INEM A I N S T .
C O U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
N
o
.
1
9
W
E
S
T
S
T
.T H I R D S T.S E C O N D S T .H E S C H S T .F I R S T S T.H E R I T A G E L I N EA R T H U R S T.H E R I T A G E L I N E - C O U N T Y R O A D N o. 3 8P L A N K R O A DH I G H W A Y N o. 1 9
E L G I N S T
.D O N N E L L Y D R .G A R N H A M S
T
.
T O L L G A T E R O A D F O
R
M
E
R
C
P
R
A
I
L
L
A
N
D
F O R M E R C P R A I L L A N D
S H O R T S T .
A L W A R D S T.
E A S T S T .
P
L
A
N
K
R
O
A
D
I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:02:17 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:STRAFFORDVILLE P.S. No. 2 TO MH 8SANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:1000VER. 1:150022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:REVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY3210STATIONSTATION210220230240250260270280215225235245255265275220230240250260270280215225235245255265275I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:00:23 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:12.2 Persons/ha 28 Persons/ha (i.e. 9 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:210 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:-l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0 No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
E1 EXISTING EDEN (SPS No. 1)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
S1 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2)GROSS 63.40 63.40 -260 806 806
S2 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 3)GROSS 11.10 11.10 -34 106 106
S3 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 4)GROSS 1.80 1.80 -7 22 22
TOTAL EXISTING (TRIBUTARY TO SPS No. 2)117.90 435 1350 3.712 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =3.28
3.28
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =12.16
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =22.50
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =54%
SP1 WEST SANDYTOWN ROAD DEVELOPMENT GROSS 5.89 5.89 -39 121 121
SP2 EAST SANDYTOWN ROAD DEVELOPMENT GROSS 11.51 11.51 28 103 323 323
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN)46.09 167 519 3.966 5.974 0.449 6.42
TOTAL PROPOSED (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)17.40 142 444 4.000 6.218 1.740 7.96
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (STRAFFORDVILLE No. 2, 3, 4)93.70 443 1378 3.706 13.653 1.740 15.39
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING 139.79 610 1897 3.604 19.627 2.189 21.82
7.64
21.82
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =22.50
PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =97%
SF1 DONNELLY DRIVE DEVELOPMENT GROSS 11.05 11.05 28 99 310 310
SF2 NORTHWEST STRAFFORVILLE DEVELOPMENT GROSS 12.65 12.65 28 113 355 355
SF3 PLANK ROAD WEST DEVELOPMENT GROSS 7.91 7.91 28 71 222 222
SF4 EXISTING PLANK ROAD LOTS GROSS 4.74 4.74 -7 22 22
SF5 FIFTH STREET DEVELOPMENT GROSS 12.45 12.45 28 112 349 349
SF6 HERITAGE LINE WEST DEVELOPMENT 1 GROSS 10.32 10.32 28 92 289 289
SF7 HERITAGE LINE WEST SEVERANCES GROSS 0.62 0.62 -5 16 16
SF8 HERITAGE LINE WEST DEVELOPMENT 2 GROSS 1.66 1.66 28 14 47 47
SF9 HESCH STREET DEVELOPMENT GROSS 3.50 3.50 28 31 98 98
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN)106.22 623 1945 3.595 23.365 5.693 29.06
TOTAL FUTURE (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)64.90 544 1708 3.638 21.756 6.094 27.85
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (STRAFFORDVILE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)158.60 987 3086 3.432 33.167 7.834 41.00
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING 264.82 1610 5031 3.243 56.532 13.527 70.06
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =30.96
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =70.06
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =22.50
PUMP STATION CAPACITY ( EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =311%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 3.60 3.60 28 32 100 100
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 12.90 12.90 28 116 360 360 4.043 5.096 1.290 6.39
TOTAL EDEN GROSS 45.20 166 516 3.967 5.935 0.360 6.29
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 89.20 417 1294 3.725 12.628 1.290 13.92
TOTAL 134.40 583 1810 3.619 18.563 1.650 20.21
6.78
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =20.21
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =20.25 DESIGN FLOW =22.50 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 4.90 4.90 28 44 137 137
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 13.10 13.10 28 118 366 366 4.040 5.177 1.310 6.49
TOTAL EDEN 46.50 178 553 3.951 6.423 0.490 6.91
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)89.40 419 1300 3.724 12.702 1.310 14.01
TOTAL 135.90 597 1853 3.611 19.124 1.800 20.92
7.10
PEAK INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =20.92
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =20.97 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =23.30 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 15.80 15.80 28 142 441 441
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 37.30 37.30 28 337 1045 1045 3.788 13.858 3.730 17.59
TOTAL EDEN 57.40 276 857 3.842 10.335 1.580 11.91
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)113.60 638 1979 3.589 20.776 3.730 24.51
TOTAL 171.00 914 2836 3.463 31.111 5.310 36.42
14.29
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =36.42
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =57.00 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =57.00 l/s
64%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (9.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Ex. Development Fut. Connection = 17 connections / 9.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.19 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha.
STRAFFORDVILLE SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 2)
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET ACTUAL STRAFFORDVILLE
FLOW CONDITIONS
NEW DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8
1 of 1
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF STRAFFORDVILLE (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
AVM
PJP
22028
LOCATION AREA POPULATION DESIGN FLOW
UPSTREAM
INVERT(m)
DOWNSTREAMINVERT
(m)
FALL(m)
DROPACROSS
LOWERMANHOLE(m)AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross ∆ Area (ha)
SEWER
Total Area
(ha)PER ha.NO.
CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop Total Pop.Full FlowVelocity(m/s)
AVERAGE FLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
Sewage
(l/s)Infiltration (l/s)Design Flow (l/s)Length (m)Pipe Size
(mm)Type of PipePeaking Factor, M n Min Slope
(%)Capacity (l/s)EXISTING116 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COADESIGN FLOW
AVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =COA FLOW LIMIT1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the maximum lot area of 900m2 + 200m2 road area for 20m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 9 units/ha MAX.
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d. (Actual Straffordville SPS No. 2 = 210 l/cap/d)
COA DESIGN CAPACITY =CURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMIT118
FORCEMAIN OPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =
337 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAIN
CAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =
NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OFCURRENT PUMP CAPACITY ECA DESIGN CAPACITY =
AVERAGE FLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =PROPOSEDFUTUREAVERAGE INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
FM Crest is approx. 355m away at Inv. = 226.78
Outlet is approx. 373m away at Inv. = 226.33
C =115 C =125 C =135
v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)
Length (l)355 m 0 6.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.59 0 6.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.34 0 6.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.09
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)155.9 mm 2 6.59 0.22 0.00 0.017 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.00 6.68 2 6.34 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 6.42 2 6.09 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 6.17
4 6.59 0.44 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.18 0.01 6.94 4 6.34 0.44 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.16 0.01 6.66 4 6.09 0.44 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.21 0.00 0.14 0.01 6.38
6 6.59 0.66 0.02 0.128 0.18 0.31 0.01 0.39 0.03 7.34 6 6.34 0.66 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.31 0.01 0.33 0.03 7.02 6 6.09 0.66 0.02 0.10 0.18 0.31 0.01 0.29 0.03 6.71
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 19 m 8 6.59 0.89 0.04 0.218 0.33 0.42 0.01 0.66 0.05 7.89 8 6.34 0.89 0.04 0.19 0.33 0.42 0.01 0.56 0.05 7.52 8 6.09 0.89 0.04 0.16 0.33 0.42 0.01 0.49 0.05 7.17
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)107.19 mm 10 6.59 1.11 0.06 0.329 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.99 0.08 8.58 10 6.34 1.11 0.06 0.28 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.85 0.08 8.14 10 6.09 1.11 0.06 0.24 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.74 0.08 7.74
12 6.59 1.33 0.09 0.462 0.73 0.63 0.02 1.39 0.12 9.41 12 6.34 1.33 0.09 0.40 0.73 0.63 0.02 1.19 0.12 8.89 12 6.09 1.33 0.09 0.34 0.73 0.63 0.02 1.03 0.12 8.43
14 6.59 1.55 0.12 0.614 1.00 0.73 0.03 1.85 0.16 10.36 14 6.34 1.55 0.12 0.53 1.00 0.73 0.03 1.59 0.16 9.76 14 6.09 1.55 0.12 0.46 1.00 0.73 0.03 1.38 0.16 9.23
16 6.59 1.77 0.16 0.786 1.31 0.84 0.04 2.37 0.21 11.46 16 6.34 1.77 0.16 0.67 1.31 0.84 0.04 2.03 0.21 10.76 16 6.09 1.77 0.16 0.58 1.31 0.84 0.04 1.76 0.21 10.15
High Water Level (HWL)220.69 m 18 6.59 1.99 0.20 0.977 1.65 0.94 0.05 2.95 0.27 12.68 18 6.34 1.99 0.20 0.84 1.65 0.94 0.05 2.52 0.27 11.87 18 6.09 1.99 0.20 0.73 1.65 0.94 0.05 2.19 0.27 11.17
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)220.44 m 20 6.59 2.22 0.25 1.188 2.04 1.05 0.06 3.58 0.33 14.03 20 6.34 2.22 0.25 1.02 2.04 1.05 0.06 3.07 0.33 13.10 20 6.09 2.22 0.25 0.88 2.04 1.05 0.06 2.66 0.33 12.31
Low Water Level (LWL)220.19 m 22 6.59 2.44 0.30 1.417 2.47 1.15 0.07 4.27 0.40 15.51 22 6.34 2.44 0.30 1.21 2.47 1.15 0.07 3.66 0.40 14.45 22 6.09 2.44 0.30 1.05 2.47 1.15 0.07 3.17 0.40 13.55
Crest Invert 226.78 m 23.3 6.59 2.58 0.34 1.575 2.77 1.22 0.08 4.75 0.44 16.54 23.3 6.34 2.58 0.34 1.35 2.77 1.22 0.08 4.07 0.44 15.39 23.3 6.09 2.58 0.34 1.17 2.77 1.22 0.08 3.53 0.44 14.42
Gravity 9.81 m/s2 24 6.59 2.66 0.36 1.664 2.94 1.26 0.08 5.02 0.47 17.12 24 6.34 2.66 0.36 1.43 2.94 1.26 0.08 4.30 0.47 15.92 24 6.09 2.66 0.36 1.24 2.94 1.26 0.08 3.73 0.47 14.91
26 6.59 2.88 0.42 1.93 3.45 1.36 0.09 5.82 0.55 18.86 26 6.34 2.88 0.42 1.65 3.45 1.36 0.09 4.98 0.55 17.50 26 6.09 2.88 0.42 1.43 3.45 1.36 0.09 4.32 0.55 16.37
27.0 6.59 2.99 0.46 2.069 3.72 1.41 0.10 6.24 0.60 19.77 27 6.34 2.99 0.46 1.77 3.72 1.41 0.10 5.35 0.60 18.33 27 6.09 2.99 0.46 1.54 3.72 1.41 0.10 4.64 0.60 17.14
28 6.59 3.10 0.49 2.213 4.00 1.47 0.11 6.67 0.64 20.72 28 6.34 3.10 0.49 1.90 4.00 1.47 0.11 5.72 0.64 19.20 28 6.09 3.10 0.49 1.65 4.00 1.47 0.11 4.96 0.64 17.93
Flair Entry 30 6.59 3.32 0.56 2.514 4.59 1.57 0.13 7.58 0.74 22.70 30 6.34 3.32 0.56 2.16 4.59 1.57 0.13 6.50 0.74 21.01 30 6.09 3.32 0.56 1.87 4.59 1.57 0.13 5.63 0.74 19.61
Exit 35 6.59 3.88 0.77 3.344 6.25 1.83 0.17 10.08 1.00 28.20 35 6.34 3.88 0.77 2.87 6.25 1.83 0.17 8.64 1.00 26.03 35 6.09 3.88 0.77 2.49 6.25 1.83 0.17 7.49 1.00 24.26
Reducer 40 6.59 4.43 1.00 4.281 8.16 2.10 0.22 12.90 1.31 34.47 40 6.34 4.43 1.00 3.67 8.16 2.10 0.22 11.06 1.31 31.77 40 6.09 4.43 1.00 3.18 8.16 2.10 0.22 9.59 1.31 29.56
90° Bend 45 6.59 4.99 1.27 5.324 10.33 2.36 0.28 16.05 1.66 41.50 45 6.34 4.99 1.27 4.56 10.33 2.36 0.28 13.75 1.66 38.19 45 6.09 4.99 1.27 3.96 10.33 2.36 0.28 11.93 1.66 35.51
45° Bend 50 6.59 5.54 1.56 6.469 12.75 2.62 0.35 19.50 2.05 49.27 50 6.34 5.54 1.56 5.54 12.75 2.62 0.35 16.71 2.05 45.31 50 6.09 5.54 1.56 4.81 12.75 2.62 0.35 14.49 2.05 42.11
22° Bend 55 6.59 6.09 1.89 7.717 15.43 2.88 0.42 23.26 2.48 57.79 55 6.34 6.09 1.89 6.61 15.43 2.88 0.42 19.94 2.48 53.11 55 6.09 6.09 1.89 5.74 15.43 2.88 0.42 17.29 2.48 49.34
11° Bend 57.0 6.59 6.32 2.03 8.244 16.57 2.99 0.45 24.85 2.66 61.40 57 6.34 6.32 2.03 7.07 16.57 2.99 0.45 21.30 2.66 56.42 57 6.09 6.32 2.03 6.13 16.57 2.99 0.45 18.47 2.66 52.41
Gate/Plug Valve (fully open)60 6.59 6.65 2.25 9.065 18.36 3.14 0.50 27.32 2.95 67.04 60 6.34 6.65 2.25 7.77 18.36 3.14 0.50 23.42 2.95 61.59 60 6.09 6.65 2.25 6.74 18.36 3.14 0.50 20.31 2.95 57.20
Swing Check Valve 65 6.59 7.20 2.64 10.51 21.55 3.41 0.59 31.68 3.46 77.03 65 6.34 7.20 2.64 9.01 21.55 3.41 0.59 27.15 3.46 70.75 65 6.09 7.20 2.64 7.81 21.55 3.41 0.59 23.55 3.46 65.70
Tee (branch)70 6.59 7.76 3.07 12.06 25.00 3.67 0.69 36.34 4.01 87.74 70 6.34 7.76 3.07 10.33 25.00 3.67 0.69 31.14 4.01 80.57 70 6.09 7.76 3.07 8.96 25.00 3.67 0.69 27.01 4.01 74.82
Tee (straight)
Mag Meter/Pressure Gauge
Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 156mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)156mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 156mmØ PVC Forcemain
STRAFFORDVILLE SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.2 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
SPECIFIED DATA
1
HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI
Forcemain (150mmØ PVC DR 18 CLASS 150)
Station Piping (100mmØ Class 52 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.3
Total 150mmØ Forcemain
11° Bend (1), 22° Bend (2), 45° Bend (7), Plug Valve
(Open), Tee (Branch), Exit
5.85
Total 100mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, 90° Bend (2), 45° Bend (6), Pressure Gauge,
Tee Straight, Check Valve (Open), Plug Valve (Open)8.15
0.4
0.9
0.45
0.22
0.15
2.5
0.11
1
0.2
0.5
56.42m HEAD
57 l/s PUMP
15.4m HEAD
23.3 l/s PUMP
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Head (m)Q (l/s)
Straffordville Sanitary Pumping Station No.2
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 156mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 156mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 156mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
1.8ha22S3(7 EX. CONNECTIONS)11.1ha106S2(34 EX. CONNECTIONS)16.8ha199S4(64 EX. CONNECTIONS)PPP63.4ha806S1(260 EX. CONNECTIONS)PSF512.45ha349PSF37.91ha222PSF44.74ha22PSF212.65ha355PSF111.05ha310PSF70.62ha16PSF610.32ha289PSF81.66ha47PSF93.50ha98PSP211.51ha323PSP15.89ha121PSF1020.95ha587PSF114.01ha113PPirrie Creek
Moores Cree
k
Little Jerry Creek
Little Otter Cree
k
Mooseberge
r
D
r
ai
n
Scanlon Dra
i
n
South Otter C
r
e
e
k
Fernley
D
r
a
in
Big Otter
C
r
ee
kCyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comVILLAGE OF STRAFFORDVILLE2EDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLS A N D Y T O W N R OADS A N D Y T O W N RDAD
M A I N S T .O L D C H A P E L S T .D U K E S T .F I F T H S T .F O U R T H S T .W E S T S T .
G A R N E R R OADW A R D W A L K L INEM A I N S T .
C O U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
N
o
.
1
9
W
E
S
T
S
T
.T H I R D S T.S E C O N D S T .H E S C H S T .F I R S T S T.H E R I T A G E L I N EA R T H U R S T.H E R I T A G E L I N E - C O U N T Y R O A D N o. 3 8P L A N K R O A DH I G H W A Y N o. 1 9
E L G I N S T
.D O N N E L L Y D R .G A R N H A M S
T
.
T O L L G A T E R O A D F O
R
M
E
R
C
P
R
A
I
L
L
A
N
D
F O R M E R C P R A I L L A N D
S H O R T S T .
A L W A R D S T.
E A S T S T .
P
L
A
N
K
R
O
A
D
I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:02:17 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:STRAFFORDVILLE P.S. No.5 TO VIENNASANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:20000VER. 1:100022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:REVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY2210STATIONSTATION210220230240250260270280215225235245255265275220230240250260270280215225235245255265275285295290285295290I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:00:47 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:12.2 Persons/ha 28 Persons/ha (i.e. 9 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:220 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:-l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26 l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0 No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
E1 EXISTING EDEN (SPS No. 1)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
S1 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2)GROSS 63.40 63.40 -260 806 806
S2 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 3)GROSS 11.10 11.10 -34 106 106
S3 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 4)GROSS 1.80 1.80 -7 22 22
S4 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
TOTAL EXISTING (TRIBUTARY TO SPS No. 5)134.70 499 1549 3.669 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =3.81
3.81
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =13.97
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =34.80
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =40%
SF 10 BLONDEEL DEVELOPMENT GROSS 20.95 20.95 28 188 587 587
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN & STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)139.79 610 1897 3.604 19.627 2.189 21.82
TOTAL PROPOSED (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)20.95 188 587 3.937 8.092 2.095 10.19
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)37.75 252 786 3.865 10.001 2.095 12.10
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING 177.54 862 2683 3.483 29.628 4.284 33.91
12.79
33.91
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =34.80
PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =97%
SF11 SOUTHWEST PLANK ROAD DEVELOPMENT GROSS 4.01 4.01 28 36 113 113
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN & STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)264.82 1610 5031 3.243 56.532 13.527 70.06
TOTAL FUTURE (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)4.01 36 113 4.229 1.673 0.401 2.07
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)41.76 288 899 3.829 11.424 2.496 13.92
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING 306.58 1898 5930 3.176 67.956 16.023 83.98
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =37.42
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =83.98
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =34.80
PUMP STATION CAPACITY ( EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =241%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 3.60 3.60 28 32 100 100
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 12.90 12.90 28 116 360 360
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 18.70 18.70 28 169 524 524 3.964 7.272 1.870 9.14
TOTAL EDEN 45.20 166 516
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3 ,4)89.20 417 1294 3.619 18.563 1.650 20.21
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)35.50 233 723 3.886 9.199 1.870 11.07
TOTAL 169.90 816 2533 3.504 27.762 3.520 31.28
11.44
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =31.28
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =31.32 DESIGN FLOW =34.80 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 4.90 4.90 28 44 137 137
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 13.10 13.10 28 118 366 366
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 19.90 19.90 28 180 558 558 3.949 7.715 1.990 9.71
TOTAL EDEN 46.50 178 553
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)89.40 419 1300 3.611 19.124 1.800 20.92
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)36.70 244 757 3.875 9.633 1.990 11.62
TOTAL 172.60 841 2610 3.493 28.757 3.790 32.55
12.02
PEAK INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY 32.55
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =65.16 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =72.40 l/s
45%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 15.80 15.80 28 142 441 441
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 37.30 37.30 28 337 1045 1045
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 37.30 37.30 28 337 1045 1045 3.788 13.858 3.730 17.59
TOTAL EDEN 57.40 276 857
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)113.60 638 1979 3.463 31.111 5.310 36.42
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)54.10 401 1244 3.737 15.662 3.730 19.39
TOTAL 225.10 1315 4080 3.326 46.773 9.040 55.81
23.10
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =55.81
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =98.00 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =98.00 l/s
57%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (9.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Ex. Development Fut. Connection = 17 connections / 9.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.19 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha.
STRAFFORDVILLE SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 5)
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET ACTUAL STRAFFORDVILLE
FLOW CONDITIONS
NEW DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8
1 of 1
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF STRAFFORDVILLE (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
AVM
PJP
22028
LOCATION AREA POPULATION DESIGN FLOW
Design Flow (l/s)
UPSTREAM
INVERT(m)
DOWNSTREAMINVERT
(m)
FALL(m)
DROPACROSS
LOWERMANHOLE(m)
SEWER
Min Slope
(%)Capacity (l/s)Full FlowVelocity(m/s)Length (m)Pipe Size
(mm)nType of PipeInfiltration (l/s)AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross ∆ Area (ha)Peaking Factor, MTotal Area
(ha)PER ha.NO.
CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop Total Pop.COA FLOW LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =
169 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COADESIGN FLOW
COA DESIGN CAPACITY =EXISTINGAVERAGE FLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
Sewage
(l/s)
AVERAGE INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =
1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the maximum lot area of 900m2 + 200m2 road area for 20m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 9 units/ha MAX.
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d. (Actual Straffordville SPS No. 5 = 220 l/cap/d)
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY =
AVERAGE FLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =PROPOSEDFUTURECURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMIT180 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OFCURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
FORCEMAIN OPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =
337 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAINCAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
FM Intermediate Crest is approx. 1,018m away at Inv. = 222.87 to Provide Roughness Coefficient C = 130 (Actual Roughness Should be Measured/Calibrated Based on Further Testing)
Outlet is approx. 6,007m away at Inv. = 206.97
C =120 C =130 C =140
v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)
Length (l)1018 m 0 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.95 0 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)204.3 mm 5 2.95 0.26 0.00 0.013 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.20 0.01 3.19 5 2.42 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.17 0.01 2.63 5 1.88 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.01 2.07
10 2.95 0.52 0.01 0.048 0.09 0.31 0.00 0.71 0.03 3.84 10 2.42 0.52 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.31 0.00 0.61 0.03 3.20 10 1.88 0.52 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.31 0.00 0.53 0.03 2.59
15 2.95 0.78 0.03 0.102 0.21 0.46 0.01 1.49 0.06 4.86 15 2.42 0.78 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.46 0.01 1.29 0.06 4.11 15 1.88 0.78 0.03 0.08 0.21 0.46 0.01 1.12 0.06 3.39
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 19 m 20 2.95 1.04 0.06 0.174 0.37 0.61 0.02 2.54 0.11 6.23 20 2.42 1.04 0.06 0.15 0.37 0.61 0.02 2.19 0.11 5.32 20 1.88 1.04 0.06 0.13 0.37 0.61 0.02 1.91 0.11 4.48
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)156.5 mm 25 2.95 1.30 0.09 0.263 0.58 0.76 0.03 3.84 0.18 7.93 25 2.42 1.30 0.09 0.23 0.58 0.76 0.03 3.31 0.18 6.83 25 1.88 1.30 0.09 0.20 0.58 0.76 0.03 2.89 0.18 5.84
30 2.95 1.56 0.12 0.368 0.84 0.92 0.04 5.38 0.25 9.96 30 2.42 1.56 0.12 0.32 0.84 0.92 0.04 4.64 0.25 8.63 30 1.88 1.56 0.12 0.28 0.84 0.92 0.04 4.05 0.25 7.46
35 2.95 1.82 0.17 0.489 1.14 1.07 0.06 7.16 0.35 12.31 35 2.42 1.82 0.17 0.42 1.14 1.07 0.06 6.17 0.35 10.72 35 1.88 1.82 0.17 0.37 1.14 1.07 0.06 5.38 0.35 9.34
40 2.95 2.08 0.22 0.627 1.49 1.22 0.08 9.17 0.45 14.98 40 2.42 2.08 0.22 0.54 1.49 1.22 0.08 7.91 0.45 13.10 40 1.88 2.08 0.22 0.47 1.49 1.22 0.08 6.89 0.45 11.48
High Water Level (HWL)220.99 m 45 2.95 2.34 0.28 0.779 1.88 1.37 0.10 11.40 0.57 17.96 45 2.42 2.34 0.28 0.67 1.88 1.37 0.10 9.83 0.57 15.75 45 1.88 2.34 0.28 0.59 1.88 1.37 0.10 8.57 0.57 13.87
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)220.46 m 50 2.95 2.60 0.34 0.947 2.32 1.53 0.12 13.85 0.71 21.24 50 2.42 2.60 0.34 0.82 2.32 1.53 0.12 11.95 0.71 18.67 50 1.88 2.60 0.34 0.71 2.32 1.53 0.12 10.42 0.71 16.50
Low Water Level (LWL)219.92 m 55 2.95 2.86 0.42 1.129 2.81 1.68 0.14 16.52 0.85 24.83 55 2.42 2.86 0.42 0.97 2.81 1.68 0.14 14.25 0.85 21.86 55 1.88 2.86 0.42 0.85 2.81 1.68 0.14 12.42 0.85 19.38
Outlet Invert 222.87 m 57.5 2.95 2.99 0.46 1.226 3.07 1.75 0.16 17.94 0.93 26.73 57.5 2.42 2.99 0.46 1.06 3.07 1.75 0.16 15.47 0.93 23.56 57.5 1.88 2.99 0.46 0.92 3.07 1.75 0.16 13.49 0.93 20.91
Gravity 9.81 m/s2 60 2.95 3.12 0.50 1.327 3.35 1.83 0.17 19.41 1.02 28.72 60 2.42 3.12 0.50 1.14 3.35 1.83 0.17 16.74 1.02 25.33 60 1.88 3.12 0.50 1.00 3.35 1.83 0.17 14.59 1.02 22.50
65 2.95 3.38 0.58 1.538 3.93 1.98 0.20 22.51 1.19 32.90 65 2.42 3.38 0.58 1.33 3.93 1.98 0.20 19.41 1.19 29.05 65 1.88 3.38 0.58 1.16 3.93 1.98 0.20 16.92 1.19 25.86
72.4 2.95 3.76 0.72 1.878 4.87 2.21 0.25 27.47 1.48 39.63 72.4 2.42 3.76 0.72 1.62 4.87 2.21 0.25 23.69 1.48 35.05 72.4 1.88 3.76 0.72 1.41 4.87 2.21 0.25 20.66 1.48 31.27
75 2.95 3.90 0.77 2.005 5.23 2.29 0.27 29.33 1.59 42.14 75 2.42 3.90 0.77 1.73 5.23 2.29 0.27 25.29 1.59 37.29 75 1.88 3.90 0.77 1.51 5.23 2.29 0.27 22.05 1.59 33.30
Flair Entry 80 2.95 4.16 0.88 2.259 5.95 2.44 0.30 33.05 1.81 47.20 80 2.42 4.16 0.88 1.95 5.95 2.44 0.30 28.50 1.81 41.80 80 1.88 4.16 0.88 1.70 5.95 2.44 0.30 24.85 1.81 37.37
Exit 85 2.95 4.42 1.00 2.527 6.72 2.59 0.34 36.97 2.04 52.54 85 2.42 4.42 1.00 2.18 6.72 2.59 0.34 31.88 2.04 46.57 85 1.88 4.42 1.00 1.90 6.72 2.59 0.34 27.80 2.04 41.67
Reducer 90 2.95 4.68 1.12 2.809 7.53 2.75 0.38 41.09 2.29 58.17 90 2.42 4.68 1.12 2.42 7.53 2.75 0.38 35.44 2.29 51.59 90 1.88 4.68 1.12 2.11 7.53 2.75 0.38 30.90 2.29 46.21
90° Bend 95 2.95 4.94 1.24 3.104 8.39 2.90 0.43 45.42 2.55 64.08 95 2.42 4.94 1.24 2.68 8.39 2.90 0.43 39.17 2.55 56.87 95 1.88 4.94 1.24 2.33 8.39 2.90 0.43 34.15 2.55 50.97
45° Bend 98.00 2.95 5.09 1.32 3.288 8.93 2.99 0.46 48.10 2.71 67.76 98 2.42 5.09 1.32 2.84 8.93 2.99 0.46 41.48 2.71 60.15 98 1.88 5.09 1.32 2.47 8.93 2.99 0.46 36.17 2.71 53.94
22° Bend 100 2.95 5.20 1.38 3.413 9.30 3.05 0.47 49.94 2.82 70.27 100 2.42 5.20 1.38 2.94 9.30 3.05 0.47 43.06 2.82 62.39 100 1.88 5.20 1.38 2.57 9.30 3.05 0.47 37.55 2.82 55.96
11° Bend 105 2.95 5.46 1.52 3.735 10.25 3.20 0.52 54.65 3.11 76.74 105 2.42 5.46 1.52 3.22 10.25 3.20 0.52 47.13 3.11 68.17 105 1.88 5.46 1.52 2.81 10.25 3.20 0.52 41.09 3.11 61.19
Gate/Plug Valve (fully open)110 2.95 5.72 1.67 4.071 11.25 3.36 0.57 59.57 3.41 83.49 110 2.42 5.72 1.67 3.51 11.25 3.36 0.57 51.37 3.41 74.20 110 1.88 5.72 1.67 3.06 11.25 3.36 0.57 44.79 3.41 66.63
Swing Check Valve
Tee (branch)
Tee (straight)
Mag Meter/Pressure Gauge
Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI HT (m)204mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI 204mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI
STRAFFORDVILLE SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.5 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
SPECIFIED DATA
204mmØ PVC Forcemain
0.15
Forcemain (200mmØ PVC DR 18 CLASS 150)
Station Piping (150mmØ Class 52 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.3
1
0.4
0.9
0.45
0.22
0.11
2.5
1
0.2
0.5
Total 200mmØ Forcemain
11° Bend (2), 22° Bend (4), 45° Bend (6), Plug Valve
(Open), Tee (Branch), Exit
5.95
Total 150mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, 90° Bend (2), 45° Bend (2), Pressure Gauge,
Tee Straight, Check Valve (Open), Plug Valve (Open)6.75
60.15m HEAD
98 l/s PUMP
35.05m HEAD
72.4 l/s PUMP
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Head (m)Q (l/s)
Straffordville Sanitary Pumping Station No.5
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 204mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 204mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 204mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
V1(328 EX. CONNECTIONS)ha1017P85.77VF25VF24VF23VF22VF21VF20VF19VF18VF17VF16VF12VF13VF14VF11VF15VF10VP2VF9VF8VF7VF6VF2VF1VF3VF4VF5VP1Pirrie Creek
Moores C
r
e
ek
Little Jerry Creek
Little Otter Creek
Mooseberger
D
r
a
in
Scanlon Dra
i
n
South O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Fernley D
r
a
i
n
Big Otter C
r
e
ekCyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comVILLAGE OF VIENNA3EDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLUNION ST.CENTRE ST.PEARL ST.QUEEN ST.B I G
PINE ST.SNOW ST.ELM ST.NORTH ST.ANN ST.FULTON ST. - COUNTY ROAD No. 41FULTON ST.PLANK ROAD - COUNTY RD. No . 19BIG OTTER
CREEKWATER ST.CHAPEL
ST
.WALNUT ST.COUNTYKING ST.VIENNA LINEFRONT CHESTNUT ST.OAK ST .OTTER ST.CENTRE ST.CHUTE
LINE
OAK ST.ROADNo. 19P
LAN
K
R
OADPLANKRD.ST.
EDISON D
R
.
ELM ST.EDISON DR.NORTH ST.BIG OTTER CREEKWATER ST.
EDISON D
R
.COUNTY
RD.
No.
19
O T T E R C R E E K
I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:01:58 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:VIENNA P.S. No. 6 TO PORT BURWELLSANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:16000VER. 1:100022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:REVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY4170STATIONSTATION170180190200210220230240250260270280290180190200210220230240250260270280290I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:00:02 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:11.9 Persons/ha 31 Persons/ha (i.e. 9 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:200 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:- l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26 l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
E1 EXISTING EDEN (SPS No. 1)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
S1 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2)GROSS 63.40 63.40 -260 806 806
S2 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 3)GROSS 11.10 11.10 -34 106 106
S3 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 4)GROSS 1.80 1.80 -7 22 22
S4 EXISTING STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
V1 EXISTING VIENNA (SPS No. 6)GROSS 85.77 85.77 -328 1017 1017
TOTAL EXISTING (TRIBUTARY TO SPS No. 6)220.47 827 2566 3.499 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =5.83
5.83
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =20.41
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =45.00
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =45%
VP1 VIENNA RIDGE SUBDIVISION GROSS 2.41 2.41 -8 25 25
VP2 CHESTNUT STREET DEVELOPMENT GROSS 2.44 2.44 31 24 76 76
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN & STRAFFORDVILLE)177.54 862 2683 3.483 29.628 4.284 33.91
TOTAL PROPOSED (VIENNA)4.85 32 101 4.242 1.500 0.485 1.99
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (VIENNA)90.62 360 1118 3.768 8.965 0.485 9.45
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING 268.16 1222 3801 3.353 38.593 4.769 43.36
16.28
43.36
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =45.00
PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =96%
VF1 55534 VIENNA LINE GROSS 4.97 4.97 31 49 155 155
VF2 12 FRONT STREET GROSS 0.39 0.39 31 3 13 13
VF3 46 CHAPEL STREET GROSS 1.95 1.95 31 19 61 61
VF4 SOUTHEAST EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GROSS 4.48 4.48 -7 22 22
VF5 55720 CHUTE LINE GROSS 1.29 1.29 31 12 40 40
VF6 37 CENTRE STREET GROSS 3.59 3.59 31 35 112 112
VF7 51 CENTRE STREET - WEST GROSS 1.58 1.58 31 15 49 49
VF8 51 CENTRE STREET - NORTH GROSS 2.07 2.07 31 20 65 65
VF9 UNION STREET WEST GROSS 0.83 0.83 31 8 26 26
VF10 4 QUEEN STREET GROSS 0.98 0.98 31 9 31 31
VF11 6349A PLANK ROAD GROSS 1.96 1.96 31 19 61 61
VF12 6423 PLANK ROAD GROSS 5.59 5.59 31 55 174 174
VF13 6403 PLANK ROAD GROSS 0.87 0.87 31 8 27 27
VF14 6426 PLANK ROAD GROSS 2.58 2.58 31 25 80 80
VF15 NORTHEAST EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GROSS 14.40 14.40 -36 112 112
VF16 55471 LIGHT LINE GROSS 3.59 3.59 31 35 112 112
VF17 NORTHEAST LIGHT LINE GROSS 6.88 6.88 31 68 214 214
VF18 SOUTHEAST LIGHT LINE GROSS 12.65 12.65 31 126 393 393
VF19 NORTHWEST EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GROSS 6.41 6.41 -11 35 35
VF20 55233/55267 LIGHT LINE GROSS 18.22 18.22 31 182 565 565
VF21 CENTRAL WEST LIGHT LINE GROSS 3.70 3.70 31 37 115 115
VF22 CENTRAL EAST LIGHT LINE GROSS 0.66 0.66 31 6 21 21
VF23 SOUTHWEST LIGHT LINE GROSS 17.18 17.18 31 171 533 533
VF24 NORTHWEST LIGHT LINE GROSS 1.14 1.14 31 11 36 36
VF25 92 EDISON DRIVE GROSS 22.70 22.70 31 227 704 704
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (EDEN & STRAFFORDVILLE)306.58 1898 5930 3.176 67.956 16.023 83.98
TOTAL FUTURE (VIENNA)140.66 1194 3756 3.358 44.155 12.077 56.23
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (VIENNA)231.28 1554 4874 3.255 50.552 12.562 63.11
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING 537.86 3452 10804 2.921 118.508 28.585 147.09
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =69.15
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =147.09
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =45.00
PUMP STATION CAPACITY ( EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =327%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
EXISTING UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 85.77 85.77 -328 1017 1017
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 3.60 3.60 28 32 100 100
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 12.90 12.90 28 116 360 360
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 18.70 18.70 28 169 360 360
NEW UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 3.00 3.00 31 30 93 93 4.252 1.385 0.300 1.68
TOTAL EDEN 45.20 166 516
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)89.20 417 1294
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)35.50 233 559 3.504 27.762 3.520 31.28
TOTAL VIENNA 88.77 358 1110 3.770 8.864 0.300 9.16
TOTAL 258.67 1174 3479 3.387 36.626 3.820 40.45
14.63
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =40.45
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =40.50 DESIGN FLOW =45.00 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
EXISTING UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 85.77 85.77 -328 1017 1017
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 4.90 4.90 28 44 137 137
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 13.10 13.10 28 118 366 366
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 19.90 19.90 28 180 558 558
NEW UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 18.00 18.00 31 180 558 558 3.949 7.715 1.800 9.52
TOTAL EDEN 46.50 178 553
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)89.40 419 1300
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)36.70 244 757 3.493 28.757 3.790 32.55
TOTAL VIENNA 103.77 508 1575 3.664 14.580 1.800 16.38
TOTAL 276.37 1349 4185 3.316 43.337 5.590 48.93
18.66
PEAK INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY 48.93
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =48.96 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =54.40 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 41.60 41.60 -134 416 416
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 76.30 76.30 -301 934 934
EXISTING UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 16.80 16.80 -64 199 199
EXISTING UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 85.77 85.77 -328 1017 1017
NEW UNITS (EDEN)GROSS 15.80 15.80 28 142 441 441
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 2, 3, 4)GROSS 37.30 37.30 28 337 1045 1045
NEW UNITS (STRAFFORDVILLE SPS No. 5)GROSS 37.30 37.30 28 337 1045 1045
NEW UNITS (VIENNA)GROSS 33.80 33.80 31 338 1048 1048 3.787 13.895 3.380 17.27
TOTAL EDEN 57.40 276 857
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 2, 3, 4)113.60 638 1979
TOTAL STRAFFORDVILLE (SPS No. 5)54.10 401 1244 3.326 46.773 9.040 55.81
TOTAL VIENNA 119.57 666 2065 3.575 20.358 3.380 23.74
TOTAL 344.67 1981 6145 3.161 67.131 12.420 79.55
33.66
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =79.55
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =79.55 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =79.55 l/s
100%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (10.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Ex. Development Fut. Connection = 17 connections / 10.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.17 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha for Eden/Straffordville and 31 ppl/ha for Vienna/PortBurwell.
30 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COADESIGN FLOW COA DESIGN CAPACITY =
1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the minimum lot area of 800m2 + 150m2 road area for 15m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 10 units/ha MAX.
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d. (Actual Vienna = 220 l/cap/d)
Full FlowVelocity(m/s)EXISTINGAVERAGE FLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
Sewage(l/s)Infiltration (l/s)Design Flow (l/s)Length (m)Pipe Size(mm)Type of PipeTotal Area(ha)PER ha.NO.CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop
DROPACROSSLOWERMANHOLE (m)AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross ∆ Area (ha)
SEWER
Total Pop.Peaking Factor, M
UPSTREAMINVERT(m)
DOWNSTREAMINVERT(m)
FALL(m)n Min Slope(%)Capacity (l/s)
LOCATION AREA POPULATION DESIGN FLOW
1 of 1
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF VIENNA (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
AVM
PJP
22028
VIENNA SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 6)
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET ACTUAL VIENNAFLOW CONDITIONS NEW DEVELOPMENTDESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8
AVERAGE FLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =PROPOSEDFUTUREFORCEMAIN OPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =
338 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAINCAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =CURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =
180 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OFCURRENT PUMP CAPACITY CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY =COA FLOW LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Crest is approx. 1,700m away at Inv. = 205.03
Outlet is approx. 5,360m away at Inv. = 190.15
C =100.3 C =110.3 C =120.3
v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)
Length (l)5360 m 0 19.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.40 0 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0 18.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.60
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)250.3 mm 5 19.40 0.26 0.00 0.023 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.53 0.00 19.99 5 19.00 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.45 0.00 19.50 5 18.60 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.38 0.00 19.03
10 19.40 0.52 0.01 0.081 0.10 0.20 0.00 1.92 0.02 21.54 10 19.00 0.52 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.00 1.61 0.02 20.82 10 18.60 0.52 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.00 1.38 0.02 20.17
15 19.40 0.78 0.03 0.172 0.22 0.30 0.00 4.08 0.04 23.95 15 19.00 0.78 0.03 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.00 3.42 0.04 22.86 15 18.60 0.78 0.03 0.12 0.22 0.30 0.00 2.91 0.04 21.94
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 23 m 20 19.40 1.04 0.06 0.293 0.39 0.41 0.01 6.94 0.08 27.17 20 19.00 1.04 0.06 0.25 0.39 0.41 0.01 5.82 0.08 25.60 20 18.60 1.04 0.06 0.21 0.39 0.41 0.01 4.96 0.08 24.30
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)156.5 mm 25 19.40 1.30 0.09 0.443 0.62 0.51 0.01 10.49 0.12 31.17 25 19.00 1.30 0.09 0.37 0.62 0.51 0.01 8.80 0.12 29.00 25 18.60 1.30 0.09 0.32 0.62 0.51 0.01 7.49 0.12 27.24
30 19.40 1.56 0.12 0.621 0.89 0.61 0.02 14.69 0.18 35.92 30 19.00 1.56 0.12 0.52 0.89 0.61 0.02 12.32 0.18 33.05 30 18.60 1.56 0.12 0.44 0.89 0.61 0.02 10.50 0.18 30.74
35 19.40 1.82 0.17 0.826 1.21 0.71 0.03 19.54 0.24 41.41 35 19.00 1.82 0.17 0.69 1.21 0.71 0.03 16.39 0.24 37.72 35 18.60 1.82 0.17 0.59 1.21 0.71 0.03 13.96 0.24 34.79
40 19.40 2.08 0.22 1.057 1.58 0.81 0.03 25.02 0.31 47.61 40 19.00 2.08 0.22 0.89 1.58 0.81 0.03 20.98 0.31 43.01 40 18.60 2.08 0.22 0.75 1.58 0.81 0.03 17.87 0.31 39.37
High Water Level (HWL)171.55 m 45 19.40 2.34 0.28 1.314 1.99 0.91 0.04 31.11 0.39 54.53 45 19.00 2.34 0.28 1.10 1.99 0.91 0.04 26.09 0.39 48.90 45 18.60 2.34 0.28 0.94 1.99 0.91 0.04 22.22 0.39 44.47
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)171.15 m 50 19.40 2.60 0.34 1.597 2.46 1.02 0.05 37.80 0.49 62.14 50 19.00 2.60 0.34 1.34 2.46 1.02 0.05 31.71 0.49 55.39 50 18.60 2.60 0.34 1.14 2.46 1.02 0.05 27.00 0.49 50.09
Low Water Level (LWL)170.75 m 54.4 19.40 2.83 0.41 1.867 2.91 1.11 0.06 44.19 0.58 69.41 54.4 19.00 2.83 0.41 1.57 2.91 1.11 0.06 37.06 0.58 61.59 54.4 18.60 2.83 0.41 1.33 2.91 1.11 0.06 31.56 0.58 55.46
Outlet Invert 190.15 m 57.5 19.40 2.99 0.46 2.068 3.26 1.17 0.07 48.96 0.64 74.85 57.5 19.00 2.99 0.46 1.73 3.26 1.17 0.07 41.06 0.64 66.22 57.5 18.60 2.99 0.46 1.48 3.26 1.17 0.07 34.97 0.64 59.47
Gravity 9.81 m/s2 60 19.40 3.12 0.50 2.238 3.55 1.22 0.08 52.97 0.70 79.42 60 19.00 3.12 0.50 1.88 3.55 1.22 0.08 44.43 0.70 70.12 60 18.60 3.12 0.50 1.60 3.55 1.22 0.08 37.84 0.70 62.85
65 19.40 3.38 0.58 2.595 4.16 1.32 0.09 61.42 0.82 89.07 65 19.00 3.38 0.58 2.18 4.16 1.32 0.09 51.52 0.82 78.35 65 18.60 3.38 0.58 1.85 4.16 1.32 0.09 43.88 0.82 69.98
70 19.40 3.64 0.67 2.976 4.83 1.42 0.10 70.44 0.95 99.38 70 19.00 3.64 0.67 2.50 4.83 1.42 0.10 59.09 0.95 87.14 70 18.60 3.64 0.67 2.13 4.83 1.42 0.10 50.32 0.95 77.61
75 19.40 3.90 0.77 3.381 5.54 1.52 0.12 80.04 1.09 110.34 75 19.00 3.90 0.77 2.84 5.54 1.52 0.12 67.13 1.09 96.49 75 18.60 3.90 0.77 2.42 5.54 1.52 0.12 57.17 1.09 85.72
Flair Entry 79.55 19.40 4.14 0.87 3.77 6.23 1.62 0.13 89.25 1.23 120.89 79.55 19.00 4.14 0.87 3.16 6.23 1.62 0.13 74.86 1.23 105.49 79.55 18.60 4.14 0.87 2.69 6.23 1.62 0.13 63.76 1.23 93.52
Exit 85 19.40 4.42 1.00 4.262 7.12 1.73 0.15 100.89 1.41 134.22 85 19.00 4.42 1.00 3.57 7.12 1.73 0.15 84.62 1.41 116.87 85 18.60 4.42 1.00 3.04 7.12 1.73 0.15 72.07 1.41 103.38
Reducer
90° Bend
45° Bend
22° Bend
11° Bend
Gate/Plug Valve (fully open)
Swing Check Valve
Tee (branch)
Tee (straight)
Mag Meter/Pressure Gauge
Total 150mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, Reducer, 90° Bend (2), 45° Bend (2), Pressure
Gauge, Tee Straight, Check Valve (Open), Plug
Valve (Open) (2), Tee Branch (2)
7.15
2.5
1
0.2
0.5
Total 250mmØ Forcemain
11° Bend (8), 22° Bend (3), 45° Bend (14), Reducer,
Exit
9.24
250mmØ PVC Forcemain
0.15
Forcemain (250mmØ PVC DR 18 CLASS 150)
Station Piping (150mmØ Class 52 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.3
1
0.4
0.9
0.45
0.22
0.11
VIENNA SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.6 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
SPECIFIED DATA
Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI HT (m)250mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI 250mmØ PVC Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI
105.49m HEAD
79.6 l/s PUMP
61.6m HEAD
54.4 l/s PUMP
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Head (m)Q (l/s)
Vienna Sanitary Pumping Station No.6
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 250mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 250mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 250mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
16.9ha162B1(52 EX. CONNECTIONS)P41.4ha943B2(304 EX. CONNECTIONS)P19.3ha196B3(63 EX. CONNECTIONS)P2.00ha62BF1P1.00ha44BP1P2.72ha50BF6P5.75ha56BF2P1.26ha40BF3P2.32ha72BF4P0.41ha13BF5PPirrie Creek
Moores Cr
e
e
k
Little Jerry CreekLittle Otter Creek
Mooseber
g
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
Scanlon
D
r
a
i
n
South Otte
r
C
re
e
k
Fernley Dra
i
n
Big Otter Cr
e
e
kVILLAGE OF PORT BURWELL4Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comEDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLHOMER ST.ADDISON ST.COWPER ST.SOUTHEY ST.CHATHAM ST.TENNYSON ST.BURWELLLIBBYE AVE.NOVA SCOTIA LINESHAKESPEARE ST.NEWTON ST.MILTON ST.WILLIAM ST.MACNIEL CT.ELIZABETH ST.HANNAH S T.WATERLOO ST.WELLINGTON ST.ERIUS ST.
ROBINSON ST.
STRACHAN ST.BROCK ST.PITT ST.BODSWORTH ST.
VICTORIA ST.WELLINGTON ST.ELIZABETH ST.WELLINGTON ST.GRACE ST.
ELIZABETH ST.
STRACHAN ST.
SHAKESPEARE ST.
VICTORIA ST.VICTORIA ST.
MILTON ST.WATERLOO ST.STRACHAN ST.PITT ST.PITT ST.ROBINSON ST.ROBINSON
ST
.
PLANK ROADNOVA SCOTIA LINENOVA SCOTIA LINEADDISON
ST
.BURWELL ST.CHATHAM ST.CHATHAM ST.CHATHAM ST.
ERIUS ST.ERIUS ST.BRIDGE ST.I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:01:39 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:PORT BURWELL P.S. No. 7 TO MH ST11SANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:1000VER. 1:150022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:REVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY6170STATIONSTATION170180190200210220180190200210220I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 1:59:47 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:9.6 Persons/ha 31 Persons/ha (i.e. 10 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:170 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:-l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26 l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0 No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
B1 TOTAL EXISTING (TRIBUTARY TO SPS No.7)GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162 4.180 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =0.35
0.35
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =1.45
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =3.18
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =46%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
NEW UNITS GROSS 2.60 2.60 31 26 81 81 4.268 1.210 0.260 1.47
TOTAL 19.50 78 243 4.116 2.596 0.260 2.86
0.89
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =2.86
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =2.86 DESIGN FLOW =3.18 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
NEW UNITS GROSS 3.80 3.80 31 38 118 118 4.223 1.745 0.380 2.12
TOTAL 20.70 90 280 4.091 3.111 0.380 3.49
1.14
PEAK INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY 3.49
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =3.51 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =3.90 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
NEW UNITS GROSS 16.10 16.10 31 161 500 500 3.974 6.957 1.610 8.57
TOTAL 33.00 213 662 3.908 8.199 1.610 9.81
3.71
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =9.81
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =9.85 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =9.85 l/s
100%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas for future development has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (10.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Area "Ex. Development Fut. Connection" = 17 connections / 10.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.17 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha for Eden/Straffordville and 31 ppl/ha for Vienna/PortBurwell.
1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the maximum lot area of 800m2 + 150m2 road area for 15m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 10 units/ha MAX.
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d (Actual Port Burwell = 170 l/cap/d)CURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
38 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY =FORCEMAINOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =
161 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAIN
CAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =COA FLOW LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =
26 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COA
DESIGN FLOW
COA DESIGN CAPACITY =
n Min Slope
(%)Capacity (l/s)Full FlowVelocity
(m/s)EXISTINGAVERAGE INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
Sewage
(l/s)Infiltration (l/s)Design Flow (l/s)Length (m)Pipe Size
(mm)Type of PipeTotal Area
(ha)PER ha.NO.
CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop Total Pop.Peaking Factor, M
UPSTREAM
INVERT(m)
DOWN
STREAM
INVERT
(m)
FALL
(m)
DROP
ACROSS
LOWER
MANHOLE (m)AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross ∆ Area (ha)
LOCATION AREA POPULATION DESIGN FLOW SEWER
AVM
PJP
22028
1 of 1
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF PORT BURWELL (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET ACTUAL PORT BURWELL
FLOW CONDITIONS
NEW DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8 PORT BURWELL SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 7)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Outlet is approx. 500m away at Inv. = 185.10
C =114.4 C =124.4 C =134.4
v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)
Length (l)500 m 0 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.21 0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0 4.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)83.0 mm 1 5.21 0.11 0.00 0.002 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.43 0.00 5.65 1 5.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.37 0.00 5.38 1 4.79 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.32 0.00 5.12
2 5.21 0.22 0.00 0.007 0.01 0.37 0.01 1.55 0.02 6.81 2 5.00 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.01 1.33 0.02 6.38 2 4.79 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.01 1.15 0.02 5.99
3.9 5.21 0.43 0.01 0.025 0.06 0.72 0.03 5.33 0.07 10.73 3.9 5.00 0.43 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.72 0.03 4.56 0.07 9.75 3.9 4.79 0.43 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.72 0.03 3.96 0.07 8.93
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 8 m 4 5.21 0.44 0.01 0.026 0.06 0.74 0.03 5.58 0.08 11.00 4 5.00 0.44 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.74 0.03 4.78 0.08 9.98 4 4.79 0.44 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.74 0.03 4.14 0.08 9.13
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)107.19 mm 5 5.21 0.55 0.02 0.039 0.09 0.92 0.04 8.44 0.12 13.96 5 5.00 0.55 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.92 0.04 7.23 0.12 12.53 5 4.79 0.55 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.92 0.04 6.26 0.12 11.36
6 5.21 0.66 0.02 0.054 0.13 1.11 0.06 11.82 0.18 17.48 6 5.00 0.66 0.02 0.05 0.13 1.11 0.06 10.12 0.18 15.57 6 4.79 0.66 0.02 0.04 0.13 1.11 0.06 8.78 0.18 14.00
7 5.21 0.78 0.03 0.072 0.18 1.29 0.09 15.72 0.24 21.54 7 5.00 0.78 0.03 0.06 0.18 1.29 0.09 13.47 0.24 19.07 7 4.79 0.78 0.03 0.05 0.18 1.29 0.09 11.67 0.24 17.05
8 5.21 0.89 0.04 0.093 0.24 1.48 0.11 20.13 0.31 26.13 8 5.00 0.89 0.04 0.08 0.24 1.48 0.11 17.24 0.31 23.02 8 4.79 0.89 0.04 0.07 0.24 1.48 0.11 14.94 0.31 20.50
High Water Level (HWL)180.31 m 9 5.21 1.00 0.05 0.115 0.30 1.66 0.14 25.03 0.39 31.24 9 5.00 1.00 0.05 0.10 0.30 1.66 0.14 21.44 0.39 27.42 9 4.79 1.00 0.05 0.09 0.30 1.66 0.14 18.58 0.39 24.34
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)180.10 m 9.85 5.21 1.09 0.06 0.136 0.36 1.82 0.17 29.58 0.47 35.99 9.85 5.00 1.09 0.06 0.12 0.36 1.82 0.17 25.33 0.47 31.51 9.85 4.79 1.09 0.06 0.10 0.36 1.82 0.17 21.96 0.47 27.91
Low Water Level (LWL)179.89 m 11 5.21 1.22 0.08 0.167 0.45 2.03 0.21 36.28 0.59 42.99 11 5.00 1.22 0.08 0.14 0.45 2.03 0.21 31.07 0.59 37.54 11 4.79 1.22 0.08 0.12 0.45 2.03 0.21 26.93 0.59 33.17
Outlet Invert 185.10 m 12 5.21 1.33 0.09 0.196 0.54 2.22 0.25 42.62 0.70 49.61 12 5.00 1.33 0.09 0.17 0.54 2.22 0.25 36.50 0.70 43.25 12 4.79 1.33 0.09 0.15 0.54 2.22 0.25 31.64 0.70 38.15
Gravity 9.81 m/s2
Flair Entry
Exit
Reducer
90° Bend
45° Bend
22° Bend
Gate Valve (fully open)
Swing Check Valve
Tee (branch)
Tee (straight)
Mag Meter
1
0.2
0.5
Total 100mmØ Forcemain
22° Bend (0), 45° Bend (4), Exit 2.80
Total 100mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, 90° Bend (2), Tee Branch, Tee Straight, Check
Valve, Gate Valve (open)5.95
0.4
0.9
0.45
0.22
0.15
2.5
Forcemain (100mmØ PE SERIES 45)
Station Piping (100mmØ Class 53 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.3
1
HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 83mmØ PE Forcemain HT (m)83mmØ PE Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI 83mmØ PE Forcemain
PORT BURWELL SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.7 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
SPECIFIED DATA
Q (l/s)hs (m)107.19mmØ DI
31.51m HEAD
9.85 l/s PUMP
9.75m HEAD
3.9 l/s PUMP
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Head (m)Q (l/s)
Port Burwell Sanitary Pumping Station No.7
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 83mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 83mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 83mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
16.9ha162B1(52 EX. CONNECTIONS)P41.4ha943B2(304 EX. CONNECTIONS)P19.3ha196B3(63 EX. CONNECTIONS)P2.00ha62BF1P1.00ha44BP1P2.72ha50BF6P5.75ha56BF2P1.26ha40BF3P2.32ha72BF4P0.41ha13BF5PPirrie Creek
Moores Cr
e
e
k
Little Jerry CreekLittle Otter Creek
Mooseber
g
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
Scanlon
D
r
a
i
n
South Otte
r
C
re
e
k
Fernley Dra
i
n
Big Otter Cr
e
e
kVILLAGE OF PORT BURWELL4Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comEDENSTRAFFORDVILLEVIENNAPORT BURWELLHOMER ST.ADDISON ST.COWPER ST.SOUTHEY ST.CHATHAM ST.TENNYSON ST.BURWELLLIBBYE AVE.NOVA SCOTIA LINESHAKESPEARE ST.NEWTON ST.MILTON ST.WILLIAM ST.MACNIEL CT.ELIZABETH ST.HANNAH S T.WATERLOO ST.WELLINGTON ST.ERIUS ST.
ROBINSON ST.
STRACHAN ST.BROCK ST.PITT ST.BODSWORTH ST.
VICTORIA ST.WELLINGTON ST.ELIZABETH ST.WELLINGTON ST.GRACE ST.
ELIZABETH ST.
STRACHAN ST.
SHAKESPEARE ST.
VICTORIA ST.VICTORIA ST.
MILTON ST.WATERLOO ST.STRACHAN ST.PITT ST.PITT ST.ROBINSON ST.ROBINSON
ST
.
PLANK ROADNOVA SCOTIA LINENOVA SCOTIA LINEADDISON
ST
.BURWELL ST.CHATHAM ST.CHATHAM ST.CHATHAM ST.
ERIUS ST.ERIUS ST.BRIDGE ST.I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Sanitary Tributary.dwg, 2022-11-25 2:01:39 PM, CJDLPC43
STAMP:----SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINAcres Record Drawings Nov 2001PROJECT NAME:CONTRACT #:PORT BURWELL P.S. No.8 TO MH 57ASANITARY FORCEMAINDRAWING #:SCALE:HOR. 1:1500VER. 1:150022028Cyril J. Demeyere LimitedP.O. Box 460, 261 BroadwayTillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8Tel: 519-688-1000866-302-9886Fax: 519-842-3235cjdl@cjdleng.comCONSULTANT:REVISIONDESCRIPTION#DD/MM/YYYYBY5160STATIONSTATION160170180190200210220170180190200210220I:\ACAD Projects\2022\22028\04-Layouts\22028_Forcemain Profiles.dwg, 2022-11-25 1:59:32 PM, CJDLPC43
PROJECT:POPULATION:3.1 Persons/UNIT 3.1 Persons/UNIT M=1+14(4+P0.5)-1 (l/s)
DENSITY:22.8 Persons/ha 31 Persons/ha (i.e. 9 UNIT/ha)P=Population in thousands
MUNICIPALITY:INFILTRATION:- l/s/ha 0.100 l/s/ha
SEWAGE:170 l/Person/Day 275 l/Person/Day Cap=1000n-1A*R0.667s0.5 (l/s)
DATE:COMMERCIAL:- l/s/ha (22.5 m3/ha/d)0.26 l/s/ha (28 m3/ha/d)R=Hydraulic radius (=/4) (m)
DESIGNED BY:UNCERTAINTY FACTOR:1.0 No Uncertainty Carried 1.1 10% Uncertainty A=Pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
CHECKED BY:s=Slope of pipe
JOB No.:
SHEET:
NO REVISION DATE BY
B1 EXISTING PORT BURWELL (SPS No. 7)GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
B2 EXISTING PORT BURWELL (SPS No. 8)GROSS 41.40 41.40 -304 943 943
TOTAL EXISTING (TRIBUTARY TO SPS No. 8)58.30 356 1105 3.772 ACTUAL 2-YR AVERAGE INFLOW =2.30
2.30
PEAK INFLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL x PEAKING FACTOR) =8.69
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =18.80
EX. PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EXISTING ACTUAL) =46%
BP1 ELIZABETH STREET DEVELOPMENT GROSS 1.00 1.00 -14 44 44
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)16.90 52 162 4.180 1.451 0.000 1.45
TOTAL PROPOSED (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)1.00 14 44 4.326 0.666 0.100 0.77
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)42.40 318 987 3.804 8.026 0.100 8.13
TOTAL PROPOSED + EXISTING 59.30 370 1149 3.760 9.477 0.100 9.58
2.62
9.58
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =18.80
PUMP STATION CAPACITY (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =51%
BF1 WELLINGTON STREET SOUTH DEVELOPMENT GROSS 2.00 2.00 31 20 62 62
BF2 WELLINGTON STREET EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GROSS 5.75 5.75 -18 56 56
BF3 WELLINGTON STREET NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT GROSS 1.26 1.26 31 12 40 40
BF4 WELLINGTON STREET NORTHEAST DEVELOPMENT GROSS 2.32 2.32 31 23 72 72
BF5 VICTORIA STREET NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT GROSS 0.41 0.41 31 4 13 13
BF6 PLANK ROAD NORTHEAST DEVELOPMENT GROSS 2.72 2.72 31 16 50 50 Population & Unit Yeild Based on 1.60ha Developable Land Outside Existing ROW
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)16.90 52 162 4.180 1.451 0.000 1.45
TOTAL FUTURE (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)14.46 93 293 4.083 4.188 1.051 5.24
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)56.86 411 1280 3.728 11.692 1.151 12.84
TOTAL FUTURE + PROPOSED + EXISTING 73.76 463 1442 3.692 13.143 1.151 14.29
AVERAGE INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =4.71
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =14.29
PUMP STATION DESIGN FLOW =18.80
PUMP STATION CAPACITY ( EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED + FUTURE) =76%
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 41.40 41.40 -304 943 943
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 0.00 0.00 31 0 0 0
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 16.40 16.40 31 164 509 509 3.970 7.075 1.640 8.72
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7 GROSS 16.90 52 162 4.180 1.451 0.000 1.45
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8 GROSS 57.80 468 1452 3.690 13.793 1.640 15.43
TOTAL 74.70 520 1614 3.656 15.244 1.640 16.88
5.81
PEAK INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =16.88
COA DESIGN LIMIT (BASED ON 90% COA DESIGN FLOW) =16.92 DESIGN FLOW =18.80 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 41.40 41.40 -304 943 943
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 0.00 0.00 31 0 0 0
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 9.90 9.90 31 99 307 307 4.074 4.379 0.990 5.37
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7 16.90 52 162 4.180 1.451 0.000 1.45
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8 51.30 403 1250 3.735 11.322 0.990 12.31
TOTAL 68.20 455 1412 3.698 12.773 0.990 13.76
4.44
PEAK INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =13.76
CURRENT PUMP LIMIT (BASED ON 90% OF OPERATING CAPACITY) =13.77 PUMP OPERATING CAPACITY =15.30 l/s
90%
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 16.90 16.90 -52 162 162
EXISTING UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 41.40 41.40 -304 943 943
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7)GROSS 0.00 0.00 31 0 0 0
NEW UNITS (PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8)GROSS 71.50 71.50 31 715 2217 2217 3.551 27.560 7.150 34.71
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 7 16.90 52 162 4.180 1.451 0.000 1.45
TOTAL PORT BURWELL SPS No. 8 112.90 1019 3160 3.423 33.266 7.150 40.42
TOTAL 129.80 1071 3322 3.404 34.718 7.150 41.87
17.35
PEAK INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =41.87
FORCEMAIN DESIGN FLOW (150 psi) =41.90 FORCEMAIN OPERATING CAPACITY =41.90 l/s
100%
NOTES:
3. Infiltration component of sewage flow (l/s) from existing areas for future development has been calculated by pro-rating the area (ha) of existing development to equivalent of new development density (10.0 units/ha).
(e.g. Area "Ex. Development Fut. Connection" = 17 connections / 10.0 units/ha x 0.10 l/s/ha = 0.17 l/s)
4. Development area based on land area required for proposed units using a density of 28 ppl/ha for Eden/Straffordville and 31 ppl/ha for Vienna/PortBurwell.
1. Density is based on 10,000m2 (1 ha) divided by the maximum lot area of 800m2 + 150m2 road area for 15m min. lot frontage (Hamlet/Village Residential 1 Zoning) = 10 units/ha MAX.
2. Per Capita Sewage Flow for new development is based on Eden actual per capita flow of 240 l/cap/d x 15% factor of safety = 275 l/cap/d (Actual Port Burwell = 170 l/cap/d)CURRENT PUMPOPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ ECA LIMIT =
99 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF
CURRENT PUMP CAPACITY
ECA DESIGN CAPACITY =FORCEMAIN OPERATING LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ FM CAPACITY =
715 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON FORCEMAINCAPACITY FORCEMAIN DESIGN CAPACITY =PROPOSEDAVERAGE FLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =
PEAK INFLOW (EX. ACTUAL + PROPOSED) =FUTURECOA FLOW LIMITAVERAGE INFLOW @ COA LIMIT =
164 NEW UNITS MAX. BASED ON 90% OF COA
DESIGN FLOW COA DESIGN CAPACITY =
n Min Slope(%)Capacity (l/s)Full FlowVelocity(m/s)EXISTINGAVERAGE FLOW (EXISTING ACTUAL) =
Sewage(l/s)Infiltration (l/s)Design Flow (l/s)Length (m)Pipe Size(mm)Type of PipeTotal Area(ha)PER ha.NO.CONNECTIONS ∆ Pop Total Pop.Peaking Factor, M
UPSTREAM
INVERT
(m)
DOWNSTREAMINVERT(m)
FALL(m)
DROPACROSSLOWERMANHOLE (m)AREA #STREET FROM MH TO MH Net or Gross ∆ Area (ha)
LOCATION AREA POPULATION DESIGN FLOW SEWER
AVM
PJP
22028
1 of 1
PHONE: (519) 688-1000
FAX: (519) 842-3235 VILLAGE OF PORT BURWELL (BAYHAM)
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com
website: www.cjdleng.com 2022-11-25
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET ACTUAL PORT BURWELL
FLOW CONDITIONS
NEW DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN CRITERIACONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8 PORT BURWELL SANITARY PUMPING STATION (SPS No. 8)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Crest is approx. 80m away at Inv. = 185.92
Outlet is approx. 455m away at Inv. = 192.30
C =100.3 C =110.3 C =120.3
v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)v (m/s)hv (m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf(m)hm (m)v (m/s)hv(m)hf (m)hm(m)
Length (l)455 m 0 12.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.28 0 11.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.97 0 11.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.65
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)155.4 mm 2 12.28 0.10 0.00 0.002 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.00 12.37 2 11.97 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 12.04 2 11.65 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.00 11.72
4 12.28 0.21 0.00 0.007 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.31 0.01 12.62 4 11.97 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.26 0.01 12.25 4 11.65 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.22 0.01 11.90
6.0 12.28 0.31 0.00 0.015 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.65 0.02 13.00 6 11.97 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.54 0.02 12.58 6 11.65 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.46 0.02 12.18
Length (l) -ASSUMES 1 PUMP RUNNING 11 m 8.0 12.28 0.42 0.01 0.026 0.06 0.42 0.01 1.10 0.03 13.52 8 11.97 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.01 0.93 0.03 13.02 8 11.65 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.01 0.79 0.03 12.56
Hydraulic Diameter (dh)156.5 mm 10.0 12.28 0.52 0.01 0.039 0.10 0.53 0.01 1.67 0.04 14.15 10 11.97 0.52 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.53 0.01 1.40 0.04 13.56 10 11.65 0.52 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.53 0.01 1.19 0.04 13.04
12.0 12.28 0.62 0.02 0.054 0.14 0.63 0.02 2.34 0.06 14.91 12 11.97 0.62 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.63 0.02 1.96 0.06 14.21 12 11.65 0.62 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.63 0.02 1.67 0.06 13.60
14.0 12.28 0.73 0.03 0.072 0.19 0.74 0.03 3.11 0.08 15.79 14 11.97 0.73 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.74 0.03 2.61 0.08 14.96 14 11.65 0.73 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.74 0.03 2.22 0.08 14.25
15.3 12.28 0.80 0.03 0.085 0.23 0.81 0.03 3.66 0.10 16.42 15.3 11.97 0.80 0.03 0.07 0.23 0.81 0.03 3.07 0.10 15.50 15.3 11.65 0.80 0.03 0.06 0.23 0.81 0.03 2.62 0.10 14.72
High Water Level (HWL)180.65 m 16.0 12.28 0.83 0.04 0.093 0.25 0.84 0.04 3.98 0.11 16.78 16 11.97 0.83 0.04 0.08 0.25 0.84 0.04 3.34 0.11 15.81 16 11.65 0.83 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.84 0.04 2.84 0.11 14.99
Normal Water Level (MID-OP)180.34 m 18.8 12.28 0.98 0.05 0.125 0.34 0.99 0.05 5.36 0.15 18.36 18.8 11.97 0.98 0.05 0.10 0.34 0.99 0.05 4.50 0.15 17.16 18.8 11.65 0.98 0.05 0.09 0.34 0.99 0.05 3.83 0.15 16.16
Low Water Level (LWL)180.02 m 20.0 12.28 1.04 0.06 0.14 0.39 1.06 0.06 6.01 0.17 19.10 20 11.97 1.04 0.06 0.12 0.39 1.06 0.06 5.04 0.17 17.79 20 11.65 1.04 0.06 0.10 0.39 1.06 0.06 4.29 0.17 16.71
Outlet Invert 192.30 m 22.0 12.28 1.14 0.07 0.167 0.47 1.16 0.07 7.17 0.21 20.42 22 11.97 1.14 0.07 0.14 0.47 1.16 0.07 6.01 0.21 18.93 22 11.65 1.14 0.07 0.12 0.47 1.16 0.07 5.12 0.21 17.70
Gravity 9.81 m/s2 24.0 12.28 1.25 0.08 0.196 0.56 1.27 0.08 8.42 0.25 21.86 24 11.97 1.25 0.08 0.16 0.56 1.27 0.08 7.06 0.25 20.15 24 11.65 1.25 0.08 0.14 0.56 1.27 0.08 6.02 0.25 18.77
26.0 12.28 1.35 0.09 0.228 0.65 1.37 0.10 9.76 0.29 23.40 26 11.97 1.35 0.09 0.19 0.65 1.37 0.10 8.19 0.29 21.48 26 11.65 1.35 0.09 0.16 0.65 1.37 0.10 6.98 0.29 19.92
28.0 12.28 1.46 0.11 0.261 0.76 1.48 0.11 11.20 0.33 25.05 28 11.97 1.46 0.11 0.22 0.76 1.48 0.11 9.39 0.33 22.89 28 11.65 1.46 0.11 0.19 0.76 1.48 0.11 8.00 0.33 21.15
30.0 12.28 1.56 0.12 0.297 0.87 1.58 0.13 12.72 0.38 26.80 30 11.97 1.56 0.12 0.25 0.87 1.58 0.13 10.67 0.38 24.39 30 11.65 1.56 0.12 0.21 0.87 1.58 0.13 9.09 0.38 22.46
Flair Entry 32.0 12.28 1.66 0.14 0.334 0.99 1.69 0.15 14.34 0.44 28.66 32 11.97 1.66 0.14 0.28 0.99 1.69 0.15 12.03 0.44 25.98 32 11.65 1.66 0.14 0.24 0.99 1.69 0.15 10.24 0.44 23.84
Exit 34.0 12.28 1.77 0.16 0.374 1.11 1.79 0.16 16.04 0.49 30.62 34 11.97 1.77 0.16 0.31 1.11 1.79 0.16 13.45 0.49 27.66 34 11.65 1.77 0.16 0.27 1.11 1.79 0.16 11.46 0.49 25.31
Reducer 36.0 12.28 1.87 0.18 0.416 1.25 1.90 0.18 17.83 0.55 32.69 36 11.97 1.87 0.18 0.35 1.25 1.90 0.18 14.95 0.55 29.43 36 11.65 1.87 0.18 0.30 1.25 1.90 0.18 12.74 0.55 26.85
90° Bend 38.0 12.28 1.98 0.20 0.46 1.39 2.00 0.20 19.70 0.62 34.86 38 11.97 1.98 0.20 0.39 1.39 2.00 0.20 16.53 0.62 31.29 38 11.65 1.98 0.20 0.33 1.39 2.00 0.20 14.08 0.62 28.47
45° Bend 40.0 12.28 2.08 0.22 0.505 1.54 2.11 0.23 21.66 0.68 37.12 40 11.97 2.08 0.22 0.42 1.54 2.11 0.23 18.17 0.68 33.23 40 11.65 2.08 0.22 0.36 1.54 2.11 0.23 15.48 0.68 30.16
22° Bend 41.9 12.28 2.18 0.24 0.551 1.69 2.21 0.25 23.61 0.75 39.37 41.9 11.97 2.18 0.24 0.46 1.69 2.21 0.25 19.80 0.75 35.16 41.9 11.65 2.18 0.24 0.39 1.69 2.21 0.25 16.86 0.75 31.84
Gate Valve (fully open)44.0 12.28 2.29 0.27 0.603 1.87 2.32 0.27 25.84 0.83 41.96 44 11.97 2.29 0.27 0.51 1.87 2.32 0.27 21.68 0.83 37.38 44 11.65 2.29 0.27 0.43 1.87 2.32 0.27 18.46 0.83 33.78
Swing Check Valve 46.0 12.28 2.39 0.29 0.655 2.04 2.43 0.30 28.06 0.90 44.53 46 11.97 2.39 0.29 0.55 2.04 2.43 0.30 23.53 0.90 39.58 46 11.65 2.39 0.29 0.47 2.04 2.43 0.30 20.04 0.90 35.70
Tee (branch)48.0 12.28 2.50 0.32 0.708 2.22 2.53 0.33 30.36 0.98 47.19 48 11.97 2.50 0.32 0.59 2.22 2.53 0.33 25.46 0.98 41.87 48 11.65 2.50 0.32 0.51 2.22 2.53 0.33 21.68 0.98 37.69
Tee (straight)50.0 12.28 2.60 0.34 0.764 2.41 2.64 0.35 32.74 1.07 49.96 50 11.97 2.60 0.34 0.64 2.41 2.64 0.35 27.46 1.07 44.24 50 11.65 2.60 0.34 0.55 2.41 2.64 0.35 23.39 1.07 39.76
Mag Meter
1
0.2
0.5
Total 150mmØ Forcemain
22° Bend (3), 45° Bend (3), Exit 3.01
Total 150mmØ D.I. Station Piping
Entry, 90° Bend (3), Tee Branch, Tee Straight, Check
Valve, Gate Valve (open) (2)7.00
0.4
0.9
0.45
0.22
0.15
2.5
Forcemain (150mmØ PE SERIES 60)
Station Piping (150mmØ Class 53 Cement Lined Ductile Iron)
Static Head
Minor Loss Coefficients (k)
0.3
1
HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI 155mmØ PE Forcemain HT (m)155mmØ PE Forcemain HT (m)Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI 155mmØ PE Forcemain
PORT BURWELL SANITARY PUMPING STATION No.8 - SYSTEM HEAD CURVE
22028
2022-11-25
SPECIFIED DATA
Q (l/s)hs (m)156.5mmØ DI
35.16m HEAD
41.9 l/s PUMP
15.5m HEAD
15.3 l/s PUMP
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Head (m)Q (l/s)
Port Burwell Sanitary Pumping Station No.8
System Head Curve
C=107 - LWL 155mmØ C=117 - MID-OP 155mmØ C=127 - OVERFLOW 155mmØ Forcemain Capacity Pump Operating Capacity Pump Curve
22028
25 November 2022
Content Copy Of Original
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement
climatique
AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE APPROVAL
NUMBER 6422-AVYQJX
Issue Date: June 5, 2018
The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
9344 Plank Rd N
Straffordville, Ontario
N0J 1Y0
Site Location:Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant
1 Chatham St
Bayham Municipality, County of Elgin
N0J 1T0
You have applied under section 20.2 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act ,
R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19 (Environmental Protection Act) for approval of:
establishment, usage and operation of existing municipal sewage works, for the
treatment of sanitary sewage and disposal of effluent to Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek
via a Sewage Treatment Plant (Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant) and Final
Effluent disposal facilities as follows:
Classification of Collection System: Separate Sewer System
Classification of Sewage Treatment Plant: Secondary
Design Capacity of Sewage Treatment Plant
Design Capacity with All Treatment Trains
in Operation
Upon Completion of Construction of
All Proposed Works
Rated Capacity 1,060 m3/d
Influent, Imported Sewage and Processed Organic Waste
Receiving Location Types
At Sewage Treatment Plant Septage
Proposed Works:
Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Secondary Treatment System
Biological Treatment
installation of three (3) 20 hp variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the existing •
•
aeration blowers;
Sludge Management System
Sludge Digestion
installation of two (2) 10 hp variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the existing
digester blowers;
•
one (1) flow meter on common header of digester blowers;•
•
Sludge Holding Tanks
installation of four (4) 20 hp variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the existing
sludge holding tank blowers;
•
•
all in accordance with the submitted supporting documents listed in Schedule A.
Existing Works:
Sanitary Sewage Collection System
Hamlet of Eden - Sanitary Sewers
STREET FROM TO
Plank Road Approx. 270 metres (m) north of
Eden Line
Approx. 360 m south of Eden
Line
Plank Road Approx. 795 m south of Eden Line Approx. 360 m south of Eden
Line
Travis Street Eden Line Gray Street
Eden Line Approx. 240 m west of Plank Road Plank Road
Eden Line Schaffer Road Plank Road
Gray Street Approx. 50 m east of Travis Street Plank Road
Hamlet of Straffordville - Sanitary Sewers
STREET FROM TO
Sandytown
Road
Approx. 115 m north of Heritage
Line
Heritage Line
Sandytown
Road
Heritage Line Pumping Station approx.
Sandytown
Road
650 m south of Heritage Line 770 m south of Heritage
Line
Old Chapel
Street
Donnelly Drive Main Street
Duke Street Donnelly Drive Heritage Line
Plank Road Approx. 220 m north of Fifth Street 100 m south of Heritage
Line
Plank Road Sandytown Road Main Street
Garnham Street Hesch Street Heritage Line
West Street Heritage Line 45 m north of Heritage Line
West Street First Street Third Street
Short Street Third Street Fourth Street
East Street Heritage Line 50 m north of Heritage Line
Alward Street Approx. 125 m south of Heritage
Line
Heritage Line
Garner Road Heritage Line Pumping Station Wardwalk
Line
Wardwalk Line Garner Road 200 m west of Garner Road
Heritage Line 400 m west of Sandytown Road 790 east of Garner Road
Arthur Street Plank Road approx. 160 m northwest
and west of Plank Road
Main Street Old Chapel Street 90 m east of Old Chapel
Street
Main Street 70 m west of Garnham Street East Street
Hesch Street Garnham Street 60 m east of Garnham
Street
First Street Plank Road East Street
Second Street West Street 140 m east of West Street
Third Street West Street CPR right of way
Fourth Street Short Street CPR right of way
Fifth Street Plank Road 110 m east of Plank Road
Elgin Street 100 m south of Third Street Third Street
Third Street Elgin Street Plank Road
Village of Vienna - Sanitary Sewers
STREET FROM TO
Centre Street 380 m North of Fulton Street 125 m south of Fulton Street
Centre Street Vienna Line Pearl Street
Vienna Line Centre Street 210 m west of Centre Street
Pearl Street Centre Street Front Street
Fulton Street Centre Street Elm Street
Union Street 75 m south of Fulton Street 125 north of Fulton Street
Union Street Chestnut Street 70 m south of Chestnut
Street
Pine Street Fulton Street 160 m south Fulton Street
Snow Street Fulton Street 110 m south of Fulton Street
Elm Street 130 m north of Fulton Street Plank Road
Elm Street Ann Street Chestnut Street
Chestnut
Street
Union Street Elm Street
Oak Street 70 m north of Chestnut Street 110 m south of Ann Street
Oak Street 90 m south of Fulton Street Plank Road
Queen Street Oak Street Edison Drive
Edison Drive Queen Street Plank Road
Ann Street Elm Street Edison Drive
Ann Street 80 m east of Union Street Oak Street
Plank Road North Village Limit Otter Street
Otter Street Front Street 50 m northwest of Front
Street
Front Street Otter Street Pumping Station on Front
Street
Water Street King Street Pumping Station on Front
Street
King Street Water Street 30 m west of North Street
Plank Road King Street Chapel Street
Chapel Street Plank Road 120 m northeast of North
Street
Walnut Street Chapel Street North Street
North Street Walnut Street 100 m north of Walnut Street
Plank Road Sanitary Sewer Extension
Extending the existing 200 mm diameter sanitary sewer along Plank Road by
126 m starting from the existing approximately 270 m north of Eden Line to
approximately 396 m north of Eden Line.
Sanitary Sewage Pumping Stations
Hamlet of Eden - Main Sewage Pumping Station
Main sewage pumping station located on the west side of Plank Road and
approximately 340 metres southwest of Eden Line, designed to handle a
Peak Flow Rate of 7.0 litres per second equipped with two (2) sewage
submersible pumps (duty and standby), an emergency overflow from the
pumping station to the municipal drain, standby power generator, sewage
flow meter and associated pipe work, electrical, instrumentation and controls,
and, a 100 millimetres diameter forcemain discharging to a sanitary sewer
manhole at Straffordville Town Limits.
Hamlet of Straffordvile - Sewage Pumping Stations
Pumping Station No. 1 (No. 2 on Sanitary Sewer Drawings)
Located on the east side of Plank Road and approximately 45 metres north of
First Street, designed to handle a Peak Flow Rate of 22.5 litres per second,
equipped with two (2) sewage pumps (duty and standby), emergency
overflow from the pumping station to an existing municipal drain, standby
power generator, sewage flow meter, associated pipe work, electrical,
instrumentation and controls, and, 150 millimetres diameter forcemain
discharging to sanitary sewer on Plank Road;
Pumping Station No. 2 (No. 3 on Sanitary Sewer Drawings)
Located on the east side of Garner Road at the intersection of Garner Road
and Wardwalk Line, designed to handle a Peak Flow Rate of 1.7 litres per
second, equipped with two (2) sewage pumps (duty and standby), additional
wet well storage to compensate for power or station failure, provision to
connect a portable type power generator, sewage flow meter and associated
pipe work, electrical, instrumentation and controls, and, 50 millimetres
diameter forcemain discharging to sanitary sewer on Heritage Line;
Pumping Station No. 3 (No. 4 on Sanitary Sewer Drawings)
Located on the north side of Heritage Line E., approximately 200 metres west
of the intersection of Heritage Line E. and Tollgate Road, designed to handle
a Peak Flow Rate of 1.95 litres per second, equipped with two (2) sewage
pumps (duty and standby), additional wet well capacity to compensate for
power or station failure, provision to connect a portable-type emergency
power generator, sewage flow meter and associated pipe work, electrical,
instrumentation and controls, and, 50 millimetres diameter forcemain
discharging to the sanitary sewer at Heritage Line E. and Garner Road;
Pumping Station No. 4 (No. 5 on Sanitary Sewer Drawings)
Located on the west side of Plank Road and approximately 90 metres south
of the intersection of Sandytown Road and Plank Road, designed to handle a
Peak Flow Rate of 34.8 litres per second, equipped with two (2) sewage
pumps (duty and standby), emergency overflow from the pumping station to
an existing municipal storm sewer on Plank Road, standby power generator,
sewage flow meter and associated pipe work, electrical, instrumentation and
controls, and, 200 millimetres diameter forcemain discharging to sanitary
sewer at Vienna Town Limits;
Village of Vienna - Main Sewage Pumping Station
Located on the north side of Front Street and approximately 90 metres
southwest of the intersection of Front Street and Plank Road, designed to
handle a Peak Flow Rate of 45.0 litres per second, equipped with two (2)
sewage pumps (duty and standby), an emergency overflow from the pumping
station to the Big Otter Creek, standby power generator, sewage flow meter
and associated pipe work, electrical, Instrumentation and controls, and, a
forcemain discharging to existing sanitary sewer at Bridge Street.
Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant (Port Burwell WWTP)
An existing WWTP in Port Burwell, located adjacent and east of Chatham Street,
approximately 700 metres south of Wellington Street in the Municipality of Bayham,
with a design average daily flow of 1,060 cubic metres per day, consisting of the
following:
Imported Sewage Receiving Facility
A 5.0 m3 average daily capacity septage receiving station to be located in a 6.1 m by
7.3 m building near the existing sludge holding tank consisting of the following:
Unloading zone with concrete pad and spill containment structure;
4.0 m long 150 mm diameter flexible pipe extension equipped with 150 to 100
mm diameter reducer ;
One (1) rock trap, one (1) pH sensor, one (1) 5 hp grinder, one (1) fine
screen/auger and one (1) screen washer;
One (1) 22 m 3 precast concrete septage holding tank equipped with
activated charcoal odour control filter and vent, a level monitor and alarm, 1.7
kW mixer, a flow meter, and a controlled 5 L/sec capacity septage transfer
pump discharging through a 100 mm diameter forcemain to the inlet works of
the sewage treatment plant and/or to an existing sludge holding tank;
Influent Works
One (1) raw sewage pumping station with four (4) submersible sewage
pumps, including pumps No. 1 and No. 2 each rated at 8.2 litres per second
at a Total Dynamic Head (TDH) of 9.0 metres, pump No. 3 rated at 20.5 litres
per second at 7.5 metres TDH, and pump No. 4 rated at 24.0 litres per
second at 9.3 metres TDH;
One (1) mechanical grinder rated at 3,800 cubic metres per day, one (1)
manual bar screen, and one (1) mechanical auger rated at 3,800 cubic
metres per day;
One (1) vortex grit separator rated at 3,800 cubic metres per day;
One (1) grit classifier;
Influent Flow Equalization
One (1) flow equalization tank equipped with two (2) SBR influent transfer
pumps each rates at 2,269 cubic metres per day and one (1) mixing pump
rated at 3,860 cubic metres per day;
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR)
Two (2) SBR treatment units, with process unit No. 1 rated at 610 cubic
metres per day and process unit No. 2 rated at 450 cubic metres per day,
including sewage distribution, sludge collection, and decanting systems;
Two (2) sewage pumps, each rated at 7,990 cubic metres per day;
Three (3) aeration blowers, each rated at 8.8 cubic metres per minute;
Effluent Disinfection and Flow Measurement
An ultraviolet (UV) radiation system with two (2) banks of lamps, including 10
low pressure, high intensity UV lamps per bank;
A Parshall flume for flow measurement;
Phosphorus Removal System
One (1) chemical storage tank having a capacity of 1.8 cubic metres;
Two (2) chemical metering pumps, each capable of automatically dosing
liquid alum at 1,890 litres per day at 1.4 bar;
Sludge Treatment and Storage
One (1) primary digester tank with dimensions of 4.5 metres long by 4.6
metres wide by 4.0 metres sidewater depth, equipped with a diffused aeration
system and sludge mixer;
One (1) secondary digester tank with dimensions of 4.5 metres long by 2.5
metres wide by 4.0 metres sidewater depth, equipped with a diffused aeration
system and sludge mixer and decant system;
One (1) biosolids transfer tank with dimensions of 4.5 metres long by 5.5
metres wide by 4.0 metres sidewater depth, equipped with two (2) sludge
transfer and loading pumps;
Four (4) aerated sludge holding tanks, each with dimensions of 6.5 metres
long by 6.7 metres wide by 4.0 metres sidewater depth, equipped with
sludge mixers;
Odour Control System Using Bioxide Injection at Pumping Stations
Injection of Bioxide solution at five (5) pumping stations within the Bayham Sewage
Collection System to reduce the formation of odour causing hydrogen sulfide consisting
of the following:
One (1) 1000 L capacity bioxide storage tank located at Pumping Station No.
1, Eden, equipped with one (1) 1.89 L/hr capacity single diaphragm pump
injecting a bioxide solution (maximum of 200 mg/L concentration) into the
pumping station;
One (1) 1000 L capacity bioxide storage tank located at Pumping Station No.
3, Straffordville, equipped with one (1) 1.89 L/hr capacity single diaphragm
pump injecting a bioxide solution (maximum of 200 mg/L concentration) into
the pumping station;
One (1) 1000 L capacity bioxide storage tank located at Pumping Station No.
4, Straffordville, equipped with one (1) 1.89 L/hr capacity single diaphragm
pump injecting a bioxide solution (maximum of 200 mg/L concentration) into
the pumping station;
One (1) 1000 L capacity bioxide storage tank located at Pumping Station No.
5, Straffordville, equipped with one (1) 1.89 L/hr capacity single diaphragm
pump injecting a bioxide solution (maximum of 200 mg/L concentration) into
the pumping station;
One (1) 1000 L capacity bioxide storage tank located at Pumping Station No.
6, Vienna, equipped with one (1) 1.89 L/hr capacity single diaphragm pump
injecting a bioxide solution (maximum of 200 mg/L concentration) into the
pumping station;
Effluent Exfiltration Gallery
One (1) exfiltration discharge gallery consisting of a series of buried
perforated pipe sections, located on beach land surrounding the mouth of
Port Burwell Harbour, designed to retain effluent discharge from the SBR-
based treatment system and allowing it to percolate into the native sand and
mix with the subsurface water to Lake Erie;
Effluent Collection Drains
Collection drains located on the north, east, and south sides of the existing
exfiltration gallery, discharging collected effluent to the existing sanitary
manhole on the effluent sewer from the WWTP, including:
- Five (5) 150 millimetres diameter Big "O" pipes on the north and east sides and two
(2) 150 millimetres diameter Big "O" pipes on the south side, with the invert of the pipes
to be at the depth of the clear stone bed under the half-pipes in the existing exfiltration
gallery;
- One (1) 1.5 metres by 2.4 metres by 2.8 metres Junction Chamber to collect
drainage flow from the Big "O" pipes and to discharge to MH79 through one (1) 300
millimetres diameter drainage outlet pipe;
Gravity Effluent Outfall
One (1) 19.5 m long 300 mm diameter gravity effluent outfall extending from
the existing effluent sanitary manhole MH80 located upstream of the existing
effluent pumping station to an existing sea wall, having an outlet invert
elevation of 174.15 m MASL, equipped with a rubber check valve and a 300
mm diameter gate valve, discharging to the Big Otter Creek.
Effluent Pumping Station
One (1) 375 millimetres diameter gravity outfall sewer leading to the effluent
pumping station;
Effluent pumping station including one (1) 21.6 L/s @ 4.5 m TDH capacity
submersible pump and one (1) 1.65 kilowatts effluent pump rated at 1,900 m
3 /d @ 3.0 m TDH, discharging effluent via a 100 millimetres diameter
forcemain to Big Otter Creek;
including all other mechanical system, electrical system, instrumentation and control
system, standby power system, piping, pumps, valves and appurtenances essential for
the proper, safe and reliable operation of the Works in accordance with this Approval, in
the context of process performance and general principles of wastewater engineering
only;
all in accordance with the submitted supporting documents listed in Schedule A.
For the purpose of this environmental compliance approval, the following definitions
apply:
1. "Annual Average Effluent Concentration" is the mean of all Single Sample Results of
the concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during a
calendar year, calculated and reported as per the methodology specified in Schedule F;
2. "Annual Average Daily Effluent Flow" means the cumulative total Final Effluent
discharged during a calendar year divided by the number of days during which Final
Effluent was discharged that year;
3. "Annual Average Daily Effluent Loading" means the value obtained by multiplying the
Annual Average Effluent Concentration of a contaminant by the Annual Average Daily
Effluent Flow over the same calendar year;
4. "Annual Average Daily Influent Flow" means the cumulative total sewage flow of
Influent to the Sewage Treatment Plant during a calendar year divided by the number
of days during which sewage was flowing to the Sewage Treatment Plant that year;
5. "Approval" means this environmental compliance approval and any schedules
attached to it, and the application;
6. "BOD5" (also known as TBOD5) means five day biochemical oxygen demand
measured in an unfiltered sample and includes carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen
demands;
7. "Bypass" means diversion of sewage around one or more treatment processes,
excluding Preliminary Treatment System, within the Sewage Treatment Plant with the
diverted sewage flows being returned to the Sewage Treatment Plant treatment train
upstream of the Final Effluent sampling point(s) and discharged via the approved
effluent disposal facilities;
8. "CBOD5" means five day carbonaceous (nitrification inhibited) biochemical oxygen
demand measured in an unfiltered sample;
9. "Director" means a person appointed by the Minister pursuant to section 5 of the EPA
for the purposes of Part II.1 of the EPA;
10. "District Manager" means the District Manager of the appropriate local district office
of the Ministry where the Works is geographically located;
11. "E. coli" refers to the thermally tolerant forms of Escherichia that can survive at 44.5
degrees Celsius;
12. "EPA" means the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended;
13. "Equivalent Equipment" means alternate piece(s) of equipment that meets the
design requirements and performance specifications of the piece(s) of equipment to be
substituted;
14. "Event" means an action or occurrence, at a given location within the Works that
causes a Bypass or Overflow. An Event ends when there is no recurrence of Bypass
or Overflow in the 12-hour period following the last Bypass or Overflow. Overflows and
Bypasses are separate Events even when they occur concurrently;
15. “Existing Works” means those portions of the Works included in the Approval that
have been constructed previously;
16. "Final Effluent" means effluent that is discharged to the environment through the
approved effluent disposal facilities, including all Bypasses, that are required to meet
the compliance limits stipulated in the Approval for the Sewage Treatment Plant at the
Final Effluent sampling point(s);
17. "Imported Sewage" means sewage hauled to the Sewage Treatment Plant by
licensed waste management system operators of the types and quantities approved for
co-treatment in the Sewage Treatment Plant, including hauled sewage and leachate
within the meaning of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 347: General – Waste Management, as
amended;
18. "Influent" means flows to the Sewage Treatment Plant from the collection system
and Imported Sewage but excluding process return flows ;
19. "Limited Operational Flexibility” (LOF) means the conditions that the Owner shall
follow in order to undertake any modification that is pre-authorized as part of this
Approval;
20. "Ministry" means the ministry of the government of Ontario responsible for the EPA
and OWRA and includes all officials, employees or other persons acting on its behalf;
21. "Monthly Average Effluent Concentration" is the mean of all Single Sample Results
of the concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during
a calendar month, calculated and reported as per the methodology specified in
Schedule F;
22. "Monthly Average Daily Effluent Flow" means the cumulative total Final Effluent
discharged during a calendar month divided by the number of days during which Final
Effluent was discharged that month;
23. "Monthly Average Daily Effluent Loading" means the value obtained by multiplying
the Monthly Average Effluent Concentration of a contaminant by the Monthly Average
Daily Effluent Flow over the same calendar month;
24. "Monthly Geometric Mean Density" is the mean of all Single Sample Results of
E.coli measurement in the samples taken during a calendar month, calculated and
reported as per the methodology specified in Schedule F;
25. “Normal Operating Condition” means the condition when all unit process(es),
excluding Preliminary Treatment System, in a treatment train is operating within its
design capacity;
26. “Operating Agency” means the Owner or the entity that is authorized by the Owner
for the management, operation, maintenance, or alteration of the Works in accordance
with this Approval;
27. "Overflow" means a discharge to the environment from the Works at designed
location(s) other than the approved effluent disposal facilities or via the effluent disposal
facilities downstream of the Final Effluent sampling point;
28. "Owner" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and its successors
and assignees;
29. "OWRA" means the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as
amended;
30. “Preliminary Treatment System” means all facilities in the Sewage Treatment Plant
associated with screening and grit removal;
31. “Primary Treatment System” means all facilities in the Sewage Treatment Plant
associated with the primary sedimentation unit process and includes chemically
enhanced primary treatment;
32. "Proposed Works" means those portions of the Works included in the Approval that
are under construction or to be constructed;
33. "Rated Capacity" means the Annual Average Daily Influent Flow for which the
Sewage Treatment Plant is designed to handle;
34. "Sanitary Sewers" means pipes that collect and convey wastewater from residential,
commercial, institutional and industrial buildings, and some infiltration and inflow from
extraneous sources such as groundwater and surface runoff through means other than
stormwater catch basins;
35. “Secondary Effluent” means the effluent from the Secondary Treatment System that
are required to meet the compliance limits stipulated in the Approval for the Sewage
Treatment Plant at the Secondary Treatment Effluent sampling point;
36. “Secondary Treatment System” means all facilities in the Sewage Treatment Plant
associated with biological treatment, secondary sedimentation and phosphorus removal
unit processes;
37. “Separate Sewer Systems" means wastewater collection systems that comprised of
Sanitary Sewers while runoff from precipitation and snowmelt are separately collected
in Storm Sewers;
38. “Sewage Treatment Plant" means all the facilities related to sewage treatment within
the sewage treatment plant site excluding the Final Effluent disposal facilities;
39. “Single Sample Result" means the test result of a parameter in the effluent
discharged on any day, as measured by a probe, analyzer or in a composite or grab
sample, as required;
40. "Storm Sewers" means pipes that collect and convey runoff resulting from
precipitation and snowmelt (including infiltration and inflow);
41. "Works" means the approved sewage works, and includes Proposed Works,
Existing Works and modifications made under Limited Operational Flexibility.
You are hereby notified that this environmental compliance approval is issued to you
subject to the terms and conditions outlined below:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
2. The Owner shall ensure that any person authorized to carry out work on or operate
any aspect of the Works is notified of this Approval and the terms and conditions herein
and shall take all reasonable measures to ensure any such person complies with the
same.
3. The Owner shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Works in accordance
with the conditions of this Approval.
4. Where there is a conflict between a provision of any document referred to in this
Approval and the conditions of this Approval, the conditions in this Approval shall take
precedence.
5. CHANGE OF OWNER AND OPERATING AGENCY
6. The Owner shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of issuance of this Approval,
prepare/update and submit to the District Manager the Municipal and Local Services
Board Wastewater System Profile Information Form, as amended (Schedule G) under
any of the following situations:
the form has not been previously submitted for the Works;a.
this Approval is issued for extension, re-rating or process treatment upgrade of the
Works;
b.
when a notification is provided to the District Manager in compliance with
requirements of change of Owner or Operating Agency under this condition.
c.
7. The Owner shall notify the District Manager and the Director, in writing, of any of the
following changes within thirty (30) days of the change occurring:
change of address of Owner;a.
change of Owner, including address of new owner;b.
change of partners where the Owner is or at any time becomes a partnership, and
a copy of the most recent declaration filed under the Business Names Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. B.17, as amended, shall be included in the notification;
c.
change of name of the corporation where the Owner is or at any time becomes a
corporation, and a copy of the most current information filed under the
Corporations Information Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.39, as amended, shall be
included in the notification.
d.
8. The Owner shall notify the District Manager, in writing, of any of the following
changes within thirty (30) days of the change occurring:
change of address of Operating Agency;a.
change of Operating Agency, including address of new Operating Agency.b.
9. In the event of any change in ownership of the Works, the Owner shall notify the
succeeding owner in writing, of the existence of this Approval, and forward a copy of
the notice to the District Manager.
10. The Owner shall ensure that all communications made pursuant to this condition
refer to the environmental compliance approval number.
11. CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED WORKS / RECORD DRAWINGS
12. All Proposed Works in this Approval shall be constructed and installed and must
commence operation within five (5) years of issuance of this Approval, after which time
the Approval ceases to apply in respect of any portions of the Works not in operation. In
the event that the construction, installation and/or operation of any portion of the
Proposed Works is anticipated to be delayed beyond the time period stipulated, the
Owner shall submit to the Director an application to amend the Approval to extend this
time period, at least six (6) months prior to the end of the period. The amendment
application shall include the reason(s) for the delay and whether there is any design
change(s).
13. Within thirty (30) days of commencement of construction, the Owner shall prepare
and submit to the District Manager a schedule for the completion of construction and
commissioning operation of the Proposed Works. The Owner shall notify the District
Manager within thirty (30) days of the commissioning operation of any Proposed Works.
Upon completion of construction of the Proposed Works, the Owner shall prepare and
submit a statement to the District Manager, certified by a Professional Engineer, that
the Proposed Works is constructed in accordance with this Approval.
14. Within one (1) year of completion of construction of the Proposed Works, a set of
record drawings of the Works shall be prepared or updated. These drawings shall be
kept up to date through revisions undertaken from time to time and a copy shall be
readily accessible for reference at the Works.
15. BYPASSES
16. Any Bypass is prohibited, except:
an emergency Bypass when a structural, mechanical or electrical failure causes a
temporary reduction in the capacity of a treatment process or when an unforeseen
flow condition exceeds the design capacity of a treatment process that is likely to
result in personal injury, loss of life, health hazard, basement flooding, severe
property damage, equipment damage or treatment process upset, if a portion of
the flow is not bypassed;
a.
a planned Bypass that is a direct and unavoidable result of a planned repair and
maintenance procedure or other circumstance(s), the Owner having notified the
District Manager in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the occurrence of
Bypass, including an estimated quantity and duration of the Bypass, an
assessment of the impact on the quality of the Final Effluent and the mitigation
b.
measures if necessary, and the District Manager has given written consent of the
Bypass;
17. Notwithstanding the exceptions given in Paragraph 1, the Operating Agency shall
undertake everything practicable to maximize the flow through the downstream
treatment process(es) prior to bypassing.
18. At the beginning of a Bypass Event, the Owner shall immediately notify the Spills
Action Centre (SAC) and the local Medical Officer of Health. This notice shall include,
at a minimum, the following information:
the type of the Bypass as indicated in Paragraph 1 and the reason(s) for the
Bypass;
a.
the date and time of the beginning of the Bypass;b.
the treatment process(es) gone through prior to the Bypass and the treatment
process(es) bypassed;
c.
the effort(s) done to maximize the flow through the downstream treatment
process(es) and the reason(s) why the Bypass was not avoided.
d.
19. Upon confirmation of the end of a Bypass Event, the Owner shall immediately notify
the Spills Action Centre (SAC) and the local Medical Officer of Health. This notice shall
include, at a minimum, the following information:
the date and time of the end of the Bypass;a.
the estimated or measured volume of Bypass.b.
20. For any Bypass Event, the Owner shall collect daily sample(s) of the Final Effluent,
inclusive of the Event and analyze for all effluent parameters outlined in Compliance
Limits condition, except for E. coli , toxicity to Rainbow Trout and Daphnia magna, total
residual chlorine / bisulphite residual, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and unionized
ammonia, following the same protocol specified in the Monitoring and Recording
condition as for the regular samples. The sample(s) shall be in addition to the regular
Final Effluent samples required under the monitoring and recording condition, except
when the Event occurs on a scheduled monitoring day.
21. The Owner shall submit a summary report of the Bypass Event(s) to the District
Manager on a quarterly basis, no later than each of the following dates for each
calendar year: February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15. The summary
reports shall contain, at a minimum, the types of information set out in Paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5) and either a statement of compliance or a summary of the non-compliance
notifications submitted as required under Paragraph 1 of Condition 11. If there is no
Bypass Event during a quarter, a statement of no occurrence of Bypass is deemed
sufficient.
22. The Owner shall develop a notification procedure in consultation with the District
Manager and SAC and notify the public and downstream water users that may be
adversely impacted by any Bypass Event.
23. OVERFLOWS
24. Any Overflow is prohibited, except:
an emergency Overflow in an emergency situation when a structural, mechanical
or electrical failure causes a temporary reduction in the capacity of the Works or
when an unforeseen flow condition exceeds the design capacity of the Works that
is likely to result in personal injury, loss of life, health hazard, basement flooding,
severe property damage, equipment damage or treatment process upset, if a
portion of the flow is not overflowed;
a.
a planned Overflow that is a direct and unavoidable result of a planned repair and
maintenance procedure or other circumstance(s), the Owner having notified the
District Manager in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the occurrence of
Overflow, including an estimated quantity and duration of the Overflow, an
assessment of the impact on the environment and the mitigation measures if
necessary, and the District Manager has given written consent of the Overflow;
b.
25. Notwithstanding the exceptions given in Paragraph 1, the Operating Agency shall
undertake everything practicable to maximize the flow through the downstream
treatment process(es) and Bypass(es) prior to overflowing.
26. At the beginning of an Overflow Event, the Owner shall immediately notify the Spills
Action Centre (SAC) and the local Medical Officer of Health. This notice shall include,
at a minimum, the following information:
the type of the Overflow as indicated in Paragraph 1 and the reason(s) for the
Overflow;
a.
the date and time of the beginning of the Overflow;b.
the point of the Overflow from the Works, the treatment process(es) gone through
prior to the Overflow, the disinfection status of the Overflow and whether the
Overflow is discharged through the effluent disposal facilities or an alternate
location;
c.
the effort(s) done to maximize the flow through the downstream treatment
process(es) and Bypass(es) and the reason(s) why the Overflow was not avoided.
d.
27. Upon confirmation of the end of an Overflow Event, the Owner shall immediately
notify the Spills Action Centre (SAC) and the local Medical Officer of Health. This notice
shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
the date and time of the end of the Overflow;a.
the estimated or measured volume of the Overflow.b.
28. For any Overflow Event
in the Sewage Treatment Plant, the Owner shall collect grab sample(s) of the
Overflow, one near the beginning of the Event and one every eight (8) hours for
the duration of the Event, and have them analyzed at least for CBOD5, total
suspended solids, total phosphorus, total ammonia nitrogen, nitrate as N, nitrite as
N, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, E. coli., except that raw sewage and primary treated
effluent Overflow shall be analyzed for BOD5, total suspended solids, total
phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen only.
a.
at a sewage pumping station in the collection system, the Owner shall collect at
least one (1) grab sample representative of the Overflow Event and have it
analyzed for BOD5, total suspended solids, total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl
nitrogen.
b.
29. The Owner shall submit a summary report of the Overflow Event(s) to the District
Manager on a quarterly basis, no later than each of the following dates for each
calendar year: February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15. The summary
report shall contain, at a minimum, the types of information set out in Paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5). If there is no Overflow Event during a quarter, a statement of no occurrence
of Overflow is deemed sufficient.
30. The Owner shall develop a notification procedure in consultation with the District
Manager and SAC and notify the public and downstream water users that may be
adversely impacted by any Overflow Event.
31. DESIGN OBJECTIVES
32. The Owner shall design and undertake everything practicable to operate the
Sewage Treatment Plant in accordance with the following objectives:
Final Effluent parameters design objectives listed in the table(s) included in
Schedule B.
a.
Final Effluent is essentially free of floating and settleable solids and does not
contain oil or any other substance in amounts sufficient to create a visible film or
sheen or foam or discolouration on the receiving waters.
b.
Annual Average Daily Influent Flow is within the Rated Capacity of the Sewage
Treatment Plant.
c.
33.
34. COMPLIANCE LIMITS
1. The Owner shall operate and maintain the Sewage Treatment Plant such that
compliance limits for the Final Effluent parameters listed in the table(s) included in
Schedule C are met.
35.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. The Owner shall ensure that, at all times, the Works and the related equipment and
appurtenances used to achieve compliance with this Approval are properly operated
and maintained. Proper operation and maintenance shall include effective performance,
adequate funding, adequate staffing and training, including training in all procedures
and other requirements of this Approval and the OWRA and regulations, adequate
laboratory facilities, process controls and alarms and the use of process chemicals and
other substances used in the Works.
2. The Owner shall update and maintain the operations manual for the Works within six
(6) months of completion of construction of the Proposed Works, that includes, but not
necessarily limited to, the following information:
operating procedures for the Works under Normal Operating Conditions;a.
inspection programs, including frequency of inspection, for the Works and the
methods or tests employed to detect when maintenance is necessary;
b.
repair and maintenance programs, including the frequency of repair and
maintenance for the Works;
c.
procedures for the inspection and calibration of monitoring equipment;d.
operating procedures for the Works to handle situations outside Normal Operating
Conditions and emergency situations such as a structural, mechanical or electrical
failure, or an unforeseen flow condition, including procedures to minimize
Bypasses and Overflows;
e.
a spill prevention and contingency plan, consisting of procedures and contingency
plans, including notification to the District Manager, to reduce the risk of spills of
pollutants and prevent, eliminate or ameliorate any adverse effects that result or
f.
may result from spills of pollutants;
procedures for receiving, responding and recording public complaints, including
recording any followup actions taken.
g.
3. The Owner shall maintain the operations manual up-to-date and make the manual
readily accessible for reference at the Works.
4. The Owner shall ensure that the Operating Agency fulfills the requirements under O.
Reg. 129/04, as amended for the Works, including the classification of facilities,
licensing of operators and operating standards.
36. MONITORING AND RECORDING
37. The Owner shall, upon commencement of operation of the Works, carry out a
scheduled monitoring program of collecting samples at the required sampling points, at
the frequency specified or higher, by means of the specified sample type and analyzed
for each parameter listed in the tables under the monitoring program included in
Schedule D and record all results, as follows:
all samples and measurements are to be taken at a time and in a location
characteristic of the quality and quantity of the sewage stream over the time period
being monitored.
a.
a schedule of the day of the week/month for the scheduled sampling shall be
created. The sampling schedule shall be revised and updated every year through
rotation of the day of the week/month for the scheduled sampling program, except
when the actual scheduled monitoring frequency is three (3) or more times per
week.
b.
definitions and preparation requirements for each sample type are included in
document referenced in Paragraph 3.b.
c.
definitions for frequency:
Daily means once every day;i.
Weekly means once every week;ii.
Monthly means once every month;iii.
Quarterly means once every three months; andiv.
Annually means once every year;v.
d.
38. In addition to the scheduled monitoring program required in Paragraph 1, the Owner
shall collect daily sample(s) of the Final Effluent, on any day when there is any situation
outside Normal Operating Conditions, by means of the specified sample type and
analyzed for each parameter listed in the tables under the monitoring program included
in Schedule D, except for E. coli , toxicity to Rainbow Trout and Daphnia magna, total
residual chlorine / bisulphite residual, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and unionized
ammonia.
39. The methods and protocols for sampling, analysis and recording shall conform, in
order of precedence, to the methods and protocols specified in the following documents
and all analysis shall be conducted by a laboratory accredited to the ISO/IEC:17025
standard or as directed by the District Manager:
the Ministry's Procedure F-10-1, “Procedures for Sampling and Analysis
Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works (Liquid Waste
Streams Only), as amended;
a.
the Ministry's publication "Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of
Industrial/Municipal Wastewater Version 2.0" (January 2016), PIBS 2724e02, as
amended;
b.
the publication "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",
as amended.
c.
40. The Owner shall monitor and record the flow rate and daily quantity using flow
measuring devices or other methods of measurement as approved below calibrated to
an accuracy within plus or minus 15 per cent (+/- 15%) of the actual flowrate of the
following:
final Effluent discharged from the Sewage Treatment Plant by continuous flow
measuring devices and instrumentations located downstream UV disinfection
system;
a.
septage received for co-treatment at the Sewage Treatment Plant by flow
measuring devices;
b.
41. The Owner shall retain for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of their
creation, all records and information related to or resulting from the monitoring activities
required by this Approval.
42.
LIMITED OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
1. The Owner may make pre-authorized modifications to the sewage pumping stations
and Sewage Treatment Plant in Works in accordance with the document “Limited
Operational Flexibility - Protocol for Pre-Authorized Modifications to Municipal Sewage
Works” (Schedule E), as amended, subject to the following:
the modifications will not involve the addition of any new treatment process or the
removal of an existing treatment process, including chemical systems, from the
liquid or solids treatment trains as originally designed and approved.
a.
the scope and technical aspects of the modifications are in line with those
delineated in Schedule E and conform with the Ministry’s publication “Design
Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008”, as amended, Ministry’s regulations, policies,
guidelines, and industry engineering standards;
b.
the modifications shall not negatively impact on the performance of any process or
equipment in the Works or result in deterioration in the Final Effluent quality;
c.
where the pre-authorized modification requires notification, a "Notice of
Modifications to Sewage Works" (Schedule E), as amended shall be completed
with declarations from a Professional Engineer and the Owner and retained on-
site prior to the scheduled implementation date. All supporting information
including technical memorandum, engineering plans and specifications, as
applicable and appropriate to support the declarations that the modifications
conform with LOF shall remain on-site for future inspection.
d.
2. The following modifications are not pre-authorized under Limited Operational
Flexibility:
Modifications that involve addition or extension of process structures, tankages or
channels;
a.
Modifications that involves relocation of the Final Effluent outfall or any other
discharge location or that may require reassessment of the impact to the receiver
or environment;
b.
Modifications that involves addition of or change in technology of a treatment
process or that may involve reassessment of the treatment train process design;
c.
Modifications that requires changes to be made to the emergency response, spill
prevention and contingency plan; or
d.
Modifications that are required pursuant to an order issued by the Ministry.e.
43. REPORTING
1. The Owner shall report to the District Manager orally as soon as possible any non-
compliance with the compliance limits, and in writing within seven (7) days of non-
compliance.
2. The Owner shall, within fifteen (15) days of occurrence of a spill within the meaning
of Part X of the EPA, submit a full written report of the occurrence to the District
Manager describing the cause and discovery of the spill, clean-up and recovery
measures taken, preventative measures to be taken and schedule of implementation, in
addition to fulfilling the requirements under the EPA and O. Reg. 675/98 "Classification
and Exemption of Spills and Reporting of Discharges".
3. The Owner shall prepare performance reports on a calendar year basis and submit to
the District Manager by March 31 of the calendar year following the period being
reported upon. The reports shall contain, but shall not be limited to, the following
information pertaining to the reporting period:
a summary and interpretation of all Influent and Imported Sewage monitoring data,
and a review of the historical trend of the sewage characteristics and flow rates;
a.
a summary and interpretation of all Final Effluent monitoring data, including
concentration, flow rates, loading and a comparison to the design objectives and
compliance limits in this Approval, including an overview of the success and
adequacy of the Works;
b.
a summary of any deviation from the monitoring schedule and reasons for the
current reporting year and a schedule for the next reporting year;
c.
a summary of all operating issues encountered and corrective actions taken;d.
a summary of all normal and emergency repairs and maintenance activities
carried out on any major structure, equipment, apparatus or mechanism forming
part of the Works;
e.
a summary of any effluent quality assurance or control measures undertaken;f.
a summary of the calibration and maintenance carried out on all Influent, Imported
Sewage and Final Effluent monitoring equipment to ensure that the accuracy is
within the tolerance of that equipment as required in this Approval or
recommended by the manufacturer;
g.
a summary of efforts made to achieve the design objectives in this Approval,
including an assessment of the issues and recommendations for pro-active
actions if any are required under the following situations:
when any of the design objectives is not achieved more than 50% of the time
in a year, or there is an increasing trend in deterioration of Final Effluent
quality;
i.
when the Annual Average Daily Influent Flow reaches 80% of the Rated
Capacity;
ii.
h.
a tabulation of the volume of sludge generated, an outline of anticipated volumes
to be generated in the next reporting period and a summary of the locations to
where the sludge was disposed;
i.
a summary of any complaints received and any steps taken to address the j.
complaints;
a summary of all Bypasses, Overflows, other situations outside Normal Operating
Conditions and spills within the meaning of Part X of EPA and abnormal discharge
events;
k.
a summary of all Notice of Modifications to Sewage Works completed under
Paragraph 1.d. of Condition 10, including a report on status of implementation of
all modification.
l.
a summary of efforts made to achieve conformance with Procedure F-5-1
including but not limited to projects undertaken and completed in the sanitary
sewer system that result in overall Bypass/Overflow elimination including
expenditures and proposed projects to eliminate Bypass/Overflows with estimated
budget forecast for the year following that for which the report is submitted.
m.
any changes or updates to the schedule for the completion of construction and
commissioning operation of major process(es) / equipment groups in the
Proposed Works.
n.
The reasons for the imposition of these terms and conditions are as follows:
1. Condition 1 regarding general provisions is imposed to ensure that the Works are
constructed and operated in the manner in which they were described and upon which
approval was granted.
2. Condition 2 regarding change of Owner and Operating Agency is included to ensure
that the Ministry records are kept accurate and current with respect to ownership and
Operating Agency of the Works and to ensure that subsequent owners of the Works
are made aware of the Approval and continue to operate the Works in compliance with
it.
3. Condition 3 regarding construction of Proposed Works/record drawings is included to
ensure that the Works are constructed in a timely manner so that standards applicable
at the time of Approval of the Works are still applicable at the time of construction to
ensure the ongoing protection of the environment, and also ensure that the Works are
constructed in accordance with the Approval and that record drawings of the Works "as
constructed" are updated and maintained for future references.
4. Condition 4 regarding Bypasses is included to indicate that Bypass is prohibited,
except in circumstances where the failure to Bypass could result in greater damage to
the environment than the Bypass itself. The notification and documentation
requirements allow the Ministry to take action in an informed manner and will ensure
the Owner is aware of the extent and frequency of Bypass Events.
5. Condition 5 regarding Overflows is included to indicate that Overflow of untreated or
partially treated sewage to the receiver is prohibited, except in circumstances where the
failure to Overflow could result in greater damage to the environment than the Overflow
itself. The notification and documentation requirements allow the Ministry to take action
in an informed manner and will ensure the Owner is aware of the extent and frequency
of Overflow Events.
6. Condition 6 regarding design objectives is imposed to establish non-enforceable
design objectives to be used as a mechanism to trigger corrective action proactively
and voluntarily before environmental impairment occurs.
7. Condition 7 regarding compliance limits is imposed to ensure that the Final Effluent
discharged from the Works to the environment meets the Ministry's effluent quality
requirements.
8. Condition 8 regarding operation and maintenance is included to require that the
Works be properly operated, maintained, funded, staffed and equipped such that the
environment is protected and deterioration, loss, injury or damage to any person or
property is prevented. As well, the inclusion of a comprehensive operations manual
governing all significant areas of operation, maintenance and repair is prepared,
implemented and kept up-to-date by the Owner. Such a manual is an integral part of
the operation of the Works. Its compilation and use should assist the Owner in staff
training, in proper plant operation and in identifying and planning for contingencies
during possible abnormal conditions. The manual will also act as a benchmark for
Ministry staff when reviewing the Owner's operation of the Works.
9. Condition 9 regarding monitoring and recording is included to enable the Owner to
evaluate and demonstrate the performance of the Works, on a continual basis, so that
the Works are properly operated and maintained at a level which is consistent with the
design objectives and compliance limits.
10. Condition 10 regarding Limited Operational Flexibility is included to ensure that the
Works are constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Approval, and
that any pre-approved modification will not negatively impact on the performance of the
Works.
11. Condition 11 regarding reporting is included to provide a performance record for
future references, to ensure that the Ministry is made aware of problems as they arise,
and to provide a compliance record for this Approval.
Schedule A
1. "Addendum to ESR's for Eden, Straffordville and Vienna Sewage and Water Works",
dated June 1999, and "Port Burwell Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion - Design
Brief", dated July 1999, prepared by Acres & Associated Environmental Limited, and
subsequent information submitted by Cyril J. Demeyere Limited.
2. "Exfiltration Gallery Assessment, Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion, Bayham, Ontario" prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., dated June 2002;
and
3. Design Summary and contract drawings, dated November 15, 2002 and submitted
for approval on March 26, 2003, by Acres & Associated Environmental Limited.
4. Letter entitled "Exfiltration Gallery Investigation, Port Burwell Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion, Bayham, Ontario", with attachments, by Frank S. Barone of Golder
Associates Ltd. to Geoff Burns of Acres & Associated Environmental Limited, dated
March 20, 2003;
5. Letter dated 21 September 2004 from Cyril J. Demeyere of CJDL to Paul Farrace of
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE);
6. Drawing No. 1 - "Exfiltration Gallery Collection Drains", prepared by CJDL, Project
No. 0441, dated November 2004;
7. Application for Approval of Municipal and Private Sewage Works, dated November 3,
2004 and received November 12, 2004, and cover letter submitted by Cyril J.
Demeyere of Cyril J. Demeyere Limited (CJDL), dated 2 November 2004;
8. Facsimiles dated January 3, 2005 and January 14, 2005 from Cyril J. Demeyere of
CJDL to Andre Schnell of the MOE;
9. Application for Approval of Municipal and Private Sewage Works submitted by the
Municipality of Bayham dated October 27, 2008 and design specifications and drawings
prepared by Cyril J. Demeyere Limited, Consulting Engineers, Tillsonburg, Ontario.
10. Application for Approval of Municipal and Private Sewage Works submitted by the
Municipality of Bayham dated March 30, 2009 and design specifications and drawings
prepared by Spriet Associates London Limited, London, Ontario.
11. Application for amendment of Enviornmental Compliance Approval submitted by the
Municipality of the Bayham dated June 15, 2017 and design specifications and
drawings dated June 2017 prepared by Ontario Clean Water Agency, Toronto, Ontario.
Schedule B
Final Effluent Design Objectives
Concentration Objectives
Final Effluent
Parameter
Averaging Calculator Objective
(milligrams per litre unless
otherwise indicated)
CBOD5 Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
10.0 mg/L
Total Suspended
Solids
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
10.0 mg/L
Total Phosphorus Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
0.75 mg/L
Total Ammonia
Nitrogen
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
1.0 mg/L (Apr 16 - Nov 30)
3.0 mg/L (Dec 1 - Apr 15)
E. coli Monthly Geometric Mean Density 150 organisms per 100 mL
pH Single Sample Result 6.5 - 8.5 inclusive
Dissolved Oxygen Single Sample Result > 5.0 mg/L
Schedule C
Final Effluent Compliance Limits
Concentration Limits
Final Effluent
Parameter
Averaging Calculator Limit
(maximum unless otherwise
indicated)
CBOD5 Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
15.0 mg/L
Total Suspended
Solids
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
15.0 mg/L
Total Phosphorus Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
1.0 mg/L
Total Ammonia
Nitrogen
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
2.0 mg/L (Apr 16 - Nov 30)
5.0 mg/L (Dec 1 - Apr 15)
Un-Ionized Ammonia Monthly Average Effluent
Concentration
0.10 mg/L
200 organisms per 100 mL
(Apr 15 - Nov 30)
E. coli Monthly Geometric Mean Density
(Dec 1 - April 14 as required)
pH Single Sample Result between 6.0 - 9.5 inclusive
Loading Limits
Final Effluent
Parameter
Averaging Calculator Limit
(maximum unless otherwise
indicated)
CBOD5 Annual Average Daily Effluent
Loading
15.9 kg/d
Total Suspended
Solids
Annual Average Daily Effluent
Loading
15.9 kg/d
Total Phosphorus Annual Average Daily Effluent
Loading
1.06 kg/d
Total Ammonia
Nitrogen
Monthly Average Daily Effluent
Loading
Monthly Average Daily Effluent
Loading
2.16 kg/d (Apr 16 - Nov 30)
5.30 kg/d (Apr 16 - Nov 30)
Un-ionized Ammonia Monthly Average Daily Effluent
Loading
0.106 kg/d
Maximum Effluent Discharge Rates
Period Monthly Daily Effluent Flow
(maximum unless otherwise indicated)
Daily 2,650 m 3 /d
Schedule D
Monitoring Program
Influent - Treatment Plant Inlet Works
Parameters Sample Type Minimum Frequency
BOD5 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Suspended Solids 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Phosphorus 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 8 hour composite Weekly
Imported Sewage - Septage Receiving Station
Parameters Sample Type Minimum Frequency
BOD5 Grab Weekly
Total Suspended Solids Grab Weekly
Total Phosphorus Grab Weekly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Final Effluent
Sampling Point: Treatment Plant Effluent Outfall after UV System and Prior to
Exfiltration Gallery
Parameters Sample Type Minimum Frequency
CBOD5 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Suspended Solids 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Phosphorus 8 hour composite Weekly
Total Ammonia
Nitrogen
8 hour composite Weekly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 8 hour composite Weekly
Nitrate as Nitrogen 8 hour composite Weekly
Nitrite as Nitrogen 8 hour composite Weekly
Alkalinity 8 hour composite Weekly
E. coli Grab Weekly
pH*Grab Weekly
Temperature*Grab Weekly
Un-ionized Ammonia**As Calculated Weekly
Final Effluent - Sampling Point: Outfall Sewer at MH79
Parameters Sample Type Minimum Frequency***
CBOD5 8 hour composite Annually
Total Suspended Solids 8 hour composite Annually
Total Phosphorus 8 hour composite Annually
Total Ammonia
Nitrogen
8 hour composite Annually
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 8 hour composite Annually
Nitrate as Nitrogen 8 hour composite Annually
Nitrite as Nitrogen 8 hour composite Annually
Alkalinity 8 hour composite Annually
E. coli Grab Annually
pH*Grab Annually
Temperature*Grab Annually
Un-ionized Ammonia**As Calculated Annually
* pH and temperature of the Final Effluent shall be determined in the field at the time of sampling
for Total Ammonia Nitrogen.
** The concentration of un-ionized ammonia shall be calculated using the total ammonia
concentration, pH and temperature using the methodology stipulated in "Ontario's Provincial Water
Quality Objectives" dated July 1994, as amended.
***Sampling shall be performed in April or early May of each calendar year.
Schedule E
Limited Operational Flexibility
Protocol for Pre-Authorized Modifications to Municipal
Sewage Works
1. General
2. Pre-authorized modifications are permitted only where Limited Operational Flexibility
has already been granted in the Approval and only permitted to be made at the
pumping stations and sewage treatment plant in the Works, subject to the conditions of
the Approval.
3. Where there is a conflict between the types and scope of pre-authorized
modifications listed in this document, and the Approval where Limited Operational
Flexibility has been granted, the Approval shall take precedence.
4. The Owner shall consult the District Manager on any proposed modifications that
may fall within the scope and intention of the Limited Operational Flexibility but is not
listed explicitly or included as an example in this document.
5. The Owner shall ensure that any pre-authorized modifications will not:
f. adversely affect the hydraulic profile of the Sewage Treatment Plant or the
performance of any upstream or downstream processes, both in terms of hydraulics
and treatment performance;
g. result in new Overflow or Bypass locations, or any potential increase in frequency or
quantity of Overflow(s) or Bypass(es).
h. result in a reduction in the required Peak Flow Rate of the treatment process or
equipment as originally designed.
9. Modifications that do not require pre-authorization:
10. Sewage works that are exempt from Ministry approval requirements;
11. Modifications to the electrical system, instrumentation and control system.
12. Pre-authorized modifications that do not require preparation of “Notice of
Modification to Sewage Works”
13. Normal or emergency maintenance activities, such as repairs, renovations,
refurbishments and replacements with Equivalent Equipment, or other improvements to
an existing approved piece of equipment of a treatment process do not require pre-
authorization. Examples of these activities are:
a. Repairing a piece of equipment and putting it back into operation, including
replacement of minor components such as belts, gear boxes, seals, bearings;
b. Repairing a piece of equipment by replacing a major component of the equipment
such as motor, with the same make and model or another with the same or very close
power rating but the capacity of the pump or blower will still be essentially the same as
originally designed and approved;
c. Replacing the entire piece of equipment with Equivalent Equipment.
14. Improvements to equipment efficiency or treatment process control do not require
pre-authorization. Examples of these activities are:
a. Adding variable frequency drive to pumps;
b. Adding on-line analyzer, dissolved oxygen probe, ORP probe, flow measurement or
other process control device.
15. Pre-Authorized Modifications that require preparation of “Notice of Modification to
Sewage Works”
16. Pumping Stations
q. Replacement, realignment of existing sewers including manholes, valves, gates,
weirs and associated appurtenances provided that the modifications will not add new
influent source(s) or result in an increase in flow from existing sources as originally
approved.
r. Extension or partition of wetwell to increase retention time for emergency response
and improve station maintenance and pump operation;
s. Replacement or installation of inlet screens to the wetwell;
t. Replacement or installation of flowmeters, construction of station bypass;
u. Replacement, reconfiguration or addition of pumps and modifications to pump
suctions and discharge pipings including valve, gates, motors, variable frequency
drives and associated appurtenances to maintain firm pumping capacity or modulate
the pump rate provided that the modifications will not result in a reduction in the firm
pumping capacity or discharge head or an increase in the peak pumping rate of the
pumping station as originally designed;
v. Replacement, realignment of existing forcemain(s) valves, gates, and associated
appurtenances provided that the modifications will not reduce the flow capacity or
increase the total dynamic head and transient in the forcemain.
23. Sewage Treatment Plant
24. Sewers and appurtenances
Replacement, realignment of existing sewers (including pipes and channels) or
construction of new sewers, including manholes, valves, gates, weirs and
associated appurtenances within the a sewage treatment plant, provided that the
modifications will not add new influent source(s) or result in an increase in flow
from existing sources as originally approved and that the modifications will remove
hydraulic bottlenecks or improve the conveyance of sewage into and through the
Works.
a.
25. Flow Distribution Chambers/Splitters
Replacement or modification of existing flow distribution chamber/splitters or
construction of new flow distribution chamber/splitters, including replacements or
installation of sluice gates, weirs, valves for distribution of flows to the downstream
process trains, provided that the modifications will not result in a change in flow
distribution ratio to the downstream process trains as originally designed.
a.
26. Imported Sewage Receiving Facility
Replacement, relocation or installation of loading bays, connect/disconnect hook-
up systems and unloading/transferring systems;
1.
Replacement, relocation or installation of screens, grit removal units and
compactors;
2.
Replacement, relocation or installation of pumps, such as dosing pumps and
transfer pumps, valves, piping and appurtenances;
3.
Replacement, relocation or installation of storage tanks/chambers and spill 4.
containment systems;
Replacement, relocation or installation of flow measurement and sampling
equipment;
5.
Changes to the source(s) or quantity from each source, provided that changes will
not result in an increase in the total quantity and waste loading of each type of
Imported Sewage already approved for co-treatment.
6.
27. Preliminary Treatment System
Replacement of existing screens and grit removal units with equipment of the
same or higher process performance technology, including where necessary
replacement or upgrading of existing screenings dewatering washing compactors,
hydrocyclones, grit classifiers, grit pumps, air blowers conveyor system, disposal
bins and other ancillary equipment to the screening and grit removal processes.
a.
Replacement or installation of channel aeration systems, including air blowers, air
supply main, air headers, air laterals, air distribution grids and diffusers.
b.
28. Primary Treatment System
Replacement of existing sludge removal mechanism, including sludge chamber;a.
Replacement or installation of scum removal mechanism, including scum
chamber;
b.
Replacement or installation of primary sludge pumps, scum pumps, provided
that:the modifications will not result in a reduction in the firm pumping capacity or
discharge head that the primary sludge pump(s) and scum pump(s) are originally
designed to handle.
c.
29. Secondary Treatment System
Biological Treatment
Conversion of complete mix aeration tank to plug-flow multi-pass aeration
tank, including modifications to internal structural configuration;
a.
Addition of inlet gates in multi-pass aeration tank for step-feed operation
mode;
b.
Partitioning of an anoxic/flip zone in the inlet of the aeration tank, including
installation of submersible mixer(s);
c.
Replacement of aeration system including air blowers, air supply main, air
headers, air laterals, air distribution grids and diffusers, provided that the
modifications will not result in a reduction in the firm capacity or discharge
d.
1.
pressure that the blowers are originally designed to supply or in the net
oxygen transferred to the wastewater required for biological treatment as
originally required.
Secondary Sedimentation
Replacement of sludge removal mechanism, including sludge chamber;a.
Replacement or installation of scum removal mechanism, including scum
chamber;
b.
Replacement or installation of return activated sludge pump(s), waste
activated sludge pump(s), scum pump(s), provided that the modifications will
not result in a reduction in the firm pumping capacity or discharge head that
the activated sludge pump(s) and scum pump(s) are originally designed to
handle.
c.
2.
30. Post-Secondary Treatment System
Replacement of filtration system with equipment of the same filtration technology,
including feed pumps, backwash pumps, filter reject pumps, filtrate extract pumps,
holding tanks associated with the pumping system, provided that the modifications
will not result in a reduction in the capacity of the filtration system as originally
designed.
a.
31. Disinfection System
UV Irridation
Replacement of UV irridation system, provided that the modifications will not
result in a reduction in the design capacity of the disinfection system or the
radiation level as originally designed.
a.
1.
Chlorination/Dechlorination and Ozonation Systems
Extension and reconfiguration of contact tank to increase retention time for
effective disinfection and reduce dead zones and minimize short-circuiting;
a.
Replacement or installation of chemical storage tanks, provided that the
tanks are provided with effective spill containment.
b.
2.
32. Supplementary Treatment Systems
Chemical systems
Replacement, relocation or installation of chemical storage tanks for existing
chemical systems only, provided that the tanks are sited with effective spill
containment;
a.
1.
Replacement or installation of chemical dosing pumps provided that the
modifications will not result in a reduction in the firm capacity that the dosing
pumps are originally designed to handle.
b.
Relocation and addition of chemical dosing point(s) including chemical feed
pipes and valves and controls, to improve phosphorus removal efficiency;
c.
Use of an alternate chemical provided that it is a non-proprietary product and
is a commonly used alternative to the chemical approved in the Works,
provided that the chemical storage tanks, chemical dosing pumps, feed pipes
and controls are also upgraded, as necessary..
d.
33. Sludge Management System
Sludge Holding and Thickening
Replacement or installation of sludge holding tanks, sludge handling pumps,
such as transfer pumps, feed pumps, recirculation pumps, provided that
modifications will not result in reduction in the solids storage or handling
capacities;
a.
1.
Sludge Digestion
Replacement or installation of digesters, sludge handling pumps, such as
transfer pumps, feed pumps, recirculation pumps, provided that modifications
will not result in reduction in the solids storage or handling capacities;
a.
replacement of sludge digester covers.b.
2.
Sludge Dewatering and Disposal
Replacement of sludge dewatering equipment, sludge handling pumps, such
as transfer pumps, feed pumps, cake pumps, loading pumps, provided that
modifications will not result in reduction in solids storage or handling
capacities.
a.
3.
Processed Organic Waste
Changes to the source(s) or quantity from each source, provided that
changes will not result in an increase in the total quantity already approved
for co-processing.
a.
4.
34. Standby Power System
Replacement or installation of standby power system, including feed from
alternate power grid, emergency power generator, fuel supply and storage
systems, provided that the existing standby power generation capacity is not
reduced.
1.
35. Pilot Study
Small side-stream pilot study for existing or new technologies, alternative
treatment process or chemical, provided:
all effluent from the pilot system is hauled off-site for proper disposal or
returned back to the sewage treatment plant for at a point no further than
immediately downstream of the location from where the side-stream is drawn;
i.
no proprietary treatment process or propriety chemical is involved in the pilot
study;
ii.
the effluent from the pilot system returned to the sewage treatment plant
does not significantly alter the composition/concentration of or add any new
contaminant/inhibiting substances to the sewage to be treated in the
downstream process;
iii.
the pilot study will not have any negative impacts on the operation of the
sewage treatment plant or cause a deterioration of effluent quality;
iv.
the pilot study does not exceed a maximum of two years and a notification of
completion shall be submitted to the District Manager within one month of
completion of the pilot project.
v.
1.
36. Lagoons
installing baffles in lagoon provided that the operating capacity of the lagoon
system is not reduced;
a.
raise top elevation of lagoon berms to increase free-board;b.
replace or install interconnecting pipes and chambers between cells, provided that
the process design operating sequence is not changed;
c.
replace or install mechanical aerators, or replace mechanical aerators with
diffused aeration system provided that the mixing and aeration capacity are not
reduced;
d.
removal of accumulated sludge and disposal to an approved location offsite.e.
37. Final Effluent Disposal Facilities
38. Replacement or realignment of the Final Effluent channel, sewer or forcemain,
including manholes, valves and appurtenances from the end of the treatment train to
the discharge outfall section, provided that the sewer conveys only effluent discharged
from the Sewage Treatment Plant and that the replacement or re-aligned sewer has
similar dimensions and performance criteria and is in the same or approximately the
same location and that the hydraulic capacity will not be reduced.
This page contains an image of the form entitled "Notice of Modification to Sewage
Works". A digital copy can be obtained from the District Manager.
Schedule F
Methodology for Calculating and Reporting
Monthly Average Effluent Concentration, Annual Average
Effluent Concentration and Monthly Geometric Mean Density
1. Monthly Average Effluent Concentration
Step 1: Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the concentration
of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during a calendar month
and proceed as follows depending on the result of the calculation:
If the arithmetic mean does not exceed the compliance limit for the
contaminant, then report and use this arithmetic mean as the Monthly
Average Effluent Concentration for this parameter where applicable in
this Approval;
a.
If the arithmetic mean exceeds the compliance limit for the
contaminant and there was no Bypass Event during the calendar
month, then report and use this arithmetic mean as the Monthly
Average Effluent Concentration for this parameter where applicable in
this Approval;
b.
If the arithmetic mean exceeds the compliance limit for the
contaminant and there was Bypass Event(s) during the calendar
month, then proceed to Step 2;
c.
If the arithmetic mean does not exceed the compliance limit for the
contaminant and there was Bypass Event(s) during the calendar
month, the Owner may still elect to proceed to Step 2 calculation of
the flow-weighted arithmetic mean.
d.
Step 2: Calculate the flow-weighted arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during a
calendar month and proceed depending on the result of the calculation:
a. Group No Bypass Days ( NBPD ) data and Bypass Days ( BPD ) data
during a calendar month separately;
b. Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured
on all NBPD during a calendar month and record it as Monthly Average
NBPD Effluent Concentration;
c. Obtain the “Total Monthly NBPD Flow” which is the total amount of
Final Effluent discharged on all NBPD during the calendar month;
d. Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured
on all BPD during a calendar month and record it as Monthly Average
BPD Effluent Concentration;
e. Obtain the “Total Monthly BPD Flow” which is the total amount of Final
Effluent discharged on all BPD during the calendar month;
f. Calculate the flow-weighted arithmetic mean using the following formula:
[(Monthly Average NBPD Effluent Concentration
× Total Monthly NBPD Flow) + (Monthly Average
BPD Effluent Concentration × Total Monthly BPD
Flow)] ÷ (Total Monthly NBPD Flow + Total
Monthly BPD Flow)
It should be noted that in this method, if there are no
Bypass Event for the month, the calculated result
would be the same as the non-flow-weighted
arithmetic mean method;
g. Report and use the lesser of the flow-weighted arithmetic mean obtained
in Step 2 and the arithmetic mean obtained in Step 1 as the Monthly
Average Effluent Concentration for this parameter where applicable in this
Approval.
2. Annual Average Effluent Concentration
Step 1: Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the concentration
of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during a calendar year and
proceed as follows depending on the result of the calculation:
a. If the arithmetic mean does not exceed the compliance limit for the
contaminant, then report and use this arithmetic mean as the Annual
Average Effluent Concentration for this parameter where applicable in this
Approval;
b. If the arithmetic mean exceeds the compliance limit for the contaminant
and there was no Bypass Event during the calendar year, then report and
use this arithmetic mean as the Annual Average Effluent Concentration for
this parameter where applicable in this Approval;
c. If the arithmetic mean exceeds the compliance limit for the contaminant
and there was Bypass Event(s) during the calendar year, then proceed to
Step 2;
d. If the arithmetic mean does not exceed the compliance limit for the
contaminant and there was Bypass Event(s) during the calendar year, the
Owner may still elect to proceed to Step 2 calculation of the flow-weighted
arithmetic mean.
Step 2: Calculate the flow-weighted arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured during a
calendar year and proceed depending on the result of the calculation:
a. Group No Bypass Days ( NBPD ) data and Bypass Days ( BPD ) data
during a calendar year separately;
b. Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured
on all NBPD during a calendar year and record it as Annual Average
NBPD Effluent Concentration;
c. Obtain the “Total Annual NBPD Flow” which is the total amount of Final
Effluent discharged on all NBPD during the calendar year;
d. Calculate the arithmetic mean of all Single Sample Results of the
concentration of a contaminant in the Final Effluent sampled or measured
on all BPD during a calendar year and record it as Annual Average BPD
Effluent Concentration;
e. Obtain the “Total Annual BPD Flow” which is the total amount of Final
Effluent discharged on all BPD during the calendar year;
f. Calculate the flow-weighted arithmetic mean using the following formula:
[(Annual Average NBPD Effluent Concentration
× Total Monthly NBPD Flow) + (Monthly Average
BPD Effluent Concentration × Total Annual BPD
Flow)] ÷ (Total Annual NBPD Flow + Total Annual
BPD Flow)
It should be noted that in this method, if there are no
Bypass Event for the calendar year, the calculated
result would be the same as the non-flow-weighted
arithmetic mean method;
g. Report and use the lesser of the flow-weighted arithmetic mean obtained
in Step 2 and the arithmetic mean obtained in Step 1 as the Annual
Average Effluent Concentration for this parameter where applicable in this
Approval.
3. Monthly Geometric Mean Density
Geometric mean is defined as the nth root of the product of n numbers. In the context
of calculating Monthly Geometric Mean Density for E.coli, the following formula shall be
used:
in which,
“n” is the number of samples collected during the calendar month; and
“x” is the value of each Single Sample Result.
For example, four weekly grab samples were collected and tested for E.coli during the
calendar month. The E.coli densities in the Final Effluent were found below:
Sample Number E.coli Densities* (organisms /100 mL)
1 10
2 100
3 300
4 50
The Geometric Mean Density for these data:
*If a particular result is zero (0), then a value of one (1) will be substituted into the
calculation of the Monthly Geometric Mean Density.
Schedule G
Municipal and Local Services Board Wastewater System
Profile Information Form
(For reference only, images of the form are attached on the next four pages. A digital
copy can be obtained from the District Manger.)
Upon issuance of the environmental compliance approval, I hereby revoke
Approval No(s). 6348-7QAJBF issued on June 1, 2009
In accordance with Section 139 of the Environmental Protection Act, you may by written
Notice served upon me and the Environmental Review Tribunal within 15 days after
receipt of this Notice, require a hearing by the Tribunal. Section 142 of the
Environmental Protection Act provides that the Notice requiring the hearing shall state:
The portions of the environmental compliance approval or each term or condition in the
environmental compliance approval in respect of which the hearing is required, and;
a.
The grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing in relation to each portion appealed.b.
Pursuant to subsection 139(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, a hearing may not
be required with respect to any terms and conditions in this environmental compliance
approval, if the terms and conditions are substantially the same as those contained in
an approval that is amended or revoked by this environmental compliance approval.
The Notice should also include:
The name of the appellant;1.
The address of the appellant;2.
The environmental compliance approval number;3.
The date of the environmental compliance approval;4.
The name of the Director, and;5.
The municipality or municipalities within which the project is to be engaged in.6.
And the Notice should be signed and dated by the appellant.
This Notice must be served upon:
The Secretary*
Environmental Review Tribunal
655 Bay Street, Suite 1500
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E5
AND
The Director appointed for the purposes of Part II.1
of the Environmental Protection Act
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
* Further information on the Environmental Review Tribunal’s requirements for an appeal
can be obtained directly from the Tribunal at: Tel: (416) 212-6349, Fax: (416) 326-5370 or
www.ert.gov.on.ca
The above noted activity is approved under s.20.3 of Part II.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act.
DATED AT TORONTO this 5th day of June,
2018
Fariha Pannu, P.Eng.
Director
appointed for the purposes of Part
II.1 of the Environmental Protection
Act
SH/
c: DWMD Supervisor, MOECC London - District
Indra Maharjan, P.Eng., Ontario Clean Water Agency
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers – HYBRID
Thursday, November 3, 2022
7:00 p.m.
The November 3, 2022 Council Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and
livestreamed on YouTube.
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
TREASURER LORNE JAMES
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
11.2 D Report PS-23/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage
Superintendent re Renewal of Agreement No. 0733 – Supply & Placement of
Granular Materials
12.1.1 C Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. re Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act,
2022 – Changes to the Development Charges Act, Planning Act and
Conservation Authorities Act
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councillor Chilcott announced that on Sunday, November 6th there is a Remembrance Day
Ceremony at the Vienna Cenotaph at 11 a.m. and a parade in Port Burwell beginning at 1 p.m.
Councillor Donnell announced that Joanne and Earl Shea are celebrating their 60th wedding
anniversary
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
2
Mayor Ketchabaw announced that the Straffordville Hall Foundation (SHF) was successful in
their grant application to Farm Credit Canada AgriSpirit Fund and have secured $25,000 which
will go towards kitchen appliances for the new kitchen that is to be built at the SCC.
CAO Thayer reminded that the Municipal Office will be closed on Friday, November 11th for
Remembrance Day.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. DELEGATIONS
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Special Council Meeting held October 4, 2022
B. Regular Council Meeting held October 6, 2022
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the minutes from the Special Council Meeting held October 4, 2022 and the Regular
Council Meeting held October 6, 2022 be approved as presented.
CARRIED
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
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report PS-20/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re
Gray Street Lighting
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report PS-20/22 re Gray St. Request for Additional Street Lighting be received for
information;
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
3
AND THAT a street light be installed either utilizing the existing pole or newly installed
municipal pole at the end of Gray Street in Eden at a capital cost of $6,327.00.
CARRIED
B. Report PS-21/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re
2023 Agreement Renewals
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report PS-21/22 re 2023 Agreement Renewals be received for information;
AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham agrees to one
(1)-year extensions for the following agreements, subject to the revised terms as noted in
Report PS-21/22:
Mobil Services Inc. (Agreement No. 0649)
Koolen Electric (Agreement No. 0645)
Winter Salt Truck Services (Agreement No. 0740);
AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham agrees to a
three (3)-year extension with Ramona Peidl for Recycling Receptacle Services
(Agreement No. 0750), subject to the revised terms as noted in Report PS-21/22;
AND THAT the appropriate by-laws be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
C. Report PS-22/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re
2022-2023 Winter Operations Plan
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT Report PS-22/22 re Winter Operations Plan - Level of Service be received for
information;
AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham approve the
Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy attached hereto
as Appendix ‘A’.
CARRIED
D. Report PS-23/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re
Renewal of Agreement No. 0733 – Supply & Placement of Granular Materials
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report PS-23/22 re Agreement Renewal of Supply & Placement of Granular
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
4
Materials be received for information;
AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham agrees to a one
(1)-year extension for Agreement No. 0733 – Johnson Bros. – Supply and Placement of
Granular Materials;
AND THAT the appropriate by-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting – Minor Variance Application A-10/22 53881 Maple Grove Line
B. Notice of Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision – Vienna Ridge 34T-BA2201
C. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. re Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 –
Changes to the Development Charges Act, Planning Act and Conservation Authorities
Act
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT items 12.1.1 A - C be received for information;
AND THAT if Bill 23 should be adopted by the Province, staff be directed to prepare a
report on the potential impact of Bill 23 to Bayham for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Elgin County re October 11th Council Highlights
B. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing re More Homes Build Faster: Ontario’s Housing
Supply Action Plan 2022-2023
C. Town of Mattawa re Strong Mayors
D. Municipality of Thames Centre re Strong Mayors
E. Municipality of South Huron re Strong Mayors
F. Muireann Peters re Letter to Mayor Ketchabaw
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
5
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT items 13.1.1 A – F be received for information.
CARRIED
13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Susie Sawatzky re Request for Signage at Richmond Water Pump House
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the correspondence from Susie Sawatzky re Request for Signage at Richmond
Water Pump House be received for information;
AND THAT staff be authorized to establish signage at the Richmond Water Pump House
property as deemed appropriate.
CARRIED
13.2 Reports to Council
A. Report TR-17/22 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2022 Q3 Variance Report
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT Staff Report TR-17/22 re 2022 Q3 Variance Report be received for information.
CARRIED
B. Report CAO-61/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Post Municipal Election
Accessibility Report
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report CAO-61/22 re Post Municipal Election Accessibility Report be received for
information.
CARRIED
C. Report CAO-62/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Post Municipal Election Statistical
Report
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT Report CAO-62/22 re Post Municipal Election Statistical Report be received for
information.
CARRIED
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
6
D. Report CAO-63/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Port Burwell Lighthouse Heritage
Cladding Assessment Report
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report CAO-63/22 re Port Burwell Lighthouse Heritage Cladding Assessment
Report be received for information;
AND THAT cost estimates for the recommended items in the Heritage Cladding
Assessment Report be obtained and provided to Council for further consideration.
CARRIED
14. BY-LAWS
A. By-Law No. 2022-071 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a library lease
agreement between the Municipality of Bayham and the County of Elgin – Fred
Bodsworth (Port Burwell)
B. By-Law No. 2022-072 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a library lease
agreement between the Municipality of Bayham and the County of Elgin – Straffordville
C. By-Law No. 2022-073 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of documents for an
integrity commissioner and closed meeting investigator for the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham pursuant to sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 223.3 & 239.2 of the Municipal
Act, 2001, S. O. 2001, C. 25, as amended
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT By-Law No. 2022-071, 2022-072 and 2022-073 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 Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 8:53 p.m. to
discuss:
A. Confidential Report re labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources)
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
7
B. Confidential Verbal Item re personnel matters about an identifiable individual (CAO
Performance Review)
CARRIED
16.2 Out of Camera
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” session at 10:38 p.m. and report on
Confidential Report re labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources) and
Confidential Verbal Item re personnel matters about an identifiable individual (CAO
Performance Review)
CARRIED
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Confidential Report re labour relations, employee negotiations (Human
Resources) be received for information;
AND THAT staff proceed as directed.
CARRIED
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT the Confidential Verbal Item re personnel matters about an identifiable individual
(CAO Performance Review);
AND THAT the Mayor proceed as directed.
CARRIED
17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-074 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Confirming By-law No. 2022-074 be read a first, second and third time and finally
passed.
CARRIED
18. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
2022 Council Minutes November 3, 2022
8
THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
OPA-01/22 and ZBA-02/22
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED REVISED
OFFICIAL PLAN AND
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: MICHEAL AND RETA GLEN, C/O
BARRY WADE HOMES INC.
LOCATION: 2 ROBINSON STREET AND 3 ERIEUS
STREET, PORT BURWELL
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a revised
Official Plan amendment (OPA-01/22) and Zoning By-law amendment (ZBA-02/22). The County
of Elgin is the Approval Authority for Official Plan Amendments.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council
Chambers, 56169 Heritage Line, in Straffordville to consider the proposed Official Plan and
Zoning By-law amendment under Section 17 and 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of these Amendments is to change the land use designation on a portion of lands
with two parcels and combined lot area of 3,604 m2 (0.89 acre), to change the Official Plan
designation for 2,760 m2 (0.68 acres) of lands from “Residential” to “site-specific Multi-Unit
Residential” designation in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham to permit the
development of a 13-unit townhouse block with density of 48 units per hectare and criteria for
slope development on the southern portion of the subject lands. The subject lands are located on
the east side of Robinson Street, west side of Erieus Street, south of Brock Street in the village
of Port Burwell and known as 2 Robinson Street and 3 Erieus Street.
And furthermore, to change the zoning of the townhouse block lands from Village Residential 1
(R1) and Holding Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) Zones to Site-specific Village Residential 2 (R2-
xx) Zone to permit townhouse development and to permit specific to the townhouse lands: lot
area per unit of 212 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
2.02 m whereas 6.0 m is the permitted minimum; 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 EFFECT of these Amendments will be to permit a townhouse development with site-specific
zoning, either standard condominium or rental, in the form of 2 buildings with 13 total units,
proposed with reduced driveway setback from an intersection, reduced front yard setback, and
the removal of holding provisions requiring the applicant/owner enter into development or
subdivision agreement with the municipality.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendments. When possible, please consider utilizing
written correspondence. Written comments are to be submitted on or before 12:00 Noon on
Tuesday December 6, 2022 to munderhill@bayham.on.ca or at the municipal office.
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-laws are 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 Official Plan or Zoning By-law
amendment, you must make a written request to
the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the
proposed amendments is posted to the municipal
website or may be obtained by contacting the
Municipal office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 23rd
day of November 2022.
Conceptual Site Plan is printed on the
back of this Notice.
OPA-01/22 and ZBA-02/22
Draft Plan Subdivision 34T-BA2201
1
REVISED
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION (APPROVAL AUTHORITY COUNTY OF ELGIN,
FILE NUMBER 34T-BA2201), IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM
APPLICANT: WILLIAM, HANK, AND JAKE REDECOP, AND PETER WIEBE
LOCATED AT: LOT D NORTH OF KING STREET, EAST OF NORTH STREET, PART OF
LOT E, EAST OF NORTH STREET, PART OF LOT G SOUTH OF CHAPEL
STREET, REGISTERED PLAN NO. 54, VILLAGE OF VIENNA
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a request from the County of Elgin (the
approval authority for Plan of Subdivision approvals for the Municipality of Bayham) to hold a public
meeting regarding a complete application for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (file number 34T-
BA2201) submitted by CJDL Limited on behalf of the owners/applicants.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public
meeting on Thursday, December 15th, 2022, at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers, 56169
Heritage Line in Straffordville to receive public comment for a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
Application under Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING is to inform the public of the nature of the Draft Plan of Subdivision
proposal, to invite public input and to answer questions regarding the application.
THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT of this Draft Plan of Subdivision will be to divide the subject parcel of
land into eight (8) single detached residential lots. The proposed lots will be accessed by North Street,
an existing local road, south of Chapel Street. The residential lots will be serviced by municipal sanitary
sewage disposal system, municipal water services and municipal storm water services. The subject
lands are designated ‘Residential’ in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan and are zoned Holding
Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) in the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003.
The applicants will be required to apply for and obtain Zoning By-law Amendment approval to remove
the Holding Provision (h2) subject to entering into subdivision agreement between the applicant and the
Municipality.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support
of or in opposition to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. When possible, please consider utilizing
written correspondence. Written comments are to be submitted on or before 12:00 Noon on Tuesday
December 6, 2022 to munderhill@bayham.on.ca or at the municipal office.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written
submissions to Elgin County in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the approval authority
gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or public body is not entitled
to appeal the decision of Elgin County to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written
submissions to Elgin County in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the approval authority
gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, 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 decision to adopt the proposed draft plan of subdivision, you must make
a written request to the County of Elgin, c/o Brian Lima, General Manager of Engineering, Planning and
Enterprise/Deputy CAO, at 519-631-1460 or blima@elgin.ca or visit the County website at
https://www.elgincounty.ca. The County Office is located at 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON, N5R 5V1.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about this matter, including information about preserving your appeal
rights, contact the Municipal Office (contact information below) or Elgin County (contact information
above). The application was accompanied by the following studies/reports available for viewing at the
municipal office and with the Notice of Public Meeting on the municipal website:
Planning Justification Report prepared by CJDL Consulting Engineers, dated September 9, 2022.
Archeological Assessment, Stage 1 & 2 and supporting documents prepared by Lincoln
Environmental Consulting Corp., dated May 2022.
Functional Servicing Report prepared by CJDL Consulting Engineers, dated September 9, 2022.
Scoped Environmental Impact Study by Vroom and Leonard, dated September 2022.
Slope Stability Assessment by EXP., dated September 2022.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 24th day of November 2022.
Draft Plan Subdivision 34T-BA2201
2
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (copy; size reduced from original)
Margaret Underhill
Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
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
www.swpublichealth.ca
St. Thomas Site
Administrative Office 1230 Talbot Street St. Thomas, ON N5P 1G9
Woodstock Site
410 Buller Street Woodstock, ON N4S 4N2
MEDIA RELEASE
November 14, 2022
SWPH Medical Officer of Health Strongly Recommends
Masking in Indoor Settings to Prevent Triple Threat of
Respiratory Viruses
Ontario is experiencing an unprecedented number of children fighting RSV, COVID-19 and
Influenza in its hospitals.
As an adult, it can be easy to downplay a stuffy nose or sore throat as a mild cold. However, as Ontario
experiences an early and severe influenza surge, coupled with COVID-19 and the extremely contagious
RSV virus, it’s time for all of us to think differently about respiratory illnesses and what they can mean to
the most vulnerable around us – particularly children 4 and under.
“A cold that presents as mild in an adult can cause serious illness in a young child. That’s why I ask that
everyone in this community re-commit to using the layers of protection that we know guard our
community – particularly the most vulnerable – against respiratory illnesses,” says Dr. Ninh Tran,
echoing the message of Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, earlier today.
“I strongly recommend that everyone wear a mask in indoor settings if you work with, care for, or
socialize with the very young, the elderly, or those who are immune compromised. More broadly, I
recommend that everyone return to wearing a mask while indoors to reduce the spread of respiratory
illnesses in this season of holiday gathering,” adds Tran.
The health unit also urges everyone to stay home when they feel unwell and practice effective hand
hygiene and regular disinfection of high-touch surfaces. Handwashing and disinfection are both highly
effective against the RSV and Influenza viruses.
In addition to staying home when unwell and wearing a well-fitted mask, immunization makes the
trifecta of best practices against respiratory illnesses. As Dr. Moore emphasized in today’s press briefing,
the flu vaccine is available to everyone ages 6 months and up, and the bivalent boosters are available to
anyone age 12+ who has not been vaccinated for at least 6 months.
2 / 2
Facts:
• All COVID-19 vaccines administered by Southwestern Public Health must be booked in advance.
• Appointments can be booked online at covid-19.ontario.ca/book-vaccine. Or, call to book an
appointment by telephone: 1-833-943-3900. TIP: If it has been less than 6 months since your
last dose, you must book by phone and not online.
• Flu vaccine and COVID vaccine can be administered within the same appointment for anyone
over the age of 5.
• For the month of November, anyone aged 5+ coming for a COVID-19 vaccine at a clinic operated
by Southwestern Public Health at 1230 Talbot Street (St. Thomas) or 410 Buller Street
(Woodstock) will be offered a flu vaccine as well. One appointment – two important
vaccinations!
• For more information about the dates, times, and locations of COVID-19 vaccination clinics in
the region, go to www.swpublichealth.ca/covid19vaccine
About Southwestern Public Health
Southwestern Public Health works with its partners to ensure the health of the whole community. Our
programs respond to public health emergencies; promote healthy lifestyles; help prevent injuries,
illness, and disease in the community; and promote positive change and social conditions that improve
health. Southwestern Public Health delivers mandated programs under the Ontario Public Health
Standards and is regulated by the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act. The health unit
maintains primary locations in Woodstock and St. Thomas. For more information, visit
www.swpublichealth.ca.
To Request an Interview:
Megan Cornwell
Communications Manager | Southwestern Public Health
(519) 320-0819 (Mobile)
mcornwell@swpublichealth.ca
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2022
Approved November 2, 2022
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 1 -
Members in attendance:
John Scholten, Chair Township of Norwich
Michael Columbus, Vice-Chair Norfolk County
Dave Beres Town of Tillsonburg
Robert Chambers County of Brant
Valerie Donnell Municipality of Bayham/Township of Malahide
Tom Masschaele Norfolk County
Ian Rabbitts Norfolk County
Regrets:
Kristal Chopp Norfolk County
Ken Hewitt Haldimand County
Stewart Patterson Haldimand County
Peter Ypma Township of South-West Oxford
Staff in attendance:
Judy Maxwell, General Manager
Aaron LeDuc, Manager of Corporate Services
Lorrie Minshall, Interim Manager, Watershed Services
Zachary Cox, Marketing Coordinator
Dana McLachlan, Executive Assistant
1. Welcome and Call to Order
The chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 5, 2022.
2. Additional Agenda Items
There were no additional agenda items.
3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None were declared.
4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
a) Board of Directors Meeting of September 7, 2022
There were no questions or comments.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 2 -
A-84/22
Moved by I. Rabbitts
Seconded by V. Donnell
THAT the minutes of the LPRCA Board of Directors Meeting held September 7, 2022 be
approved as circulated.
CARRIED
5. Business Arising
There was no business arising from the previous minutes.
6. Review of Committee Minutes
a) Backus Museum Committee Meeting of June 21, 2022
There were no questions or comments.
A-85/22
Moved by D. Beres
Seconded by T. Masschaele
THAT the minutes of the Backus Museum Committee Meeting of June 21, 2022 be
approved as circulated.
CARRIED
7. Correspondence
a) Email from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Re: New
Requirements under the Conservation Authorities Act: Training for CAs
and Municipalities
Webinars for Municipal Partners and CA staff are scheduled to provide training for the
new requirements.
A-86/22
Moved by M. Columbus
Seconded by V. Donnell
THAT the correspondence outlined in the Board of Directors Agenda of October 5, 2022
be received as information.
CARRIED
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 3 -
8. Development Applications
a) Section 28 Regulations Approved Permits
Through the General Manager’s delegating authority, 15 applications were approved in
the past month. LPRCA-190/22, LPRCA-191/22, LPRCA-192/22, LPRCA-193/22,
LPRCA-194/22, LPRCA-195/22, LPRCA-196/22, LPRCA-199/22, LPRCA-200/22,
LPRCA-201/22, LPRCA-202/22, LPRCA-203/22, LPRCA-204/22, LPRCA-205/22, and
LPRCA-207/22
All of the staff-approved applications met the requirements as set out in Section 28 of
the Conservation Authorities Act.
A-87/22
Moved by I. Rabbitts
Seconded by T. Masschaele
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Section 28 Regulations Approved
Permits report dated October 5, 2022 as information.
CARRIED
9. New Business
a) General Manager’s Report
The General Manager provided an overview of operations this past month.
The GM and the Manager of Corporate Services met with staff of Campfire Circle
(formerly Camp Trillium) to tour the facilities and discuss a future capital upgrades plan.
The Director of Campfire Circle requested a discussion, in the near future, to review the
current lease.
Staff recently applied for federal funding to continue to upgrade the flood hazard
mapping to include better flood hydrology. The board will consider approving matching
funds if the application is successful.
The Forestry department recently hosted a tour for a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
working group. Staff and research partners were in attendance to highlight various work
being conducted within three LPRCA forest tracts.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 4 -
A-88/22
Moved by M. Columbus
Seconded by D. Beres
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Update for
September 2022 as information.
CARRIED
b) Inventory of Programs and Services – October 1, 2022 Progress Report
As required under Ontario Regulation 687/21 and as part of the Transition Plan, staff
completed and submitted the compliance reports by the October 1 deadline. The
updated Inventory of Programs and Services is posted on the LPRCA website. No
formal comments have been received from the municipalities regarding the Inventory of
Programs and Services to date. Norfolk County and Oxford County have appointed a
municipal representative and there has been an initial meeting with Norfolk County staff.
Meetings will be scheduled with all of the municipalities in the coming months.
A-89/22
Moved by Valerie Donnell
Seconded by Tom Masschaele
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the October 1, 2022 Progress Report and
Updated Inventory of Programs and Services as information.
CARRIED
c) 2023 Meeting Schedule
The 2023 meeting schedule was presented earlier than usual to accommodate our
municipal partners in light of the upcoming election.
The first meeting of the New Year is scheduled for January 11, 2023 to include the final
budget approval and the election of officers. A new member orientation will be held
January 6, 2023 beginning at 9:30 a.m.
A-90/22
Moved by I. Rabbitts
Seconded by D. Beres
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the Updated 2022 Meeting Schedule
and the Proposed 2023 Meeting Schedule as presented.
CARRIED
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell,
Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma
- 5 -
The closed session began at 7:25 p.m.
10. Closed Session
A-91/22
Moved by V. Donnell
Seconded by R. Chambers
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into a closed session to discuss:
Labour relations or employee negotiations (Pay Equity & Compensation Review)
CARRIED
The board reconvened in open session at 7:24 p.m.
A-92/22
Moved by I. Rabbitts
Seconded by D. Beres
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the implementation of the Proposed
2022 Pay Grid as presented in the report from Ward & Uptigrove Human Resources
Solutions;
AND,
THAT the LPRCA Board implements the Proposed 2022 Pay Grid effective July 1,
2022.
CARRIED
Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
_______________________________ ________________________________
John Scholten Judy Maxwell
Chair General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
/dm
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
4 Elm St., Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 0C4
519-842-4242 or 1-888-231-5408 ˖ Fax 519-842-7123
Email: conservation@lprca.on.ca ˖ www.lprca.on.ca
November 10, 2022 File:1.4.5.1
Thomas Thayer, CAO/Clerk
tthayer@bayham.on.ca
Re: 30-Day Notice to Affected Municipalities – 2023 Draft LPRCA Budget
Dear Mr. Thayer,
The Board of Directors budget meeting was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2022. The Draft 2023
LPRCA Operating and Capital Budgets were recommended to be circulated to member municipalities for
review and comment. The proposed overall increase for the municipal levy is $143,511 or 6.82% versus
last year’s increase of 2.13%. The overall municipal support requested for the 2023 operating budget of
$5,568,754 is $2,099,510 representing a change in the general levy of 21.76% or $375,251. The overall
municipal support requested for the 2023 capital budget of $651,955 is $150,000 representing a decrease
in the general levy of -60.7% or $231,000. The municipal levy is calculated using the Modified Current
Value Assessment provided by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks as outlined in Ontario
Regulation 670/00. Specific municipal levy allocation can be found in appendix 4.
Ontario Regulation 139/96 calls for a 30-day notice to affected municipal partners in order for them to
consider and provide comment regarding the draft budget. The Regulation also requires that the notice be
accompanied by the financial information used to determine that levy. As such, please find attached the
following information on LPRCA’s budgets for its member municipalities:
1. 2023 Draft Consolidated Budget Summary
2. 2023 Draft Consolidated Operating Budget
3. LPRCA 2023 Municipal Levy – Consolidated - Draft
4. Five Year Summary by Municipality of Levy Apportioned by CVA %
LPRCA is requesting any comments regarding the Draft 2023 Budget to be forwarded to this office no later
than noon Tuesday, December 13th, 2022.
The weighted vote for the Final 2023 LPRCA Budget will take place the evening of Wednesday, January
11th, 2023 as part of the regular meeting of the LPRCA Board of Directors.
If your officials request a presentation of the Draft 2023 budget, we would be pleased to present at your
Councils earliest convenience on behalf of the LPRCA Board of Directors. If you have any questions or
need further information, please contact Aaron LeDuc, Manager of Corporate Services at
aleduc@lprca.on.ca or 519-842-4242, ext. 224.
Sincerely,
Judy Maxwell
General Manager
cc. Lorne James, Treasurer
Meagan Elliott, Deputy Clerk
Encl. (4)
2020 2021 2022 2022 2023
Actual Actual Sept 30 YTD Budget Budget
$$$$$$%
Total Operating Expenditures 3,867,829 4,439,329 3,306,978 4,797,560 5,568,754 771,193 16.1%89.5%
Total Capital Expenditures *269,000 349,326 170,336 511,250 651,955 140,705 27.5%10.5%
Total Expenditures 4,136,829 4,788,655 3,477,314 5,308,810 6,220,709 911,898 17.18%100.0%
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy - Operating 1,644,960 1,686,943 1,293,194 1,724,258 2,099,510 375,251 21.76%33.8%
Municipal Levy - Capital 269,000 349,326 368,550 381,700 150,000 (231,700) -60.70%2.4%
Municipal Levy - Total 1,913,960 2,036,269 1,661,744 2,105,958 2,249,510 143,551 6.82%36.16%
Municipal Levy - Special Norfolk - - - - - - 0.00%0.0%
Total Municipal Levy 1,913,960 2,036,269 1,661,744 2,105,958 2,249,510 143,551 6.82%36.16%
Provincial Funding 222,983 50,219 28,798 29,160 22,447 (6,713) (23.0%)0.4%MNR Grant 35,229 35,229 - 35,229 35,229 - 0.0%0.6%MNR WECI & Municipal Funding 39,785 2,579 - - 132,500 132,500 0.0%2.1%Federal Funding 108,445 33,804 3,920 11,866 66,579 54,713 461.1%1.1%
User Fees 1,548,587 2,748,884 2,829,446 2,747,137 3,100,555 353,417 12.9%49.8%
Community Support 347,668 275,847 242,582 250,967 539,233 288,267 114.9%8.7%
Interest on Investments 24,444 24,363 - - - - 0.0%0.0%
Land Donation 325,000 - - - - - 0.0%0.0%
Gain on Sale of Assets 131,446 1,219 13,339 - - - 0.0%0.0%
Contribution from(to) Reserves (560,718) (419,757) - 128,492 74,656 (53,836) (41.9%)1.2%
TOTAL REVENUE 4,136,829 4,788,655 4,779,828 5,308,810 6,220,709 911,898 17.18%100.0%
* The Capital Expenditures in the 2023 Draft Budget are proposed to be funded by Municipal Levy of $150,000.
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
2023 DRAFT Consolidated Budget Summary
2023 Change from % of Approved
Budget2022 Budget
Appendix #1
2020 2021 2022 2022 2023
Actual Actual Sept 30 YTD Budget Draft Budget$$$$$%Program:Watershed Planning and Technical Services 498,869 397,680 282,514 406,674 398,020 (8,654) (2.1%)- (44,105)
Watershed Flood Control Services 270,129 222,711 61,087 204,611 269,270 64,660 31.6%- 64,660
Healthy Watershed Services 234,247 173,447 164,136 136,144 251,522 115,379 84.7%- 34,607
Conservation Authority Lands 302,847 357,192 255,632 472,575 568,996 96,421 20.4%92,546 Communication and Marketing Services 71,047 81,286 59,522 107,219 142,277 35,058 32.7%- 33,558
Backus Heritage and Education Services 145,375 156,553 93,407 250,224 325,662 75,438 30.1%- 55,458
Conservation Parks Management Services 769,014 1,180,627 1,037,271 1,345,310 1,612,933 267,622 19.9%(196,151) No levyPublic Forest Land Management Services 189,954 307,663 173,010 244,641 320,160 75,519 30.9%(21,930) No levyPrivate Forest Land Management Services 105,809 136,090 140,005 154,812 119,355 (35,457) (22.9%)14,656 No levy
Maintenance OperationsServices 369,032 400,306 222,356 371,813 383,712 11,899 3.2%- (62,836)
Corporate Services 911,506 1,025,774 818,039 1,103,538 1,176,846 73,308 6.6%218,080 201,362
Total Program Expenditures 3,867,829 4,439,329 3,306,978 4,797,560 5,568,754 771,193 16.1%14,656 375,251
Objects of Expenses:
Staff Expenses 2,217,051 2,510,611 1,975,826 3,049,737.20 3,603,498 553,760 18.2%
Staff Related Expenses 24,127 34,185 21,649 57,990.00 55,355 (2,635) (4.5%)Materials and Supplies 195,634 269,764 289,351 326,901.01 306,018 (20,883) (6.4%)Purchased Services 1,127,053 1,280,594 932,597 1,249,165.00 1,484,672 235,507 18.9%
Equipment 28,691 45,669 39,436 47,300.00 50,725 3,425 7.2%Other 54,091 59,076 48,118 66,467.00 68,485 2,018 3.0%
Amortization 221,181 239,431 - - - -
Total Expenditures 3,867,829 4,439,329 3,306,978 4,797,560 5,568,754 771,193 16.1%
Sources of Revenue:
Municipal Levy - Operating 1,644,960 1,686,943 1,293,194 1,724,258 2,099,510 375,251 21.763%Provincial Funding 222,983 50,219 28,798 29,160 22,447 (6,713) (23.0%)
MNR Grant 35,229 35,229 - 35,229 35,229 - 0.0%MNR WECI & Municipal Funding 39,785 2,579 - - - - 0.0%
Federal Funding 108,445 33,804 3,920 11,866 6,579 (5,287) (44.6%)
User Fees 1,548,587 2,748,884 2,829,446 2,747,137 3,100,555 353,417 12.9%
Community Support 347,668 275,847 242,582 250,967 539,233 288,267 114.9%Interest on Investments 24,444 24,363 - - - - 0.0%Land Donation 325,000 - - - - - 0.0%
Gain on Sale of Assets 131,446 1,219 13,339 - - - 0.0%
Contribution from (to) Reserves (560,718) (419,757) - 1,058- 14,656 15,714 0.0%
Total Revenue 3,867,829 4,439,329 4,411,278 4,797,560 5,818,209 1,020,648 21.3%
Surplus - current year - - 1,104,300 - 249,455 249,455 4.5%
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
2023 DRAFT Consolidated Operating Budget
2023 Change from Contribution
(to) from Reserves $
Increase to
Levy $2022 Budget
Appendix #2
PER CAPITA PER CAPITA
OPERATING CAPITAL TOTAL (Watershed) (Municipality)
Haldimand County $302,661 $21,624 $324,284 $22.57 $7.90
Norfolk County $1,088,124 $77,741 $1,165,865 $22.95 $21.80
Norwich Twp.$147,333 $10,526 $157,859 $25.26 $18.69
South-West Oxford Twp.$44,004 $3,144 $47,148 $27.15 $8.15
Tillsonburg $260,571 $18,617 $279,188 $20.68 $20.68
Total Oxford County $451,909 $32,287 $484,196
Brant County $147,095 $10,509 $157,605 $29.27 $5.00
Bayham Municipality $94,466 $6,749 $101,215 $18.94 $18.94
Malahide Township $15,255 $1,090 $16,345 $24.33 $2.43
$2,099,510 $150,000 $2,249,510 $22.94 $13.57
Increase over 2022 $375,251.30 ($231,700)$143,551
Per Capita Increase over 2022 $3.84 ($2.37)$1.47
LPRCA 2023 MUNICIPAL LEVY - CONSOLIDATED - DRAFT
MUNICIPALITY
LEVY AMOUNTS
Appendix #3
LPRCA
Draft Budget Operating Levy Draft Budget Capital Levy Draft Budget Total Levy
2,099,510$ $150,000 $2,249,510
Municipality Year
HaldimandCounty 2019 $226,963 14.12%$8,919 4.09%$54,734 14.12%$3,011 5.82%$281,697 14.14%$11,930 4.42%
2020 $232,601 14.14%$5,637 2.48%$54,631 14.14%($103)-0.19%$287,231 14.14%$5,534 1.96%2021 $240,090 14.23%$7,489 3.22%$53,371 14.23%($1,260)-2.31%$293,461 14.23%$6,230 2.17%2022 $245,330 14.23%$5,239 2.25%$54,309 14.23%$938 1.72%$299,638 14.23%$6,177 2.15%
2023 $302,661 14.42%$57,331 23.37%$21,624 14.42%($32,685)-60.18%$324,284 14.42%$24,646 8.23%
NorfolkCounty 2019 $845,974 52.63%$23,275 2.83%$204,014 52.63%$8,860 4.54%$1,049,988 52.63%$32,135 3.16%2020 $865,971 52.64%$19,996 2.36%$203,390 52.64%($624)-0.31%$1,069,361 52.64%$19,373 1.85%
2021 $882,185 52.29%$16,214 1.87%$196,106 52.29%($7,284)-3.58%$1,078,290 52.29%$8,930 0.84%2022 $901,067 52.26%$18,883 2.18%$199,470 52.26%$3,364 1.65%$1,100,537 52.26%$22,247 2.08%2023 $1,088,124 51.83%$187,057 20.76%$77,741 51.83%($121,729)-61.03%$1,165,865 51.83%$65,328 5.94%
Oxford
County*2019 $344,257 21.42%$10,699 3.21%$83,020 21.42%$3,896 4.92%$427,277 21.42%$14,595 3.54%2020 $349,761 21.26%$5,504 1.60%$82,148 21.26%($872)-1.05%$431,908 21.26%$4,631 1.08%2021 $360,609 21.38%$10,848 3.10%$80,162 21.38%($1,986)-2.42%$440,771 21.38%$8,862 2.05%
2022 $368,308 21.36%$7,699 2.20%$81,533 21.36%$1,371 1.67%$449,841 21.36%$9,070 2.10%2023 $451,909 21.52%$83,601 22.70%$32,287 21.52%($49,246)-60.40%$484,196 21.52%$34,355 7.64%
BrantCounty 2019 $105,228 6.55%$7,419 7.59%$25,377 6.55%$2,176 9.38%$130,605 6.55%$9,595 7.93%
2020 $109,970 6.69%$4,742 4.51%$25,829 6.69%$452 1.78%$135,799 6.69%$5,194 3.98%2021 $114,930 6.81%$4,959 4.51%$25,548 6.81%($280)-1.09%$140,478 6.81%$4,679 3.45%2022 $119,089 6.91%$4,159 3.78%$26,363 6.91%$814 3.15%$145,452 6.91%$4,974 3.66%
2023 $147,095 7.01%$28,006 23.52%$10,509 7.01%($15,854)-60.14%$157,605 7.01%$12,153 8.36%
Bayham
Municipality 2019 $73,371 4.56%$3,070 4.37%$17,694 4.56%$1,018 6.10%$91,064 4.56%$4,087 4.70%2020 $74,792 4.55%$1,422 1.94%$17,566 4.55%($128)-0.72%$92,359 4.55%$1,294 1.42%2021 $76,671 4.54%$1,879 2.51%$17,044 4.54%($523)-2.98%$93,715 4.54%$1,356 1.47%
2022 $77,927 4.52%$1,256 1.68%$17,251 4.52%$207 1.18%$95,177 4.52%$1,463 1.58%2023 $94,466 4.50%$16,539 21.22%$6,749 4.50%($10,502)-59.78%$101,215 4.50%$6,038 6.34%
Malahide `
Township 2019 $11,659 0.73%$398 3.53%$2,812 0.73%$141 5.27%$14,471 0.73%$539 3.87%
2020 $11,866 0.72%$207 1.77%$2,787 0.72%($25)-0.88%$14,652 0.72%$182 1.26%2021 $12,459 0.74%$594 5.00%$2,770 0.74%($17)-0.62%$15,229 0.74%$576 3.93%2022 $12,538 0.73%$79 0.66%$2,775 0.73%$6 0.21%$15,313 0.73%$84 0.58%
2023 $15,255 0.73%$2,717 21.67%$1,090 0.73%($1,686)-60.73%$16,345 0.73%$1,032 7.04%
2023 $2,099,510 $375,251 22.24%$150,000 ($231,700)-60.70%$2,249,510 $143,551 6.82%
Operating Capital Combined
2019 1,607,452$ 387,650$ 1,995,102$
2020 1,644,960$ 37,508$ 2.33%386,350$ (1,300)$ -0.34%2,031,310$ 36,208$ 1.81%2021 1,686,943$ 41,983$ 2.55%375,000$ (11,350)$ -2.94%2,061,943$ 30,633$ 1.51%2022 1,686,943$ -$ 0.00%381,700$ 6,700$ 1.79%2,105,959$ 44,015$ 2.13%2023 1,724,259$ 37,315$ 2.21%150,000$ (231,700)$ -60.70%1,874,259$ (231,700)$ -11.24%
Total 8,350,558$ 1,680,700$ 10,068,573$
Notes: Operating Notes: Capital Notes: Combined
2019 $16.47 per capita 2019 $3.97 per capita 2019 $20.44 per capita
2020 $16.85 per capita 2020 $3.96 per capita 2020 $20.81 per capita2021$17.22 per capita 2021 $3.83 per capita 2021 $21.05 per capita2022$17.71 per capita 2022 $3.92 per capita 2022 $21.63 per capita
2023 $21.41 per capita 2023 $1.53 per capita 2023 $22.94 per capita
Oxford County Apportionment:Oxford County Apportionment:Oxford County Apportionment:Norwich Twp.147,333$ Norwich Twp.10,526$ Norwich Twp.157,859$
South-West Oxford 44,004$ South-West Oxford 3,144$ South-West Oxford 47,148$
Tillsonburg 260,571$ Tillsonburg 18,617$ Tillsonburg 279,188$
451,909$ 32,287$ 484,196$
% Increase
Year over
Year
5 Year Summary by Municipality of Levy Apportioned by CVA %
Municipal Levy - Operating Municipal Levy - Capital Municipal Levy - Combined
Amount of
Levy Share
% of Total
Levy*
$ Increase
Year over
Year
% Increase
Year over
Year
Amount of Levy
Share
% of Total
Levy*
$ Increase
Year over
Year
% Increase
Year over
Year
Amount of
Levy Share
% of Total
Levy*
$ Increase
Year over
Year
Appendix #4
2233 Argentia Rd.
Suite 301
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 2X7
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
Y:\00 - MASTER TEMPLATES\Website Insights Opinions - uploads\Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022.docx
November 16, 2022
To Laurie Scott, MPP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Heritage,
Infrastructure, and Cultural Policy:
Re: Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
Firstly, on behalf of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson), we would like to
thank you for receiving our comments on the Province’s proposed changes to the
Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), Planning Act, and Conservation Authorities Act, by
way of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act. The following letter is submitted to the
Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure, and Cultural Policy (the “Standing
Committee”) to supplement the presentation by Gary Scandlan, Managing Partner, on
November 17, 2022.
Watson is one of Canada’s leading economic consulting firms, comprising municipal
economists, planners, accountants, and support staff. The firm has been in operation
since 1982. Our work has involved many aspects of municipal finance and economics,
including assisting municipalities across the Province with development charges (D.C.s)
studies, community benefits charges (C.B.C.) studies, parkland dedication studies,
fiscal impact assessments, full cost user fee pricing models, demographic forecasts,
growth management studies, and more.
Watson appreciates that the lack of attainable housing is an important issue facing the
Province today. This letter, however, provides some commentary on how the Bill may
negatively impact the Province’s goal to “increase housing supply and provide
attainable housing options for hardworking Ontarians and their families,” along with the
financial burden this legislation will have on municipalities and existing homeowners.
1. Impact on Housing Supply
As stated by the Province, the goal is to create an additional 1.5 million new homes over
the next 10 years; however, the changes proposed in Bill 23 may actually limit the
supply of housing. For urban growth to occur, water and wastewater services must be
in place before building permits can be issued for housing. Most municipalities assume
the risk of constructing this infrastructure and wait for development to occur. Currently,
26% of municipalities providing water/wastewater services are carrying negative D.C.
reserve fund balances for these services[1] and many others are carrying significant
[1] Based on 2020 Financial Information Return data.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
growth-related debt. The following provides a list of the changes to the various pieces
of legislation and how they would negatively impact the supply of housing.
Development Charges Act
• Mandatory Phase-in: The Bill proposes to phase-in the D.C. over the first five-
years of being in force. A review of various municipal D.C. by-laws indicates this
proposed phase-in will cause a reduction in the amount of D.C. revenue collected
by approximately 10% over the phase-in period. This loss in revenue will need to
be funded by existing taxpayers, thus subsidizing growth. With respect to water,
wastewater, and roads services, if the municipality does not have the ability to
fund this lost revenue, it may delay the timing of capital projects, which in turn,
will delay the availability of land for the construction of new homes. Additionally,
this phase-in would apply to non-residential development. It is unclear how this
would increase the housing supply. This matter is further compounded by the
loss of revenue due to the additional statutory exemptions discussed in section 2
of this letter.
• Removal of Housing Services: Upper-tier and single-tier municipalities across
the Province utilize D.C.s to help fund the construction of new affordable housing
units with the goal of providing affordable housing to those in need. The removal
of housing services as a D.C.-eligible service will reduce municipalities’
participation in creating assisted/affordable housing units. Based on present
D.C. by-laws, over $2.2 billion in net growth-related expenditures providing for
over 47,000 affordable housing units (or 3.1% of the Province's 1.5 million
housing target) would be impacted by this proposed change.
• Removal of Studies from the Definition of Capital Costs: Studies, such as
Official Plans and Secondary Plans, are required to establish when, where, and
how a municipality will grow. Master Plans, environmental assessments and
other studies are required to understand the servicing needs development will
place on infrastructure such as water, wastewater, stormwater, and roads.
These studies are necessary to inform the servicing required to establish the
supply of lands for development; without these servicing studies, additional
development cannot proceed. Removing direct funding for these studies would
restrict/delay the supply of serviced land and would be counter to the Province’s
intent to create additional housing units.
Planning Act
• Removal of Planning Policy and Approval Responsibilities: Removal of
these policies and responsibilities from the Regions of Durham, Halton, Niagara,
Peel, Waterloo, and York, as well as the County of Simcoe (and potentially
others in the future) may result in disjointed planning policies and a lack of
coordination of Regional water and wastewater infrastructure. Lower-tier
municipalities may have significantly different goals which may lead to inefficient
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
phasing/staging of development lands, less coordination of servicing plans, and
an increased administrative burden for both lower-tier and upper-tier
municipalities, as well as the Province.
2. Additional Financial Burden on Municipalities and Taxpayers
The proposed changes to the various Acts will have significant financial impacts on
Ontario’s municipalities along with their respective taxpayers. It is anticipated that these
changes are in direct conflict with the principle that “growth pays for growth” and will put
additional pressure on property taxes and water and wastewater rates. This increase in
funding of growth-related needs from existing taxpayers and ratepayers will create
affordability issues for existing homeowners, thus transferring the financial burden of
home ownership, not reducing it. The following provides a summary of the proposed
changes and how they would increase the financial burden on municipalities and
existing taxpayers.
Development Charges Act
• Additional Statutory Exemptions (also applies to C.B.C.s and Parkland
Dedication) and Discounts: The Bill provides for a number of statutory
exemptions for additional residential units, affordable housing, attainable
housing, non-profit housing, and affordable units through inclusionary zoning. In
addition, discounts for rental housing will be required.
o The definition of “affordable” is based on 80% of the market value,
whereas municipalities define “affordable” relative to income levels. This
broader definition will result in more housing units being eligible for D.C.
exemptions which do not meet municipal definitions of “affordable.”
o The definition of “attainable” appears to be even more broad; however, no
details are provided on the proposed regulatory definition.
o These exemptions will result in a loss of D.C. revenue of approximately
10-15% that the municipalities will have to fund from other sources (i.e.,
property taxes or water/wastewater rates).
• Mandatory Phase-in: As noted in section 1 above, this may result in a loss of
10% in D.C. revenues to municipalities.
• Removal of Housing Services: As noted in section 1 above, based on present
D.C. by-laws in place, over $2.2 billion in net growth-related expenditures
providing for over 47,000 units (or 3.1% of the Province's 1.5 million housing
target) would be impacted by this change.
• Revised Definition of Capital Costs: The Bill proposes to remove the cost of
land for certain services (yet to be defined) and studies from the definition of
costs eligible for D.C.s.
o Land – Land represents a significant cost for some municipalities in the
purchase of property to provide services to new residents (e.g., water
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
plants, new roads, etc.). This is a cost required due to growth and should
be funded by new development, if not dedicated by development directly.
o Studies – Master planning and Environmental Assessments are integral to
construction of hard infrastructure required to service new development.
Removing these costs from being D.C. eligible will shift the burden of
these growth-related costs to existing taxpayers and ratepayers.
Planning Act – Parkland Dedication
• Reduction in Alternative Parkland Dedication Requirements: The alternative
dedication requirement where land is being conveyed of 1 hectare (ha) per 300
dwelling units would be reduced to 1 ha per 600 dwelling units. Where the
municipality imposes payment in lieu (P.I.L.) alternative requirements, the
amendments would reduce the amount from 1 ha per 500 dwelling units to 1 ha
per 1,000 net residential units. Municipalities already face challenges with the
supply of adequate parkland due to the rising cost of land and current limitations
under the Planning Act relative to municipal parkland standards. By cutting the
parkland dedication requirements in half, this will further reduce the
municipalities’ ability to purchase parkland and will result in additional burden on
taxpayers to maintain municipal parkland standards or result in a reduction in the
level of parks service over time.
• 10-15% Cap on Land Area for Alternative Rate: The alternative requirement
would be capped at 10% of the land area or land value where the land proposed
for development or redevelopment is 5 ha or less; and 15% of the land area or
land value where the land proposed for development or redevelopment is greater
than 5 ha. These caps would significantly reduce parkland dedication,
particularly for high-density residential development and place the maximum
dedication levels equivalent to medium-density developments. Given that high-
density developments provide limited parklands on site, the contribution made
towards creating more land to service the land needs generated is significantly
under contributed. Again, these shortfalls will have to be funded by property
taxes if Council wishes to maintain municipal parkland standards for existing and
future residents.
3. Summary Commentary
The above summarizes our concerns with the proposed legislative changes and their
impact on the housing supply as well as their financial impact to municipalities and their
taxpayers. There are a number of other concerns with the proposed legislation that we
have outlined in our detailed responses provided in the attachments. These are as
appended as follows:
• Attachment 1 – Changes to the D.C.A.
• Attachment 2 – Changes to the Planning Act
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
• Attachment 3 – Changes to the Planning Act – Parkland Dedication
• Attachment 4 – Changes to the Planning Act – Community Benefits Charges
• Attachment 5 – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act.
To conclude, while the goal of these proposed changes is to reduce the upfront cost to
a new home purchaser, the funding loss for this will come from the existing taxpayer,
i.e., existing residents and businesses subsidizing new home purchasers, hence
increasing housing affordability concerns.
Over the past 40 years, our firm has undertaken numerous fiscal impact studies of
residential development and, as a whole, the new taxes and fees generated by
residential growth do not equal the new operating costs required to support these
developments. As well, based on past changes to the D.C.A., historical reductions have
not resulted in a decrease in the price of housing, hence it is difficult to relate the loss of
needed infrastructure funding to affordable housing.
As a result, we would provide the following considerations for the Standing Committee:
1. From the proposed legislation, phase-in charges and exemptions for services
essential to creating developable land supply (water, wastewater, stormwater
and roads) should be removed…or funded by grants from senior levels of
government.
2. Reduction in parkland contributions, caps for high-density development and
developer ability to provide encumbered lands/POPS should be removed from
parkland dedication legislation to continue to allow municipalities to determine
the appropriate level of service for parks.
3. Alternatively, to minimize the overall impact on the taxpayer and ratepayer,
provide access to other revenue sources (e.g., HST, land transfer tax) to fund all
D.C., parkland dedication, and C.B.C. revenue losses.
4. Municipal housing should continue as an eligible D.C. service.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
We again want to thank the Standing Committee for receiving our presentation and
correspondence and would appreciate the Committee’s consideration of our concerns.
Yours very truly,
WATSON & ASSOCIATES ECONOMISTS LTD.
Andrew Grunda, MBA, CPA, CMA, Principal
Gary Scandlan, BA, PLE, Managing Partner
Jamie Cook, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Managing Partner
Peter Simcisko, BA (Hons), MBE, Managing Partner
Sean-Michael Stephen, MBA, Managing Partner
Jack Ammendolia, BES, PLE, Managing Partner
Appendices
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Attachment 1 - Changes to the D.C.A.
1. Additional Residential Unit Exemption: The rules for these exemptions are now
provided in the D.C.A., rather than the regulations and are summarized as follows:
• Exemption for residential units in existing rental residential buildings – For rental
residential buildings with four or more residential units, the greater of one unit or
1% of the existing residential units will be exempt from D.C.
• Exemption for additional residential units in existing and new residential buildings
– The following developments will be exempt from a D.C.:
o A second unit in a detached, semi-detached, or rowhouse if all buildings
and ancillary structures cumulatively contain no more than one residential
unit;
o A third unit in a detached, semi-detached, or rowhouse if no buildings or
ancillary structures contain any residential units; and
o One residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached, semi-
detached, or rowhouse on a parcel of urban land, if the detached, semi-
detached, or rowhouse contains no more than two residential units and no
other buildings or ancillary structures contain any residential units.
Analysis/Commentary
• For existing single-family homes, this change will not have an impact. For other
existing low/medium-density units and for all new units, however, this allowance
of a third additional unit that will be exempt from D.C.s adds a further revenue
loss burden to municipalities to finance infrastructure. This is of greatest concern
for water and wastewater services where each additional unit will require
additional capacity in water and wastewater treatment plants. This additional
exemption will cause a reduction in D.C.s and hence will require funding by water
and wastewater rates.
• Other services, such as transit and active transportation, will also be impacted as
increased density will create a greater need for these services, and without an
offsetting revenue to fund the capital needs, service levels provided may be
reduced in the future.
2. Removal of Housing as an Eligible D.C. Service: Housing services would be
removed as an eligible service. Municipalities with by-laws that include a charge for
housing services can no longer collect for this service once subsection 2 (2) of
Schedule 3 of the Bill comes into force.
Analysis/Commentary
• The removal of housing services will reduce municipalities’ participation in
creating assisted/affordable housing units and/or put further burden on municipal
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
taxpayers. This service seeks to construct municipal affordable housing for
growing communities. The removal of this service could reduce the number of
affordable units being constructed over the next ten years, if the municipalities
can no longer afford the construction. Based on present D.C. by-laws in place,
over $2.2 billion in net growth-related expenditures providing for over 47,000
additional units (or 3.1% of the Province's 1.5 million housing target) would be
impacted by this change.
3. New Statutory Exemptions: Affordable units, attainable units, inclusionary zoning
units and non-profit housing developments will be exempt from the payment of D.C.s,
as follows:
• Affordable Rental Units: Where rent is no more than 80% of the average market
rent as defined by a new bulletin published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing.
• Affordable Owned Units: Where the price of the unit is no more than 80% of the
average purchase price as defined by a new bulletin published by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
• Attainable Units: Excludes affordable units and rental units; will be defined as
prescribed development or class of development and sold to a person who is at
“arm’s length” from the seller.
o Note: for affordable and attainable units, the municipality shall enter into
an agreement that ensures the unit remains affordable or attainable for 25
years.
• Inclusionary Zoning Units: Affordable housing units required under inclusionary
zoning by-laws will be exempt from a D.C.
• Non-Profit Housing: Non-profit housing units are exempt from D.C. instalment
payments due after this section comes into force.
Analysis/Commentary
• While this is an admirable goal to create additional affordable housing units,
further D.C. exemptions will continue to provide additional financial burdens on
municipalities to fund these exemptions without the financial participation of
senior levels of government.
• The definition of “attainable” is unclear, as this has not yet been defined in the
regulations.
• Municipalities will have to enter into agreements to ensure these units remain
affordable and attainable over a period of time which will increase the
administrative burden (and costs) on municipalities. These administrative
burdens will be cumbersome and will need to be monitored by both the upper-tier
and lower-tier municipalities.
• It is unclear whether the bulletin provided by the Province will be specific to each
municipality, each County/Region, or Province-wide. Due to the disparity in
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
incomes across Ontario, affordability will vary significantly across these
jurisdictions. Even within an individual municipality, there can be disparity in the
average market rents and average market purchase prices.
4. Historical Level of Service: Currently, the increase in need for service is limited by
the average historical level of service calculated over the ten year period preceding
the preparation of the D.C. background study. This average will be extended to the
historical 15-year period.
Analysis/Commentary
• For municipalities experiencing significant growth in recent years, this may
reduce the level of service cap, and the correspondingly D.C. recovery. For
many other municipalities seeking to save for new facilities, this may reduce their
overall recoveries and potentially delay construction.
• This further limits municipalities in their ability to finance growth-related capital
expenditures where debt funding was recently issued. Given that municipalities
are also legislated to address asset management requirements, their ability to
incur further debt may be constrained.
5. Capital Costs: The definition of capital costs may be revised to prescribe services
for which land or an interest in land will be restricted. Additionally, costs of studies,
including the preparation of the D.C. background study, will no longer be an eligible
capital cost for D.C. funding.
Analysis/Commentary
• Land
o Land costs are proposed to be removed from the list of eligible costs for
certain services (to be prescribed later). Land represents a significant
cost for some municipalities in the purchase of property to provide
services to new residents. This is a cost required due to growth and
should be funded by new development, if not dedicated by development
directly.
• Studies
o Studies, such as Official Plans and Secondary Plans, are required to
establish when, where, and how a municipality will grow. These growth-
related studies should remain funded by growth.
o Master Plans and environmental assessments are required to understand
the servicing needs development will place on hard infrastructure such as
water, wastewater, stormwater, and roads. These studies are necessary
to inform the servicing required to establish the supply of lands for
development; without these servicing studies, additional development
cannot proceed. This would restrict the supply of serviced land and would
be counter to the Province’s intent to create additional housing units.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-4
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
6. Mandatory Phase-in of a D.C.: For all D.C. by-laws passed after June 1, 2022, the
charge must be phased-in annually over the first five years the by-law is in force, as
follows:
• Year 1 – 80% of the maximum charge;
• Year 2 – 85% of the maximum charge;
• Year 3 – 90% of the maximum charge;
• Year 4 – 95% of the maximum charge; and
• Year 5 to expiry – 100% of the maximum charge.
Note: for a D.C. by-law passed on or after June 1, 2022, the phase-in provisions would
only apply to D.C.s payable on or after the day subsection 5 (7) of Schedule 3 of the Bill
comes into force (i.e., no refunds are required for a D.C. payable between June 1, 2022
and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent). The phased-in charges also apply with
respect to the determination of the charges under section 26.2 of the Act (i.e., eligible
site plan and zoning by-law amendment applications).
Analysis/Commentary
• Water, wastewater, stormwater, and roads are essential services for creating
land supply for new homes. These expenditures are significant and must be
made in advance of growth. As a result, the municipality assumes the
investment in the infrastructure and then assumes risk that the economy will
remain buoyant enough to allow for the recovery of these costs in a timely
manner. Otherwise, these growth-related costs will directly impact the existing
rate payer.
• The mandatory phase-in will result in municipalities losing approximately 10% to
15% of revenues over the five-year phase-in period. For services such as water,
wastewater, stormwater, and to some extent roads, this will result in the
municipality having to fund this shortfall from other sources (i.e., taxes and rates).
This may result in: 1) the delay of construction of infrastructure that is required to
service new homes; and 2) a negative impact on the tax/rate payer who will have
to fund these D.C. revenue losses.
• Growth has increased in communities outside the Greater Toronto Area (G.T.A.)
(e.g. municipalities in the outer rim), requiring significant investments in water
and wastewater treatment services. Currently, there are several municipalities in
the process of negotiating with developing landowners to provide these treatment
services. For example, there are two municipalities within the outer rim (one is
10 km from the G.T.A. while the other is 50 km from the G.T.A.) imminently about
to enter into developer agreements and award tenders for the servicing of the
equivalent of 8,000 single detached units (or up to 20,000 high-density units).
This proposed change to the D.C.A. alone will stop the creation of those units
due to debt capacity issues and the significant financial impact placed on
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-5
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
ratepayers due to the D.C. funding loss. Given our work throughout the
Province, it is expected that there will be many municipalities in similar situations.
• Based on 2020 Financial Information Return (F.I.R.) data, there are 214
municipalities with D.C. reserve funds. Of those, 130 provide water and
wastewater services and of those, 34 municipalities (or 26%) are carrying
negative water and wastewater reserve fund balances. As a result, it appears
many municipalities are already carrying significant burdens in investing in water/
wastewater infrastructure to create additional development lands. This proposed
change will worsen the problem and, in many cases, significantly delay or inhibit
the creation of serviced lands in the future.
• Note that it is unclear how the phase-in provisions will affect amendments to
existing D.C. by-laws.
7. D.C. By-law Expiry: A D.C. by-law would expire ten years after the day it comes into
force. This extends the by-law’s life from five years, currently. D.C. by-laws that
expire prior to subsection 6 (1) of the Bill coming into force would not be allowed to
extend the life of the by-law.
Analysis/Commentary
• The extension of the life of the D.C. by-law would appear to not have an
immediate financial impact on municipalities. Due to the recent increases in
actual construction costs experienced by municipalities, however, the index used
to adjust the D.C. for inflation is not keeping adequate pace (e.g., the most recent
D.C. index has increased at 15% over the past year; however, municipalities are
experiencing 40%-60% increases in tender prices). As a result, amending the
present by-laws to update cost estimates for planned infrastructure would place
municipalities in a better financial position.
• As a result of the above, delaying the updating of current D.C. by-laws for five
more years would reduce actual D.C. recoveries and place the municipalities at
risk of underfunding growth-related expenditures.
8. Instalment Payments: Non-profit housing development has been removed from the
instalment payment section of the Act (section 26.1), as these units are now exempt
from the payment of a D.C.
Analysis/Commentary
• This change is more administrative in nature due to the additional exemption for
non-profit housing units.
9. Rental Housing Discount: The D.C. payable for rental housing development will be
reduced based on the number of bedrooms in each unit as follows:
• Three or more bedrooms – 25% reduction;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-6
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
• Two bedrooms – 20% reduction; and
• All other bedroom quantities – 15% reduction.
Analysis/Commentary
• Further discounts to D.C.s will place an additional financial burden on
municipalities to fund these reductions.
• The discount for rental housing does not appear to have the same requirements
as the affordable and attainable exemptions to enter into an agreement for a
specified length of time. This means a developer may build a rental development
and convert the development (say to a condominium) in the future hence
avoiding the full D.C. payment for its increase in need for service.
10. Maximum Interest Rate for Instalments and Determination of Charge for
Eligible Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications: No maximum
interest rate was previously prescribed. Under the proposed changes, the maximum
interest rate would be set at the average prime rate plus 1%. How the average
prime rate is determined is further defined under section 9 of Schedule 3 of the Bill.
This maximum interest rate provision would apply to all instalment payments and
eligible site plan and zoning by-law amendment applications occurring after section
9 of Schedule 3 of the Bill comes into force.
Analysis/Commentary
• Setting the maximum interest rate at 1%+ the average prime rate appears
consistent with the current approach for some municipalities but is a potential
reduction for others.
• It appears a municipality can select the adjustment date for which the average
prime rate would be calculated.
• The proposed change will require municipalities to change their interest rate
policies, or amend their by-laws, as well as increase the administrative burden on
municipalities.
11. Requirement to Allocate Funds Received: Similar to the requirements for
community benefits charges, annually, beginning in 2023, municipalities will be
required to spend or allocate at least 60% of the monies in a reserve fund at the
beginning of the year for water, wastewater, and services related to a highway.
Other services may be prescribed by the regulation.
Analysis/Commentary
• This proposed change appears largely administrative and would not have a
financial impact on municipalities. This can be achieved as a schedule as part of
the annual capital budget process or can be included as one of the schedules
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-7
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
with the annual D.C. Treasurer Statement. This, however, will increase the
administrative burden on municipalities.
12. Amendments to Section 44 (Front-ending): This section has been updated to
include the new mandatory exemptions for affordable, attainable, and non-profit
housing, along with required affordable residential units under inclusionary zoning
by-laws.
Analysis/Commentary
• This change is administrative to align with the additional statutory exemptions.
13. Amendments to Section 60: Various amendments to this section were required to
align the earlier described changes.
Analysis/Commentary
• These changes are administrative in nature.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-8
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Attachment 2 - Changes to the Planning Act
The following summary of proposed key housing and planning related changes, along
with our firm’s commentary, is provided below. It is noted that this commentary
specifically focuses on the impacts of Bill 23 regarding long-range planning and growth
management initiatives at the municipal level.
1. Streamlining Municipal Planning Responsibilities
Schedule 9 of the Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Planning Act.
Subsection 1 (1) of the Act is proposed to be amended to provide for two different
classes of upper-tier municipalities; those that have planning responsibilities and
those that do not. Changes are proposed to remove the planning policy and approval
responsibilities from the following upper-tier municipalities: Regions of Durham,
Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, and York, as well as the County of Simcoe. In
addition, the proposed changes could potentially be applied to additional upper-tier
municipalities in the future via regulation.
The proposed amendments under Schedule 9 of the Bill introduce numerous
questions related to the approach to ensuring effective leadership, management and
integration of regional and local land use planning across the affected jurisdictions.
In addition to providing a broad vision and planning direction with respect to the long-
term management of urban, rural and natural systems, upper-tier municipal planning
authorities also play a critical role regarding the coordination, phasing, and delivery of
water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure as well as other municipal
services. The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (P.P.S.) sets out specific
responsibilities for upper-tier municipalities, in consultation with lower-tier
municipalities, related to planning coordination, housing, economic development,
natural environment and municipal infrastructure. Furthermore, the P.P.S. directs
upper-tier municipal planning authorities to provide policy direction to lower-tier
municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries.
While the proposed amendment to the Bill aims to streamline the land use planning
process across the affected municipalities, it risks increasing complexity and
miscommunication while adding to the technical and administrative efforts of both
lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities, as well as the Province.
Furthermore, it would remove critical planning resources and knowledge at the
upper-tier level which are required when addressing matters that cross technical
disciplines and municipal jurisdictions. This would potentially result in disjointed
efforts and outcomes with respect to local planning approvals and regional municipal
service delivery.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-9
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
2. Review of the Potential Integration of A Place to Grow and the Provincial Policy
Statement (P.P.S.)
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is undertaking a housing-focused
policy review of A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
(G.G.H.), 2019, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Growth Plan, and the
P.P.S. The Province is reviewing the potential integration of the P.P.S. and the
Growth Plan into a new Province-wide planning policy framework that is intended to:
• Leverage housing-supportive policies of both policy documents, while removing
or streamlining policies that result in duplication, delays or burden the
development of housing;
• Ensure key growth management and planning tools are available to increase
housing supply and support a range and mix of housing options;
• Continue to protect the environment, cultural heritage, and public health and
safety; and
• Ensure that growth is supported with the appropriate amount and type of
community infrastructure.
Since the release of the Growth Plan in 2006 under the Places to Grow Act, 2005,
G.G.H. municipalities have been in a continuous cycle of developing and defending
growth management processes and Official Plan updates. Over the past several
years, all G.G.H. upper-tier, single-tier, and most lower-tier municipalities have
initiated the process of updating their respective Official Plans to bring these
documents into conformity with the Growth Plan. Within the G.G.H., this process is
referred to as a Municipal Comprehensive Review (M.C.R.). Many of these
municipalities have completed their draft M.C.R. analyses and draft Official Plan
updates for provincial approval, while several others are approaching completion.
The required technical analysis associated with the growth analysis and urban land
needs assessment component of the M.C.R. process is set out in the Provincial Land
Needs Assessment (L.N.A.) methodology, which is specific to G.G.H.
municipalities.[1] The M.C.R. process has required tremendous time and effort on
behalf of municipalities, consulting agencies, stakeholder groups and involved
residents. The results of these efforts represent a key planning milestone for all
G.G.H. municipalities and provide a solid foundation to build on as it relates to future
growth management implementation, monitoring and benchmarking.
Ontario municipalities located outside the G.G.H. are also now in the process of
updating their respective Official Plans in accordance with the P.P.S. For
municipalities in these jurisdictions, this process is referred to as a Comprehensive
Review (C.R.). While there are potential benefits regarding the consolidation of the
[1] A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Land Needs
Assessment Methodology for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. August 2020.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-10
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
P.P.S. and the Growth Plan, as it relates to the M.C.R. and C.R. process, there are a
number of issues that should be considered regarding this effort, particularly as they
relate to long-term growth management and urban land needs, discussed below.
Long-Term Population and Employment Forecasts
Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan establishes minimum long-term population and
employment forecasts for upper-tier and single-tier municipalities in the G.G.H. to the
year 2051. The Ministry of Finance (M.O.F.) also establishes long-term population
forecasts for all Ontario Census Divisions (C.D.s), which typically represent upper-tier
municipalities, separated municipalities, and single-tier municipalities. The M.O.F.
forecasts are not recognized as official forecasts for planning purposes in Ontario;
however, they are updated annually and can be used to inform population forecasts
in Official Plans. Under a consolidated Growth Plan and P.P.S., consideration would
need to be given to the role and source of growth forecasts established by the
Province for all Ontario municipalities.
Provincial Land Needs Assessment Methodology Guidelines
As previously noted, the L.N.A. methodology for G.G.H. municipalities was updated
by the Province in 2020. In accordance with the Growth Plan, the L.N.A.
methodology provides a step-by-step approach to conducting growth forecasts and
urban land need assessments for upper-tier and single-tier municipalities for both
Community Areas (i.e., living areas) and Employment Areas. All other Ontario
municipalities rely on the 1995 Provincial Projection Methodology Guidelines
(P.P.M.G.) for guidance regarding the technical approach to growth forecasts and
urban land need assessments. It is noted that the 1995 P.P.M.G. suggests that a
simplified methodology can be used for smaller or low-growth municipalities. It is
further noted that the P.P.M.G. is meant to be used as “best practices” and the
guidelines are not mandatory. Under a consolidated Growth Plan and P.P.S.,
consideration is required regarding the application of a standardized L.N.A.
methodology for all Ontario municipalities.
Addressing Urban Land Needs for Urban Settlement Areas
An important term used in the P.P.S. in the context of both urban land needs and
housing affordability is the Regional Market Area (R.M.A.). The R.M.A. is defined in
the P.P.S. and Growth Plan (with modifications) as follows:
“an area that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. The
upper- or single-tier municipality, or planning area, will normally serve as
the regional market area. However, where a regional market area extends
significantly beyond these boundaries, then the regional market area may
be based on the larger market area. Where regional market areas are
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-11
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
very large and sparsely populated, a smaller area, if defined in an official
plan, may be utilized.”
With respect to urban residential land needs assessments, the broad objective of this
policy is to ensure the efficient and wise use of all designated urban lands, both
occupied and vacant, within the R.M.A. before expanding Urban Settlement Area
boundaries. Across southern Ontario municipalities, a key challenge with the
application of this policy is the mismatch of urban residential land needs at the urban
settlement area level within the defined R.M.A. geography.
If the R.M.A. definition is interpreted too rigidly, it can constrain urban residential
development within Urban Settlement Areas, and more broadly across entire
municipalities, where identified urban land surpluses have been determined
elsewhere within the R.M.A. Neither the P.P.S. nor the Growth Plan provide
adequate direction for addressing residential urban land supply and demand
mismatches within the R.M.A. Subsection 2.2.1.6 of the Growth Plan provides policy
direction regarding Excess Lands, which applies exclusively to Outer Ring G.G.H.
municipalities. Under a consolidated Growth Plan and P.P.S., a review of the R.M.A.
and Excess Lands policies would be required to determine an appropriate and
standardized approach to addressing localized urban residential land needs for
Urban Settlement Areas and local municipalities.
Residential Intensification Targets and Minimum Density Requirements
Subsection 2.2.7.2 of the Growth Plan provides direction with respect to minimum
greenfield density targets for G.G.H. upper-tier and single-tier municipalities. These
densities range between 40 and 50 people and jobs per gross hectare (ha).
Minimum density requirements are also prescribed in the Growth Plan for Strategic
Growth Areas, such as Urban Growth Centres and Major Transit Station Areas
(M.T.S.A.s). The P.P.S. does not prescribe minimum density targets for Ontario
municipalities but does require municipalities to establish density targets for areas
adjacent, or in proximity, to M.T.S.A.s and corridors.
Subsection 2.2.2.1 of the Growth Plan requires upper-tier and single-tier G.G.H.
municipalities to establish minimum intensification targets within delineated built-up
areas (B.U.A.s). These were established under the Growth Plan, 2006. The
delineated B.U.A.s within G.G.H. municipalities have remained unchanged since the
Growth Plan was established in 2006. The P.P.S. also requires municipalities to
establish residential intensification targets but does not prescribe minimum density
targets for Ontario municipalities. Furthermore, the P.P.S. does not require
municipalities to delineate built area boundaries in Official Plans; however, some
Ontario municipalities outside the G.G.H. have delineated built area boundaries for
planning purposes. It is noted that the delineation of built area boundaries may be
subject to change or update for municipalities outside the G.G.H., while B.U.A.s
within the G.G.H. will remain fixed as of 2006. Under a consolidated Growth Plan
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-12
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
and P.P.S., a standardized approach to minimum density requirements and
residential intensification targets would be required for all Ontario municipalities.
Rural Housing
An identified area of the Growth Plan and P.P.S. review is to provide policy direction
to enable more residential development in Rural Areas. Rural Settlement Areas
include existing hamlets or similar existing small settlement areas that are
established in Official Plans. These communities are typically serviced by individual,
private, on-site water and/or private wastewater systems. Rural Settlement Areas
provide clusters of business operations that are essential to future economic growth.
Infilling and minor rounding out of existing residential and non-residential
development within Rural Settlement Areas is important to ensure that these areas
remain vibrant, sustainable and complete communities. Under a consolidated
Growth Plan and P.P.S., enabling more residential development in Rural Settlement
Areas, and Rural Areas more broadly, would need to be considered within the
context of the existing provincial and local policy frameworks, the land use hierarchy
identified in Official Plans, the provision of servicing, as well as the protection of
natural heritage and agricultural lands.
Employment Area Conversion
An identified area of the Growth Plan and P.P.S. review is to provide policy direction
to streamline and simplify the conversion of Employment Areas to new residential
and mixed-use development, where appropriate. Employment Areas form a vital
component of a municipality’s land use structure and represent an integral part of the
local economic development potential and competitiveness of municipalities. If not
carefully evaluated, the conversion of Employment Areas to non-employment uses
can potentially lead to negative impacts on the local economy in several ways. First,
Employment Area conversions can reduce employment opportunities, particularly in
export-based sectors, creating local imbalances between population and
employment. Second, Employment Area conversions can potentially erode
employment land supply and lead to further conversion pressure as a result of
encroachment of non-employment uses within, or adjacent to, Employment Areas.
Finally, Employment Area conversions can potentially fragment existing Employment
Areas, undermining their functionality and competitive position. Under a consolidated
Growth Plan and P.P.S., policy direction regarding the conversion of Employment
Areas should emphasize principles and criteria that examine both the quantity and
quality of Employment Areas within the context of the local and regional market
attributes, as well as the planned urban function of the subject conversion sites.
3. 2031 Municipal Housing Targets
The Province has identified that an additional 1.5 million new housing units are
required to be built over the next decade to meet Ontario’s current and forecast
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-13
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
housing needs. Furthermore, the Province has assigned municipal housing targets,
identifying the number of new housing units needed by 2031, impacting 29 of
Ontario’s largest and many of the fastest growing single/lower tier municipalities. Key
observations on the Province’s plan are as follows:
• The municipal housing targets for 2031 collectively account for 1,229,000 units,
representing about 82% of Ontario’s overall 1.5 million new homes target.
• Of the 29 municipalities with housing targets identified, 25 are within the G.G.H.
and four are located in other areas of southwestern and southeastern Ontario.
• Within the G.G.H. municipalities, the municipal housing targets are generally
higher than approved housing forecasts. In non-G.G.H. municipalities, there is
generally less discrepancy between the approved housing forecasts and the
Province’s targets. Having said that, the Municipal Housing Pledges are not
intended to replace current municipal Official Plans.
• The municipal housing targets are based on current and future housing needs. A
share of the overall housing need is attributed to a structural deficit in existing
housing inventories, while a portion of the housing need is linked to anticipated
population growth over the next decade.
• The housing targets are adapted from the housing needs assessment provided in
the “Ontario’s Need for 1.5 Million More Homes” report, prepared by Smart
Prosperity Institute, dated August 2022.
• The impacted municipalities are being asked to prepare Municipal Housing
Pledges to meet these housing targets. These pledges must include details on
how the municipality will enable/support housing development through a range of
planning, development approvals and infrastructure related initiatives.
• These housing pledges are not intended to replace current municipal Official
Plans and are not expected to impact adopted municipal population or
employment projections.
• While the municipal housing targets do not specify housing form, density, or
geographic location (e.g., greenfield, intensification), it is anticipated that any
needs beyond adopted housing forecasts will largely comprise rental and
affordable housing units primarily located within B.U.A.s, and to a lesser extent,
designated greenfield areas (D.G.A.s).
• To develop effective local policies and programs to support the achievement of
the housing targets, it is recommended that municipalities assess their existing
and future housing needs through a local lens, building on the high-level
assessment provided by the Province.
• Local housing needs should be considered within a broader growth management
framework, reflecting population, labour and employment/economic growth
potential, and addressed through a planning, economic, fiscal and housing
affordability lens.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-14
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
4. Potential Changes to Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning is a tool that can be used by municipalities to ensure the
provision of affordable housing. Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 232/18 implements
inclusionary zoning in Ontario. The proposed amendments to O. Reg 232/18 would:
• Establish 5% as the upper limit on the number of affordable housing units; the
5% limit would be based on either the number of units or percentage share of
gross floor area of the total residential units; and
• Establish a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years over which the affordable
housing units would be required to remain affordable.
While the proposed changes provide certainty with respect to affordable housing to
be provided under inclusionary zoning, they greatly limit a municipality’s ability to
tailor the provision for affordable housing to the local market and for development
feasibility considerations identified through the required Inclusionary Zoning
Assessment Report.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-15
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Attachment 3 - Changes to the Planning Act – Parkland
Dedication
1. New Statutory Exemptions: Affordable residential units, attainable residential units,
inclusionary zoning residential units, non-profit housing and additional residential unit
developments will be exempt from parkland dedication requirements. For affordable,
attainable, and inclusionary zoning residential units, the exemption is proposed to be
implemented by:
• discounting the standard parkland dedication requirements (i.e., 5% of land)
based on the proportion of development excluding affordable, attainable and
inclusionary zoning residential units relative to the total residential units for the
development; or
• where the alternative requirement is imposed, the affordable, attainable and
inclusionary zoning residential units would be excluded from the calculation.
For non-profit housing and additional residential units, a parkland dedication by-law
(i.e., a by-law passed under section 42 of the Planning Act) will not apply to these
types of development:
• Affordable Rental Unit: as defined under subsection 4.1 (2) of the D.C.A., where
rent is no more than 80% of the average market rent as defined by a new bulletin
published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
• Affordable Owned Unit: as defined under subsection 4.1 (3) of the D.C.A., where
the price of the unit is no more than 80% of the average purchase price as
defined by a new bulletin published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing.
• Attainable Unit: as defined under subsection 4.1 (4) of the D.C.A., excludes
affordable units and rental units, will be defined as prescribed development or
class of development and sold to a person who is at “arm’s length” from the
seller.
• Inclusionary Zoning Units: as described under subsection 4.3 (2) of the D.C.A.
• Non-Profit Housing: as defined under subsection 4.2 (1) of the D.C.A.
• Additional Residential Units, including:
o A second unit in a detached, semi-detached, or rowhouse if all buildings
and ancillary structures cumulatively contain no more than one residential
unit;
o A third unit in a detached, semi-detached, or rowhouse if no buildings or
ancillary structures contain any residential units; and
o One residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached, semi-
detached, or rowhouse on a parcel of urban land, if the detached, semi-
detached, or rowhouse contains no more than two residential units and no
other buildings or ancillary structures contain any residential units.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-16
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Analysis/Commentary
• While reducing municipal requirements for the conveyance of land or P.I.L. of
parkland may provide a further margin for builders to create additional affordable
housing units, the proposed parkland dedication exemptions will increase the
financial burdens on municipalities to fund these exemptions from property tax
sources (in the absence of any financial participation by senior levels of
government) or erode municipalities’ planned level of parks service.
• The definition of “attainable” is unclear, as this has not yet been defined in the
regulations to the D.C.A.
• Under the proposed changes to the D.C.A, municipalities will have to enter into
agreements to ensure these units remain affordable and attainable over a period
of time, which will increase the administrative burden (and costs) on
municipalities. An agreement does not appear to be required for affordable/
attainable units exempt from parkland dedication. Assuming, however, that most
developments required to convey land or provide P.I.L. of parkland would also be
required to pay development charges, the units will be covered by the
agreements required under the D.C.A. As such, the Planning Act changes
should provide for P.I.L. requirements if the status of the development changes
during the period.
• It is unclear whether the bulletin provided by the Province to determine if a
development is affordable will be specific to each municipality or aggregated by
County/Region or Province. Due to the disparity in incomes across Ontario,
affordability will vary significantly across these jurisdictions. Even within an
individual municipality there can be disparity in the average market rents and
average market purchase prices.
• While the proposed exemptions for non-profit housing and additional residential
units may be easily applied for municipalities imposing the alternative
requirement, as these requirements are imposed on a per residential unit basis, it
is unclear at this time how a by-law requiring the standard provision of 5% of
residential land would be applied.
2. Determination of Parkland Dedication: Similar to the rules under the D.C.A., the
determination of parkland dedication for a building permit issued within two years of a
Site Plan and/or Zoning By-law Amendment approval would be subject to the
requirements in the by-law as at the date of planning application submission.
Analysis/Commentary
• If passed as currently drafted, these changes would not apply to site plan or
zoning by-law applications made before subsection 12 (6) of Schedule 9 of the
More Homes Built Faster Act comes into force.
• For applications made after the in-force date, this would represent a lag in P.I.L.
value provided to municipalities, as it would represent the respective land value
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-17
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
up to two years prior vs. current value at building permit issuance. For
municipalities having to purchase parkland, this will put additional funding
pressure on property tax funding sources to make up the difference, or further
erode the municipality’s planned level of parks service.
3. Alternative Parkland Dedication Requirement: The following amendments are
proposed for the imposition of the alternative parkland dedication requirements:
• The alternative requirement of 1 hectare (ha) per 300 dwelling units would be
reduced to 1 ha per 600 dwelling units where land is being conveyed. Where the
municipality imposes P.I.L. requirements, the amendments would reduce the
amount from 1 ha per 500 dwelling units to 1 ha per 1,000 net residential units.
• Proposed amendments clarify that the alternative requirement would only be
calculated on the incremental units of development/redevelopment.
• The alternative requirement would be capped at 10% of the land area or land
value where the land proposed for development or redevelopment is 5 ha or less;
and 15% of the land area or land value where the land proposed for development
or redevelopment is greater than 5 ha.
Analysis/Commentary
• If passed as currently drafted, the decrease in the alternative requirements for
land conveyed and P.I.L. would not apply to building permits issued before
subsection 12 (8) of Schedule 9 of the More Homes Built Faster Act comes into
force.
• Most municipal parkland dedication by-laws only imposed the alternative
requirements on incremental development. As such, the proposed amendments
for net residential units seek to clarify the matter where parkland dedication by-
laws are unclear.
• Section 42 previously imposed the alternative requirement caps of 10% and 15%
of land area or value, depending on the respective developable land area, for
developments only within designated transit-oriented communities. By repealing
subsection 42 (3.2) of the Planning Act, these caps would apply to all
developable lands under the by-law.
• As illustrated in the figure below, lowering the alternative parkland dedication
requirement and imposing caps based on the developable land area will place
significant downward pressure on the amount of parkland dedication provided to
municipalities, particularly those municipalities with significant amounts of high-
density development. For example:
o Low-density development of 20 units per net ha (uph), with a person per
unit (P.P.U.) occupancy of 3.4, would have produced a land conveyance
of 0.98 ha per 1,000 population. The proposed change would reduce this
to 0.74 ha, approximately 75% of current levels.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-18
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
o Medium-density development of 50 uph, with a P.P.U. of 2.6 would
produce land conveyance at 50% of current levels (0.64 vs. 1.28 ha/1,000
population).
o Low-rise development of 150 uph, with a P.P.U. of 2.6 would produce land
conveyance at 20% of current levels (0.43 vs. 2.15 ha/1,000 population).
P.I.L. would be approximately 1/3 of current levels.
o High-rise development of 300 uph, with a P.P.U. of 2.6 would produce
land conveyance at 10% of current levels (0.22 vs. 2.15 ha/1,000
population). P.I.L. would be approximately 17% of current levels.[1]
• Based on the proposed alternative requirement rates and land area caps,
municipalities would be better off:
o For land conveyance, imposing the alternative requirement for densities
greater than 30 units per ha.
▪ Sites of 5 ha or less, land conveyance would be capped at 10% of
land area at densities greater than 60 units per ha.
▪ Sites greater than 5 ha, land conveyance would be capped at 15%
of land area at densities greater than 90 units per ha.
o For P.I.L. of parkland, imposing the alternative requirement for densities
greater than 50 units per ha.
▪ Sites of 5 ha or less, land conveyance would be capped at 10% of
land area at densities greater than 100 units per ha.
▪ Sites greater than 5 ha, land conveyance would be capped at 15%
of land area at densities greater than 150 units per ha.
o For densities less than 30 units per ha, imposing the standard requirement
of 5% of land area for land conveyance and P.I.L. of parkland.
[1] Low-rise and high-rise developments with sites larger than 5 ha would only be
marginally better under the proposed changes, at 30% and 15% of land conveyance
and 50% and 25% P.I.L., respectively.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-19
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-20
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
4. Parks Plan: The preparation of a publicly available parks plan as part of enabling an
Official Plan will be required at the time of passing a parkland dedication by-law
under section 42 of the Planning Act.
Analysis/Commentary
• The proposed change will still require municipal Official Plans to contain specific
policies dealing with the provision of land for parks or other public recreational
purposes where the alternative requirement is used.
• The requirement to prepare and consult on a parks plan prior to passing a by-law
under section 42 would now appear to equally apply to a by-law including the
standard parkland dedication requirements, as well as the alternative parkland
dedication requirements. This will result in an increase in the administrative
burden (and cost) for municipalities using the standard parkland dedication
requirements.
• Municipalities imposing the alternative requirement in a parkland dedication by-
law on September 18, 2020 had their by-law expire on September 18, 2022 as a
result of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act amendments. Many
municipalities recently undertook to pass a new parkland dedication by-law,
examining their needs for parkland and other recreational assets. Similar
transitional provisions for existing parkland dedication by-laws should be
provided with sufficient time granted to allow municipalities to prepare and
consult on the required parks plan.
5. Identification of Lands for Conveyance: Owners will be allowed to identify lands to
meet parkland conveyance requirements, within regulatory criteria. These lands may
include encumbered lands and privately owned public space (POPs). Municipalities
may enter into agreements with the owners of the land regarding POPs to enforce
conditions, and these agreements may be registered on title. The suitability of land
for parks and recreational purposes will be appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal
(OLT).
Analysis/Commentary
• The proposed changes allow the owner of land to identify encumbered lands for
parkland dedication consistent with the provisions available to the Minister of
Infrastructure to order such lands within transit-oriented communities. Similar to
the expansion of parkland dedication caps, these changes would allow this to
occur for all developable lands under the by-law. The proposed changes go
further to allow for an interest in land, or POPs.
• The municipality may refuse the land identified for conveyance, providing notice
to the owner with such requirements as prescribed. The owner, however, may
appeal the decision to the OLT. The hearing would result in the Tribunal
determining if the lands identified are in accordance with the criteria prescribed.
These “criteria” are unclear, as they have not yet been defined in the regulations.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-21
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
• Many municipal parkland dedication by-laws do not except encumber lands or
POPs as suitable lands for parkland dedication. This is due, in part, to
municipalities’ inability to control the lands being dedicated or that they are not
suitable to meet service levels for parks services. Municipalities that do accept
these types of lands for parkland or other recreational purposes have clearly
expressed such in their parkland dedication by-laws. The proposed changes
would appear to allow the developers of the land, and the Province within
prescribed criteria, to determine future parks service levels in municipalities in
place of municipal council intent.
6. Requirement to Allocate Funds Received: Similar to the requirements for C.B.C.s,
and proposed for the D.C.A. under Bill 23, annually beginning in 2023, municipalities
will be required to spend or allocate at least 60% of the monies in a reserve fund at
the beginning of the year.
Analysis/Commentary
• This proposed change appears largely administrative, increasing the burden on
municipalities. This change would not have a fiscal impact and could be
achieved as a schedule to annual capital budget. Moreover, as the Province
may prescribe annual reporting, similar to the requirements under the D.C.A. and
for a C.B.C under the Planning Act.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-22
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Attachment 4 - Changes to the Planning Act – Community
Benefits Charges
1. New Statutory Exemptions: Affordable residential units, attainable residential units,
and inclusionary zoning residential units will be exempt from the payment of C.B.C.s.,
with definitions provided as follows:
• Affordable Residential Units (Rented): Where rent is no more than 80% of the
average market rent as defined by a new bulletin published by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
• Affordable Residential Units (Ownership): Where the price of the unit is no more
than 80% of the average purchase price as defined by a new bulletin published
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
• Attainable Residential Units: Excludes affordable units and rental units; will be
defined as prescribed development or class of development and sold to a person
who is at “arm’s length” from the seller.
• Inclusionary Zoning Units: Affordable housing units required under inclusionary
zoning by-laws.
The exemption is proposed to be implemented by applying a discount to the
maximum amount of the C.B.C. that can be imposed (i.e., 4% of land value, as
specified in section 37 of the Planning Act). For example, if the affordable,
attainable, and/or inclusionary zoning residential units represent 25% of the total
building floor area, then the maximum C.B.C. that could be imposed on the
development would be 3% of total land value (i.e., a reduction of 25% from the
maximum C.B.C. of 4% of land value).
Analysis/Commentary
• While this is an admirable goal to create additional affordable housing units,
further C.B.C. exemptions will continue to provide additional financial burdens on
municipalities to fund these exemptions without the financial participation of
senior levels of government.
• The definition of “attainable” is unclear, as this has not yet been defined in the
regulations.
• Under the proposed changes to the D.C.A, municipalities will have to enter into
agreements to ensure that affordable units remain affordable for 25 years and
that attainable units are attainable at the time they are sold. An agreement does
not appear to be required for affordable/attainable residential units exempt from
payment of a C.B.C. Assuming, however, that most developments required to
pay a C.B.C. would also be paying development charges, the units will be
covered by the agreements required under the D.C.A. These agreements should
be allowed to include the C.B.C. so that if a municipality needs to enforce the
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-23
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
provisions of an agreement, both development charges and C.B.C.s could be
collected accordingly.
o These agreements will increase the administrative burden (and costs) on
municipalities. Furthermore, the administration of these agreements will
be cumbersome and will need to be monitored by both the upper-tier and
lower-tier municipalities.
• It is unclear whether the bulletin provided by the Province will be specific to each
municipality, each County/Region, or Province-wide. Due to the disparity in
incomes across Ontario, affordability will vary significantly across these
jurisdictions. Even within an individual municipality, there can be disparity in the
average market rents and average market purchase prices.
• Where municipalities are imposing the C.B.C. on a per dwelling unit basis, they
will need to ensure that the total C.B.C. being imposed for all eligible units is not
in excess of the incremental development calculation (e.g., as per the example
above, not greater than 3% of the total land value).
2. Limiting the Maximum C.B.C. in Proportion to Incremental Development: Where
development or redevelopment is occurring on a parcel of land with an existing
building or structure, the maximum C.B.C. that could be imposed would be calculated
based on the incremental development only. For example, if a building is being
expanded by 150,000 sq.ft. on a parcel of land with an existing 50,000 sq.ft. building,
then the maximum C.B.C. that could be imposed on the development would be 3% of
total land value (i.e., 150,000 sq.ft. / 200,000 sq.ft. = 75% x 4% maximum prescribed
rate = 3% of total land value).
Analysis/Commentary
• With municipal C.B.C. by-laws imposing the C.B.C. based on the land total land
value or testing the C.B.C. payable relative to total land value, there will be a
reduction in revenues currently anticipated. At present, some municipal C.B.C.
by-laws have provisions excluding existing buildings from the land valuation used
to calculate the C.B.C. payable or to test the maximum charge that can be
imposed. As such, this proposal largely seeks to clarify the administration of the
charge.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-24
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
Attachment 5 - Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act
1. Changes to conservation authority involvement in the development approvals
process
• Programs and services that are prohibited within municipal and other
programs and services:
o Authorities would no longer be permitted to review and comment on a
proposal, application, or other matter made under a prescribed Act (if not
related to their mandatory programs and services under O. Reg. 686/21).
The Province proposes that a new regulation would prescribe the following
Acts in this regard:
▪ The Aggregate Resources Act
▪ The Condominium Act
▪ The Drainage Act
▪ The Endangered Species Act
▪ The Environmental Assessment Act
▪ The Environmental Protection Act
▪ The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act
▪ The Ontario Heritage Act
▪ The Ontario Water Resources Act
▪ The Planning Act
• Exemptions to requiting a permit under section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act
o Where development has been authorized under the Planning Act it will be
exempt from required permits to authorize the development under section
28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Exemptions to permits would also
be granted where prescribed conditions are met.
o Regulation making authority would be provided to govern the exceptions
to section 28 permits, including prescribing municipalities to which the
exception applies, and any other conditions or restrictions that must be
satisfied.
• Shortened timeframe for decisions
o Applicants may appeal the failure of the authority to issue a permit to the
Ontario Land Tribunal within 90 days (shortened from 120 days currently).
Analysis/Commentary
• These changes would focus an authority’s role in plan review and commenting
on applications made under the above Acts (including the Planning Act) to the
risks of natural hazards only, limit the developments in which permits under
section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act would be required, and shorten
timeframes for issuing permits. Authorities would no longer be able to review
applications with respect to the natural heritage impacts.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-25
Letter to Standing Committee - November 17 2022
• With respect to natural heritage review requirements, the Province is proposing
to integrate the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (P.P.S.) and A Place To Grow:
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe into a new Province-wide
planning policy instrument. It is proposed that this new instrument could include
changes to natural heritage policy direction.
• Recent amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act have already been
implemented to limit a conservation authority to programs and services within
their core mandate unless they have entered into an agreement with a municipal
partner. Conservation authorities are able to efficiently provide services, such as
natural heritage review required under the P.P.S., to municipalities across their
watershed. Removing this ability from conservation authorities may result in
municipalities having to find other external sources with the expertise to
undertake this review, adding to the cost and timeframes for development
approvals and negatively impacting the Province’s goal of creating more housing.
2. Minister’s ability to freeze fees
• The Minister would have the ability to direct an authority to not change the
amount of any fee it charges (including for mandatory programs and services) for
a specified period of time.
Analysis/Commentary
• Limiting the ability of conservation authorities to recover the costs of plan review
and permitting from benefiting developers and landowners will place additional
financial burdens on conservation authorities and municipalities to fund these
activities.
• As the goal of the Province is to create more housing, it is suggested that any
limitations to conservation authority fees that are implemented should only apply
to plan review and permitting fees related to the construction of new homes.
Presentation to the Standing
Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure
and Cultural Policy on Bill 23
Gary Scandlan, Managing Partner
November 17, 2022
0
Introduction
•At the outset, we would like to thank the Committee for inviting
us to speak.
•We are providing a high-level summary PowerPoint presentation
along with a detailed letter submission re Bill 23 as it relates to:
•Development Charges (D.C.s)
•Planning
•Parkland Dedication (P.L.D.)
•Community Benefits Charges (C.B.C.s)
•Conservation Authorities (cost recovery and input to the planning
process).
•This presentation will provide certain highlights for the
Committee’s consideration.
1
Background on Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd.
•Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. is a firm of municipal economists,
planners and accountants which has been in operation since 1982. With a
municipal client base of more than 250 Ontario municipalities and utility
commissions, the firm is recognized as a leader in the municipal finance/local
government and land economics field.
•Our background is unprecedented including:
•Having undertaken over one-half of the consulting work completed in Ontario in the
D.C. field during the past decade;
•Provided submissions and undertook discussions with the Province when the
Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) was first introduced in 1989 and with each
subsequent amendment undertaken in 1997, 2015 and 2019 (including being a
member of the Provincial Technical Working Group on the 2020 D.C. and C.B.C.
regulations;
•Undertaken numerous studies that focus on growth management, population and
employment forecasting, urban land needs, municipal competitiveness, land use
planning policy and financial/economic impact analysis;
•Our work also includes the preparation of asset management plans, P.L.D. reviews,
C.B.C.s and conservation authority fees and charges.
2
1. Proposed Changes Which May Restrict/Inhibit
the Future Supply of Developable Lands
Present Situation
•For urban growth to occur, water and wastewater services must
be in place before building permits can be issued for housing.
•Most municipalities assume the risk of constructing this
infrastructure and wait for development to occur.
•Currently, 26% of municipalities providing water/wastewater
services are carrying negative D.C. reserve fund balances for
these services and many others are carrying significant growth-
related debt.
•Where the total cost of infrastructure is unaffordable, or will
cause municipalities to exceed their debt capacity limit, many
municipalities enter into front-ending and pre-payment
agreements to share the cashflow and risk with developers.
3
1. Proposed Changes Which May Restrict/Inhibit
the Future Supply of Developable Lands (Cont’d)
Bill 23 Impacts
•In addition to the present situation, Bill 23 proposes to:
•Phase-in any new by-laws over five years which, on average,
would reduce D.C. revenues by approximately 10%.
•Introduce new exemptions which would provide a potential
loss of 10-15% of the D.C. funding.
•Remove funding of water/wastewater master plans and
environmental assessments which provide for specific
planning and approval of infrastructure.
•Unclear whether land costs for treatment facilities and/or for
the purchase of land for linear infrastructure will continue to
be an eligible capital cost.
4
1. Proposed Changes Which May Restrict/Inhibit
the Future Supply of Developable Lands (Cont’d)
Bill 23 Impacts (Cont’d)
•Make changes to the Planning Act that would minimize upper-tier
planning in two-tier systems where the upper-tier municipality provides
water/ wastewater servicing. This disjointing between planning
approvals and timing/location of infrastructure construction may result
in inefficient servicing, further limiting the supply of serviced land.
•The loss in funding noted above must then be passed on to
existing rate payers. This comes at a time when municipalities
must implement asset management plans under the Infrastructure
for Jobs and Prosperity Act to maintain existing infrastructure.
Significant annual rate increases may then limit funding to the
capital budget and hence delay servicing of additional
developable lands for housing.
•Note that Stormwater and Roads are needed at a similar time to
support the creation of developable lands.
5
2. Proposed Changes which will Impact the
Provision of Municipal Housing
•The removal of housing service as an eligible service will
reduce municipalities’ participation in creating assisted/
affordable housing units.
•Based on present and in-place D.C. by-laws, over $2.2
billion in net growth-related expenditures providing for over
47,000 units (or 3.1% of the Province's 1.5 million housing
target) would be impacted by this change.
•Note that several municipalities who are not collecting for
the housing service are considering this service for their
updated background studies
6
2. Proposed Changes which will Impact the
Provision of Municipal Housing (Cont’d)
Municipality Year of Bylaw
DC for Single
Detached Unit -
As per By-law
Adoption
Net DC
Recoverable
Amount Included -
As per DC
Background Study
Net DC
Recoverable -
Indexed to 2022
Number of New
Housing Units
($) ($millions) ($millions)
Barrie 2019 626 10.3 13.3 539
Brantford 2021 6,665 37.2 42.6 476
Durham 2018 387 31.2 41.7 416
Guelph 2019 --- -
Halton 2021 986 50.1 57.3 400
Hamilton 2019 648 18.8 25.1 423
London 2019 ---
Niagara 2022 2,039 60.0 60.0 372
Ottawa 2019 179 11.6 14.9 1,190
Peel 2019 3,265 200.5 258.1 521
Simcoe 2022 3,153 67.6 67.6 263
Toronto*2022 8,603 1,477.0 1,477.0 40,000
Waterloo 2019 --- -
Windsor 2020 --- -
York 2022 1,608 181.2 181.2 2,569
2,239 47,200
*Total number of units - the net DC amount is after BTE
Totals
Housing Services For Region and Single Tier Municipalities
7
3. Proposed Changes –Affordable Housing
vs. Housing Affordability
There are numerous changes which would reduce municipal revenue
recovery and shift the financial burden from development to the existing
taxpayer and ratepayer, as follows:
•Added exemptions for affordable rental/owned residential units,
attainable residential units, inclusionary zoning residential units, non-
profit housing and additional units in existing homes provide a loss of
funding for all D.C. services as well as C.B.C.s and P.L.D. services.
•D.C. phase-in, loss of study and land costs for new infrastructure,
municipal housing as an ineligible D.C. service, loss of C.B.C. revenue
and parkland contributions reduced by 50% or more (with 10-15%
caps) for higher-density developments.
•Minister freeze on conservation authority fees: lowers funding for the
authority which increases costs passed on to existing taxpayers for
funding.
8
3.Proposed Changes –Affordable Housing
vs. Housing Affordability (Cont’d)
•While the goal of these proposed changes is to reduce the upfront cost
to a new home purchaser, the funding for this will come from the
existing taxpayer, i.e., existing residents and businesses subsidizing
new home purchasers, hence increasing housing affordability
concerns.
•Over the past 40 years, our firm has undertaken numerous fiscal
impact studies of residential development –as a whole, the new taxes
and fees generated by residential growth do not equal the new
operating cost required to support these developments.
•Based on past changes to the D.C.A., historical reductions have not
resulted in a decrease in the price of housing; hence, it is difficult to
relate the loss of needed infrastructure funding to affordable housing.
9
4. Considerations for the Standing Committee
•From the proposed legislation, phase-in charges and exemptions for
services essential to creating developable land supply (water,
wastewater, stormwater and roads) should be removed…or funded by
grants from senior levels of government.
•Reductions in parkland contributions, caps for high-density
development and developer ability to provide encumbered lands/POPS
should be removed from P.L.D. legislation to continue to allow
municipalities to determine appropriate levels of service for parks.
•Alternatively, to minimize the overall impact on the taxpayer and
ratepayer, provide access to other revenue sources (e.g., HST, land
transfer tax) to fund all D.C./P.L.D./C.B.C. revenue losses.
•Municipal housing should continue as an eligible D.C. service.
10
Thank you.
Questions
11
Your holiday getaway awaits
The holiday season is the perfect time to escape your hustle and bustle and explore the rural routes of
Elgin County. From some of our most iconic locations, like Pinecroft (pictured above) to the new favourite
destinations in our memory books, there are so many great ways to experience the best of the season.
Check out some of our top picks and plan a trip to Elgin soon- we can't wait to welcome you.
Take a journey to Christmases past at the annual Dickens' Days festival in Port Stanley November 25-27.
Each day the picturesque lakeside village features horse-drawn carriage rides, carollers, and warming
stations with marshmallow roasting. The night parade kicks off at 7pm on the 25th and many local
restaurants are offering patio viewing and post-parade treats. The village's business are ready to help you
check of your Christmas shopping list with unique treasures and some incredible promotions just for
Dickens' Days! There will also be an outdoor market from 12-4pm on Saturday with handmade and
curated goods from our great Elgin-area small business community. Full details on the Dickens' Days
Weekend here
Can't make it to Elgin this weekend? Check
out some of our other upcoming holidayevents and markets!
Old Imperial Farmers' Market
Don't miss the Old Imperial Farmers' Market
in Aylmer for all your gift-giving needs! With
food, children's activities, and live music, this
iconic Elgin venue is a one-stop shop for all
things festive this holiday season. Website
Port Stanley Terminal Rail Treats Trains
Bring the family all aboard for a train ride
through Elgin County in a warm heated car.
Featuring live entertainment, treats, and a
meeting with Mr. Claus himself, this classic
Elgin experience is a hallmark for passengers
of all ages! Website
Backus-Page House Museum
Explore this beautiful ca. 1850 historic
country home with halls fully decked for the
Christmas season. This year's theme is the
1920s! Details
Dutton-Dunwich Winter Illumination
Community Festival and Parade
The town of Dutton will be all aglow on
December 10 thanks to the Wallacetown
Optimist Club. With a small business market,
food, activities and inflatables for kids, hot
chocolate, and more, the event will be
highlighted by the Santa Claus parade, now in
the evening! Details
The official Elgin County 2022 holiday gift guide is now live! Let us help you wow everyone on
your shopping list this year with unique gifts all found right here in the County. Thank you for
making it a priority to #ShopLocal and #ShopElgin this holiday season! 2022 Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to learn a new skill or experience something out of your regular routine? Elgin offers a range of
year-round options for a date night out or even a solo venture! Check out these great local memory
makers:
Yellow Brick Pottery
Pura Vida Spanish Classes
Fitborough
Port Burwell Periscope Playhouse
Quai du Vin Estate Winery
Pepper Tree Spice Co.
Elgin County | 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, N5R 5V1 Canada
Unsubscribe economicdevelopment@elgin.ca
Update Profile |Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent byeconomicdevelopment@elgin.cain collaboration
with
Try email marketing for free today!
Meagan Elliott Deputy Clerk
Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160 56169 Heritage Line Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 November 8, 2022 Re: Request for Traffic Study Dear Ms. Elliott,
As directed by County Council on September 27, 2022 in response to a request from the Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County staff completed a traffic study on Fulton Street (CR 41) in Vienna and presented the findings to County Council at their November 8, 2022 meeting. Following their review of the staff report, Elgin County Council passed the following resolution:
“Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw Seconded by: Councillor McPhail RESOLVED THAT the report titled “Traffic Study – Fulton Street (CR 41), Vienna” dated October 13, 2022 from the General Manager of Engineering, Planning & Enterprise/Deputy CAO be received and filed. - Motion Carried.” A copy of the staff report is attached for your records.
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Lima, General Manager of Engineering, Planning & Enterprise (EPE)/Deputy CAO at blima@elgin.ca.
Sincerely,
Jenna Fentie
Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk jfentie@elgin.ca cc: Brian Lima, General Manager of Engineering, Planning & Enterprise/Deputy CAO Peter Dutchak, Manager of Transportation Services, County of Elgin
1
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Brian Lima, General Manager of
Engineering, Planning, & Enterprise (EPE) / Deputy
CAO
Peter Dutchak, Manager of Transportation Services
DATE: October 13, 2022
SUBJECT: Traffic Study – Fulton Street (CR 41),
Vienna
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report titled “Traffic Study – Fulton Street (CR 41), Vienna” from the General Manager of Engineering, Planning, & Enterprise (EPE) / Deputy CAO, dated October 13, 2022, be received and filed.
INTRODUCTION:
At the September 27th, 2022 meeting of County Council, the following resolution was
passed:
“RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to complete a traffic study and speed study
on Fulton Street in Vienna and provide a report with results and
recommendations for Council’s consideration at a future meeting.”
This report provides the traffic data and study results for Council’s information.
DISCUSSION:
The County of Elgin received a letter through the Municipality of Bayham and originating
from a Vienna resident, requesting that a traffic study be completed on Fulton Street
(CR 41). The concerns expressed included speeding, inadequate sight distance from
Oak Street, off-road vehicles and large farm equipment use.
As directed by County Council, staff completed a traffic study that included obtaining
current traffic data, a review of existing sight distances from Oak Street and a review of
police reported collisions over the past five years.
Staff deployed a radar traffic data collector on Fulton Street (CR 41) between
September 20th and 26th at the intersection of Oak Street. The resulting collected
information confirmed the following:
2
• Average daily traffic volume – 911
• Average speed of vehicles – 43km/h (85th percentile speed – 53km/h)
• Large trucks formed 5.6% of the daily traffic volume (51 trucks daily) Municipality of Bayham staff also obtained traffic data at a nearby location and
overlapping the County’s collection period and their data yielded similar findings.
Fulton Street has a posted speed limit of 50km/h and a functional classification as a
local road. The traffic data information obtained is consistent with the road’s purpose
and design.
Available sight distances were measured for vehicles stopped at Oak Street attempting
left turning movements onto Fulton Street and sufficient sight distance was found to be
available.
A review of available police reported collisions over the past five years found none to
have occurred on Fulton Street.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
Serving Elgin Growing Elgin Investing in Elgin
☒ Ensuring alignment of
current programs and services with community need.
☐ Exploring different
ways of addressing community need.
☐ Engaging with our
community and other stakeholders.
☐ Planning for and
facilitating commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural growth.
☐ Fostering a healthy
environment.
☐ Enhancing quality of
place.
☐ Ensuring we have the
necessary tools, resources, and infrastructure to deliver programs and services now and in the future.
☐ Delivering mandated
programs and services efficiently and
effectively.
LOCAL MUNICIPAL PARTNER IMPACT:
None.
3
COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS:
A copy of this report and Council resolution to be provided to the Municipality of
Bayham and the requesting constituent.
CONCLUSION:
As directed by County Council, staff completed a traffic study on Fulton Street (CR 41)
in Vienna. The study included the collection of traffic data, intersection sight distance
measurements and a review of available police collision reports.
The traffic study’s findings were consistent with the road’s functional classification and
design. No further action is recommended by staff.
Approved for Submission
Julie Gonyou
Chief Administrative Officer
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
Brian Lima, General Manager of
Engineering, Planning, & Enterprise
(EPE) / Deputy CAO
Peter Dutchak Manager of Transportation Services
BY E-MAIL ONLY
November 16, 2022
Tracy Robinson, CN Rail President and CEO
Montreal (Headquarters)
935 de La Gauchetière Street West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3B 2M9
Dear Tracy Robinson:
Re: CN Railway Contribution Requirements under the Drainage Act and Impacts on
Municipal Drain Infrastructure in Ontario
At the October 17, 2022, regular Council meeting Warwick Township Council discussed
the continuing impacts of CN’s decision not to participate in funding municipal drains in
Ontario, as per the Drainage Act, and the negative consequences on our community and
others in the Province and approved the following resolution to be circulated to CN and
related partners:
WHEREAS municipal drains are considered critical rural infrastructure that
support food production, food security, the environment and economic
sustainability in rural Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the creation, maintenance and contribution requirements
towards municipal drain infrastructure are governed by the Drainage Act;
AND WHEREAS an official from CN Rail has formally communicated to the
Township of Warwick that “CN’s decision is that it is a federally regulated
entity under CTA guidelines, as such, are not governed by provincial
regulations”;
AND WHEREAS the implication that any public utility could become exempt
from the financial requirements invalidates the underlying principle that all
benefitting from municipal drain projects are required to contribute
financially, including all public utilities;
TOWNSHIP OF WARWICK
“A Community in Action”
5280 Nauvoo Road | P.O. Box 10 | Watford, ON N0M 2S0
Township Office: (226) 848-3926 Works Department: (519) 849-3923
Watford Arena: (519) 876-2808 Fax: (226) 848-6136
Website: www.warwicktownship.ca E-mail: info@warwicktownship.ca
AND WHEREAS there are currently at least fifty-five municipal drainage
projects in Ontario being impacted by CN’s actions and refusal to
contribute as per the Drainage Act;
AND WHEREAS the Township of Warwick and many rural municipalities
have expressed concerns over this CN Rail position to the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Affairs consistently over at least the past fours
years;
AND WHEREAS the Township of Warwick and other rural municipalities
met with Minister Thompson at the Association of Municipalities in Ontario
(AMO) on this issue and Minster Thompson has confirmed it remains the
Provincial government’s position that the Drainage Act does apply to all
federally regulated railways;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Warwick hereby
declares as follows:
THAT Ontario’s Drainage Act is an important piece of legislation used to
meet the drainage needs of a variety of stakeholders, including agricultural
businesses and ultimately food production, thereby supporting families,
neighbours, and thriving communities;
AND THAT CN Rail be called upon to act as a partner to municipalities and
agriculture in Ontario and reconsider its position that the Drainage Act
does not apply to it as a public entity;
AND THAT CN Rail contribute to all municipal drains in Ontario, as per
section 26 of the Drainage Act, and work to expedite its response timelines
to the fifty-five projects currently on hold in Ontario so that the projects
impacting the agriculture sector can proceed and be dealt with in a timely
manner after years of delay caused directly by CN Rail;
AND THAT a copy of this resolution be circulated to Minister of Agriculture
Food and Rural Affairs Lisa Thompson, local MPP Monte
McNaughton, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Marie-Claude Bibeau,
CN Manager Public Affairs, Ontario & Atlantic Canada Daniel Salvatore, the
President and CEO of CN Rail Tracy Robinson, Director of Government
Relations Railway Association of Canada Gregory Kolz and to all
municipalities in Ontario for their support.
- Carried.
Warwick Township Council looks forward to a timely response from CN in the hopes that
this issue impacting rural Ontario can be resolved.
Sincerely,
Amanda Gubbels
CAO/Clerk
Township of Warwick
Cc:
Lisa Thompson, Minister of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs,
Monte McNaughton, MPP Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Daniel Salvatore, CN Manager Public Affairs, Ontario & Atlantic Canada
Cyrus Reporter, CN Vice-President, Public, Government and Regulatory Affairs
Jonathan Abecassis, CN Media Relations & Public Affairs
Gregory Kolz, Director of Government Relations, Railway Association of Canada
All Ontario municipalities
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: December 1, 2022
REPORT: CAO-65/22 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF A PORTION OF CLARKE ROAD
BACKGROUND:
Clarke Road is considered a municipal road and part of the Municipality’s public highway
system. It is located east of Port Burwell and runs north/south between Tunnel Line and
Lakeshore Line.
The Municipality has historically maintained Clarke Road.
DISCUSSION
In November 2022, the Municipality was advised that a portion of Clarke Road between Tunnel
Line and Glen Erie Line remained in private ownership. This was discovered during a title
search conducted during a private sale of land. The law firm acting for the private landowner
advised us of same, requesting that the Municipality action necessary documents to correct the
title and assume the lands. The landowners would duly deed the lands to Bayham for Bayham
to formally assume.
The R-Plan denoting the section to which this Report applies are attached for Council’s
information.
As a housekeeping matter, Staff are recommending that the Municipality execute the required
documentation to formally have the identified section of Clarke Road transferred into Municipal
ownership to clean up title of the section and ensure that the entirety of Clarke Road is in full
Municipal ownership.
This is a matter that Council has addressed twice in the recent past. In 2019, Council adopted
By-law Nos. 2019-032 and 2019-081 to assume other sections of Clarke Road into the
Municipal system. Staff are taking the same approach for this instance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 11R-10922, showing Part 1, being the in-question portion of Clarke Road.
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report CAO-65/22 re Transfer of a Portion of Clarke Road be received for
information;
2. AND THAT the Clerk and Mayor execute the required documentation to transfer the
identified portion of Clarke Road into Municipal ownership.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Thomas Thayer, CMO
CAO|Clerk
T71 gi12i) 1 REOLIRE THIS PLAN TO BE PLAN 1iR— i ua 2z
03 6 r '
48 8 gSRI 2p'', ' Nl71, 2d () + 78 AEPOSiTEO tN1 THE LAND TITLES
CT RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED
71• lg 3o; 1;,t; Ali 1966 7- rg, i DATE SEP BE 2, 2 DATE
TZ W .! i0.+- . g s 3Q -
7 g `5.3,3 MIN f =:= z; p
REPRESEM THE FOR THEM) (
l ¢9
Y
AI%'`rV ? 1
8 ` A-0
LAI+F? RE TRAR FOR TIE LAND7rs2g916 TITLES DIVISION OF ELGIN M. 11)
PART SCHEDULE
7 (s)
PART LOT CONCESSION P.I.N. AREA
I PART OF Z PART OF 0.62
Ig 35329-0127 1 HECTARES
N
O (D
PLAN OF SUPVEY OF
PART OF LOT 18
rL, g =s -CONCESSION 2
T= GEOGRAPHIC TOW/VSHIP OF BA YHAI`'I
MUMCPALITY OF BA YHAM
Y- COUNTY OF ELCIN
6.096 (s} SCALE — 1: 1500
Of\ J
O \ METRIC DISTANCES AND c0ORmATES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE N METRES
o AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0,3048
co
r`
KIM HUSTED SURVEYING LTD.
41_
r\
Ll—
rN \J
Isso
L J.J
SURVEYOR`S CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY THAT
1) - THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND N ACCORDANCE WITH
THE SURVEYS ACT, THE SURVEYORS ACT AND THE LAND TITLES ACT AND THEco
co REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM
i_ N LiAv
i_ _i_ (2) - THIS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
O rtx;
10 r_ ?_
co 00
ch
SEPiI;.IV1 E LLB-GQGZ --
M DATE S. TED
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
f1' t--
1J
1 THIS PLAN OF SURVEY RELATES TO AOLS PLAN SUBMISSION FORM NUMBER V-3662$.
J
r \
J
GM
a
Z7D o
COORDINATE SCHEDULEt\ o
ALL COORDINATES ARE IN METRES AND WERE DERIVED FROM
v GPS OBSERVATIONS USING THE CAN -NET WORK,
UTM, ZONE 17 (81' WEST LONGITUDE) NAD83 (CSRS) (2010.0)
u% 'T-
a
u) -. - COORDINATE VALUES ARE TO URBAN ACCURACY AS PER SEC. 14 (2)
OF 0. REG. 216/10
Cl_ rti=
j: - " POINT NORTHING EASTING
0.16.096 (s)
A 4724131.524 518847.454
n
B 4723304135 518834.535
J
COORDINATES CANNOT, IN THEMSELVES, BE USED TO
RE-ESTABLISH CORNERS OR BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN
010
g
sso
ad
tL
N O
O f`
Nco
N
h
115513
I, 'IN
1 rn
to 1 cc
a __J 0
N i, Irj
to
r
tiyg2
d
Li
h M
Q;
164N 70
O
CJ
NOTES
1) - BEARINGS ARE (RID, DERIVED ON GPS OBSERVATIO S ON MONUMENTS
A" AND "B" SHOWN HEREON HAVING A GRID BEARING OF
N 00' 53' 35' E NTM, ZONE 17, NAD83 CSRS)
2) - TO CONVERT (P2) 13EARMS TO GRID BEARINGS
ADD W 10' 30" TO THE NORTHWEST BEARINGS
SUBTRACT 00' 10' 30" FROM THE NORTHEAST BEADS
3) - DISTANCES SHOWN ON TM PLAN ARE GROUND DISTANCES AND CAN BE
CONVERTED TO GRID DISTANCES BY MULTIPL.YM BY 0.999577213
24' (
M) ",QS S el01) LEGEND
3 p) ,5$ ® DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT' FOUND
DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT SET
N 70. SIB DENOTES STANDARD RON BAR
6 .437JS. IS DENOTES IRON BAR
pi yy RIB DENOTES ROLM BAR
M) WIT.) DENOTES WITNESS
It) Pi) DOTES DEPOSITED PLAN 11R-10445
It P2) DENOTES EXPROPRIATION PLAN D-830
O 727) DENOTES J.F. WESTON O.L.S.
C14I
C1S$2) DENOTES KM HOSTED SURVEYING LTD.
o O BSR) DENOTES BENT SPUN RESET
DENOTES BELOW GLADE
DENOTES MEASURED
o% S) DENOTES SETUzPJ.N. MOTES PROPERTY IDENTIFIER NUMBER
f1'
n Q es rye Q i_
1 / w
oq IwN
z Q d ,-
t R F¢- CL
o Lif o C Q: z __;
z .2 r n
e ci \
7) KIM HUSTED SURVEYING LTD.
1 ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
N 7, • 30 HAR2VEY STREET, TLLSONBURG ONTAR IO, N40 3J8
Rogo fN
6. 46 P sA W Rai ICNNE.'519-842-3638 FAX: 519-842-3639
CO AuO Ncp oT , j .
1€rjas a ee v sw REF DWG. GESNOEct•, qN fN
IF -At` ON, PRO ECT: 22-17949 HFi ( K
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-075
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 1, 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 December 1, 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 1st DAY
OF DECEMBER 2022.
____________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK