HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 04, 2023 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, May 4, 2023 7:00 p.m. The May 4, 2023 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 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. PRESENTATIONS 6. DELEGATIONS
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held April 20, 2023 B. Statutory Planning Meeting held April 20, 2023 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-07/23 by Ed Roloson, Manager of Capital Projects|Water/Wastewater
Operations re 2023 Roads Surface Treatment – Capital
Council Agenda May 4, 2023
2
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Passing of Zoning By-law Amendment Z755-2023 – Froese B. Notice of Adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 31 – Thompson
C. Notice of Adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 32 – Schep D. Notice of Decision of Minor Variance A-03/23 CHR Farms Ltd. 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-26/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re
Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd.
B. Report DS-27/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Consent
Application E21-23 Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd. 55267 Orchard Line
C. Report DS-28/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Rezoning
Application ZBA-04/23 Rideout & Lavallee
D. Report DS-29/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Rezoning
Application ZBA-05/23 Hiebert
E. Report DS-30/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Review:
Draft Elgin County Official Plan 2023
F. Report DS-31/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Bill 109,
More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 – Staff Report DS-34/22 Option 3
13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Regional Municipality of Waterloo re Personal Information of Election Donors B. Northumberland County re AMO Call to Action on Housing and Homelessness
C. Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities re Bail Reform
D. City of Stratford re Use of Long-Term Care Funding to Support Community Care Services
E. Township of The Archipelago re Road Management Action on Invasive Phragmites
Council Agenda May 4, 2023
3
13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Erie Shores Wind Farm re Letter of Support
B. Mark Hill re Vienna Village Speed Limit 13.2 Reports to Council A. Report CAO-28/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Amendment to Site Plan
Agreement – Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc. SPA-03/22 B. Report CAO-29/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Agreement No. 0766 a+LINK Architecture – Extension C. Report CAO-31/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. 2023-032 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a temporary use and demolition agreement between Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. and the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
B. By-law No. 2023-033 Being a by-law to aurhorize the execution of an agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Mobil Services Inc. for bridge washing services
C. By-law No. Z756-2023 Being a by-law to amend By-Law No. Z456-2003, as amended – Lavallee & Rideout
D. By-law No. Z757-2023 Being a by-law to amend By-Law No. Z456-2003, as amended – Hiebert 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 In Camera A. Confidential Report re Personal Matters about an Identifiable Individual (Property
Standards Appointments) 16.2 Out of Camera A. By-law No. 2023-034 Being a by-law to appoint committee members 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-law No. 2023-035 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
18. ADJOURNMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Public Planning Meeting – 3 Applications The April 20, 2023 Council Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube. PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER
COUNCILLORS TIMOTHY EMERSON DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT
STAFF PRESENT: CAO|CLERK THOMAS THAYER
DEPUTY CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT PLANNING COORDINATOR|DEPUTY CLERK MARGARET UNDERHILL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS|
DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS *via Zoom PLANNING CONSULTANT, IBI GROUP PAUL RILEY *via Zoom 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
Councillor Dan Froese declared a pecuniary interest to item 12.2 B since the applicants are himself and his son.
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements.
5. PRESENTATIONS 6. DELEGATIONS
A. Straffordville Community Committee re Watermelon Fest Moved by: Councillor Emerson Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
2
THAT the delegation from the Straffordville Community Committee re Watermelon Fest be
received for information. CARRIED
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held April 6, 2023 B. Statutory Planning Meeting held April 6, 2023 Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held April 6, 2023 be approved as
amended; AND THAT the Statutory Planning Meeting held April 6, 2023 be approved as presented. CARRIED 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM Two (2) members of the public spoke to item 12.2 C. 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
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting for a Proposed Minor Variance – A-03/23 CHR Farms Ltd.
B. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/23 Lankhuijzen Farms Ltd.
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
3
C. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-04/23 Rideout & Lavallee
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-05/23 Hiebert Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT items 12.1.1 A – D be received for information. CARRIED 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-21/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk & Steve Adams, Manager of Public
Works|Drainage Superintendent re 1st Quarter Report
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Report DS-21/23 re 1st Quarter Report be received for information. CARRIED
Councillor Froese left the table at 7:17 pm
B. Report DS-23/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Rezoning
Application ZBA-01/23 – Froese, N & D, 8375 Plank Road
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Emerson THAT Report DS-23/23 regarding the Froese rezoning application ZBA-01/23 be received for information; AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held April 6, 2023 associated with this application, there were no written submissions and no oral presentations received regarding this matter; AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this
resolution; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by
changing the zoning on a property located in Concession South Gore South Part Lot 15 RP11R1659 Part 1, known municipally as 8375 Plank Road from Rural Commercial (RC) to site-specific Rural Residential (RR-45) Zone to recognize the ongoing residential use
of the lands and to recognize a rear yard setback minimum of 5.4 metres and minimum accessory building setback of 1.9 metres for the existing buildings;
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
4
AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z755-2023 be presented to Council for enactment. CARRIED
Councillor Froese returned to the table at 7:21 pm
Council considered item 13.1.1 before considering the remainder of 12.2.
The Council Meeting recessed to host a Statutory Planning Public Meeting at 7:27 p.m.
The Council Meeting resumed at 7:47 p.m.
C. Report DS-24/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Official
Plan Amendment OPA-02/23 OPA No. 31, Zoning Amendment ZBA-02/23 – Blayne and
Kelsey Thompson, 10729 Plank Road
Moved by: Councillor Emerson Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Staff Report DS-24/23 regarding the Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-
02/23 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA-02/23 submitted by Blayne and
Kelsey Thompson be received for information;
AND THAT, pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held
April 6, 2023 associated with these applications, there were no public submissions and
that all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this
resolution;
AND THAT Council considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and is in conformity to the Elgin County Official Plan
and the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan;
AND THAT By-law No. 2023-029, being an adopting By-law for Official Plan Amendment
No. 31, for the purpose to change the land use designation for 1.06 hectares (2.6 acres)
of land from “Estate Residential” to “Industrial” on Schedule A1: Municipality of Bayham
Land Use and addition of site-specific policy Section 3.9.2.4 for mechanical services
business office and warehouse use, subject to site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment
and Site Plan Approval, in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham, be presented
for enactment;
AND THAT Official Plan Amendment No. 31, as amended, be adopted and forwarded to
the County of Elgin for approval;
AND THAT the draft Zoning By-law be presented to Council for consideration after such
time as OPA No. 31 receives County of Elgin approval and the details of OPA No. 31 are
finalized.
CARRIED
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
5
D. Report DS-25/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk re Official
Plan Amendment OPA-03/23, OPA No. 32, Zoning Amendment ZBA-03/23 – Arie and
Christina Schep, 14077 Bayham Drive
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Staff Report DS-25/23 regarding the Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-03/23 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA-03/23 submitted by Arie and Christina Schep be received for information; AND THAT, pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held April 6, 2023 associated with these applications, there were no public submissions and that all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; AND THAT Council considers the proposed amendment to not be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the Elgin County Official Plan and the Municipality of
Bayham Official Plan; AND THAT By-law 2023-030 being an adopting By-law for Official Plan Amendment No.
32 for the purpose to change the land use designation on 2,700 sq. m. (0.66 acres) by adding a new policy in Section 2.1.5.2 specific to the subject lands to permit an electrical services business as an on-farm diversified use in the Official Plan of the Municipality of
Bayham be refused for the following reasons: 1) A proposed site-specific text subsection to be added to the Official Plan to permit a non-resource use in the prime agricultural area specific to the subject lands for a land use that is intended to be located in a settlement area that does not appear to be secondary in nature based on scale and does not appear to be on-farm diversified
use in nature. 2) The proposed use appears to be larger in scale and nature than a home industry and/or secondary use 3) The building appears to be larger than appropriate to be considered a secondary or accessory use 4) A diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on other uses. 5) The proposed commercial/industrial use is not in conformity to the Bayham Official Plan policies for non-resource uses.
AND THAT the requested Zoning By-law Amendment does not conform to the existing
Official Plan and is not consistent to the PPS 2020 and does not promote good land use
planning.
DEFEATED
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
6
Moved by: Councillor Emerson
Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Staff Report DS-25/23 regarding the Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-
03/23 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA-03/23 submitted by Arie and
Christina Schep be received for information;
AND THAT, pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held
April 6, 2023 associated with these applications, there were no public submissions and
that all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this
resolution;
AND THAT Council considers the proposal to be small-scale in nature with a proposed
use that is considered to be on-farm diversified use in nature and the amendment to be
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and is in conformity to the Elgin
County Official Plan and the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan;
AND THAT By-law No. 2023-030, being an adopting By-law for Official Plan Amendment
No. 32, for the purpose to permit an oversized home occupation workshop as a non-
resource based secondary use and an On-farm Diversified use for an electrical services
business contained on a portion of the subject lands and operating out of an existing
building and gravel yard specific to the subject lands, be presented for enactment;
AND THAT adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 32 be forwarded to the County of
Elgin for approval;
AND THAT the draft Zoning By-law be presented to Council for consideration after such
time as OPA No. 32 receives County of Elgin approval and the details of OPA No. 32 are
finalized.
CARRIED
13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Elgin County re County Council Highlights March 28, 2023
B. Elgin County re 2022 Library Performance C. Elgin County re County Council Highlights April 11, 2023 D. Elgin County re Economic Development April Newsletter E. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re 2022 Annual Report F. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing re The Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
7
G. Town of Plympton-Wyoming re Bill 5 – Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local
Leaders Act
H. Town of Plympton-Wyoming re Reducing Municipal Insurance Costs
I. Town of Plympton-Wyoming re Municipalities Retaining Surplus Proceeds from Tax Sales Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT items 13.1.1 A – I be received for information;
AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham supports item 13.1.1 H. CARRIED 13.1.2 Requiring Action
13.2 Reports to Council A. Report CAO-26/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Education Development Charges
Moved by: Councillor Emerson Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT Report CAO-26/23 re Education Development Charges be received for information. CARRIED 14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. Z755-2023 Being a by-law to amend By-Law No. Z456-2003, as amended – Froese, N & D
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT each By-law presented for approval be voted upon separately. CARRIED
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT By-law No. Z755-2023 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
8
B. By-law No. 2023-029 Being a by-law to Adopt Official Plan Amendment 31 – Thompson Moved by: Councillor Emerson Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT By-law No. 2023-029 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED C. By-law No. 2023-030 Being a by-law to Adopt Official Plan Amendment 32 – Schep Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Emerson THAT By-law No. 2023-030 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS
16.1 In Camera 16.2 Out of Camera 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2023-031 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Emerson THAT Confirming By-law No. 2023-031 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.
CARRIED 18. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 8:36 p.m. CARRIED
Council Minutes April 20, 2023
9
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM STATUTORY PLANNING MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:30 p.m. A. Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/23 Lankhuijzen Farms Ltd. 55106 Vienna Line B. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-04/23 Rideout & Lavallee 55326 Maple Grove Line C. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-05/23 Hiebert 56282/56284 Heritage Line The April 20, 2023 Planning Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube.
PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER COUNCILLORS TIMOTHY EMERSON DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT STAFF PRESENT: CAO|CLERK THOMAS THAYER DEPUTY CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT PLANNING COORDINATOR|DEPUTY CLERK MARGARET UNDERHILL PUBLIC ATTENDEES A: DAVE ROE
PUBLIC ATTENDEES B: BYRON RIDEOUT PUBLIC ATTENDEES C: DAVE ROE
APPLICATION A 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 3. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment. 4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
A. Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-01/23 Lankhuijzen Farms Ltd. 55106 Vienna Line
2 Statutory Planning Minutes April 6, 2023
THE PURPOSE of the Official Plan Amendment is to add a new site-specific sub-section to permit the severance of an existing dwelling made surplus through farm consolidation that does not conform to policy Section 2.1.7 c). The Subject lands are located at 55106 Vienna Line, north side, west of Centre Street and the village of Vienna. THE EFFECT of this Official Plan Amendment will be to permit the severance of a surplus farm
dwelling from a farm parcel where the owner does not own another dwelling within the Municipality of Bayham. The owner owns dwellings in the Township of Malahide. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dave Roe, agent, summarized the application. Mr. Roe noted that various other avenues were
debated for which applications and planning process to follow and that this is best suited for the desired outcome. 6. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence received. 7. OTHER BUSINESS No other business.
8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Official Plan Amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council;
AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-01/23 is now complete at 7:37 p.m.
CARRIED APPLICATION B
9. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. 10. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 11. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
3 Statutory Planning Minutes April 6, 2023
12. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
B. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-04/23 Rideout & Lavallee 55326 Maple Grove Line THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone to a ‘site-specific Rural Residential (RR-xx)’ zone to permit maximum
accessory building floor area of 130 m2 (1,399.3 ft2) whereas 95 m2 (1,022.6 ft2) is the permitted maximum in the RR zone, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located at 55326 Maple Grove Line, Eden. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit the development of an oversized accessory building (garage/shop) on the subject lands for personal storage accessory to the residential use. 13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Byron Rideout, applicant, summarized the application. Mr. Rideout noted current structures and that more storage is required for his recreational vehicles that are currently stored elsewhere. Mr. Rideout noted the aesthetics of the new structure will be consistent with what is currently there. 14. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence.
15. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business.
16. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Emerson Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council;
AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for the application of Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-04/23 is now complete at 7:41 p.m.
CARRIED APPLICATION C 17. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. 18. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
4 Statutory Planning Minutes April 6, 2023
19. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
20. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
C. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-05/23 Hiebert 56282/56284 Heritage Line THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from a Village Residential (R1) Zone to two site-specific Village Residential (R1-xx) zones to permit: minimum lot area of 348.66 m2 (3,752.9 ft2) whereas 400.0 m2 (4,305.6 ft2) is the permitted minimum and minimum lot frontage of 8.41 m (27.6 ft.) whereas 10.0 m (32.8 ft.) is the permitted minimum for the retained/easterly lands; and to permit minimum lot frontage of 11.7 m (38.4 ft.) whereas 13.0 m (42.7 ft.) is the permitted minimum for a corner lot for the severed/westerly lands, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The lands are located at 56282/56284 Heritage Line, Straffordville. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to fulfill several conditions of Consent E89-22 to rezone the
retained and severed lands by splitting a parcel comprising of a semi-detached dwelling building resulting in reduced frontage and lot area. 21. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dave Roe, agent, summarized the application. Mr. Roe noted an easement agreement will be
part of the conditions of consent. 22. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence 23. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business.
24. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council; AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for the application of Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-54/23 is now complete at 7:47 p.m. CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
REPORT
Physical Services
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Ed Roloson, Manager of Capital Projects – Water/Wastewater
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: PS-07/23 SUBJECT: 2023 ROADS SURFACE TREATMENT - CAPITAL
BACKGROUND
This Report presents information regarding Tender results for road surface treatment as issued by
the County of Elgin.
DISCUSSION
The County of Elgin, on an annual basis, invites the lower-tier municipalities to take part in their
capital roads surface treatment tender. Tender No. 2023-T10 was issued by Elgin County with
three (3) contractors providing bids.
The following bids were received:
Vendor Bid (excluding HST)
Duncor Enterprises Inc. $1,976,647.10
Walker Construction Inc. $2,185,186.50
MSO Construction $2,525,132.50
Duncor Enterprises Inc. provided the lowest bid price of $1,976,647.10 (excluding HST).
Bayham’s portion of the Duncor low bid is $101,304.00 (excluding HST). A total of $93,200.00
was budgeted for within our 2023 capital surface treatment projects. Staff advise that the
overage, estimated at $8,104, can be funded from the Road Construction Reserve.
Staff have successfully completed several road surface projects with Duncor and recommend
authorizing a by-law to enter into an Agreement with Duncor for surface treatment services.
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report PS-07/23 re: 2023 Roads Surface Treatment be received for information;
2. AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is supportive of proceeding with the bid provided by Duncor Enterprises Inc. of $1,976,647.10 + HST, of which $101,304.00 + HST is Bayham’s portion;
3. AND THAT the overage of $8,104 be funded from the Road Construction Reserve; 4. AND THAT a by-law authorizing an Agreement between the Municipality of Bayham and Duncor Enterprises Inc. for surface treatment services be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Ed Roloson Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC
Manager of Capital Projects-Water/Wastewater CAO|Clerk
ZBA-01/23
PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF ZONING BY-LAW Z755-2023 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: N & D FROESE, 8375 PLANK ROAD TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed By-
Law No. Z755-2023 on the 20th day of April 2023 under Section 34 of THE PLANNING ACT.
AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in
respect of the By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Municipality of Bayham not later than the 11th
day of May 2023 a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the By-law and the reasons in
support of the objection.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to rezone the subject lands from a Rural Commercial (RC) zone
to a site-specific Rural Residential (RR-45) zone to permit residential use and to permit minimum
rear yard setback of 5.5 metres whereas 15.0 metres is the required minimum and to permit
minimum side yard setback for an accessory building of 2.0 metres whereas 3.0 metres is the
required minimum in the RR zone, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The lands are located at 8375
Plank Road, west side and north side of Jackson Line.
THE EFFECT of this By-law be to permit residential use of the lands comprising an existing
dwelling with reduced rear yard setback and an existing residential accessory building with
reduced side yard setback.
ONLY INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC BODIES may appeal a by-law to the
Ontario Land Tribunal. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or
group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of
the association or the group on its behalf.
NO PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY SHALL be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal
unless, before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a
public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of the Ontario Land
Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
The complete By-law is available for inspection by contacting the municipal office.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM THIS 21st DAY OF APRIL 2023.
NOTE: For information regarding the fees associated with an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, please see the following link: https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/fee-chart/ or contact the Municipality.
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
OPA-02/23
PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 31 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: BLAYNE AND KELSEY THOMPSON, 10729 PLANK ROAD TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed
By-Law No. 2023-029 on the 20th day of April 2023 in accordance with Section 17 of the
PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of the Official Plan Amendment is to change the designation of the subject
lands from “Estate Residential” to “Industrial” by changing the symbol on Schedule A1:
Municipality of Bayham: Land Use from Estate Residential to Industrial and to permit
mechanical services warehouse and office use and accessory residential use, subject to
Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval, by adding new Subsection 3.1.9.4.
The subject lands are located on the west side of Plank Road (County Road 19), north of
Maple Grove Line and known as 10729 Plank Road.
THE EFFECT of this Official Plan Amendment is to permit the mechanical services
business use as a non-resource industrial use in the rural area where proposals for non-
resource uses are subject to Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to
permit the use.
THE COMPLETE By-law 2023-029 and Official Plan Amendment No. 31 is available for
inspection on the Bayham Municipal website: www.bayham.on.ca
ANY PERSON or public body is entitled to receive notice of the decision of the approval
authority if a written request to be notified of the decision is made to the approval authority,
namely the County of Elgin, County Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St.
Thomas, Ontario, Attention: B. Lima, Manager of Planning or by email to:
blima@elgin.ca
The official plan amendment is not exempt from approval under subsection 17(9) or (10)
of the Act.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM THIS 21st DAY OF
APRIL 2023.
Margaret Underhill Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160, 56169 Heritage Line Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca W: www.bayham.on.ca
OPA-03/23
PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 32 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: ARIE AND CHRISTINA SCHEP, 14077 BAYHAM DRIVE TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed
By-Law No. 2023-030 on the 21st day of April 2023 in accordance with Section 17 of the
PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of the Official Plan Amendment is to add a new policy section 2.1.5.2 to
permit an oversized home occupation workshop as a non-resource based secondary use
as an On-farm Diversified use for an electrical services business contained on a portion
of subject lands, specific to the subject lands. The subject lands are located on the south
side of Bayham Drive, south of Highway 3 and known as 14077 Bayham Drive.
THE EFFECT of this Official Plan Amendment will be to permit the electrical services
business use in a prime agricultural area.
THE COMPLETE By-law 2023-030 and Official Plan Amendment No. 32 is available for
inspection on the Bayham Municipal website: www.bayham.on.ca
ANY PERSON or public body is entitled to receive notice of the decision of the approval
authority if a written request to be notified of the decision is made to the approval authority,
namely the County of Elgin, County Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St.
Thomas, Ontario, Attention: Brian Lima, Manager of Planning or by email to:
blima@elgin.ca
The official plan amendment is not exempt from approval under subsection 17(9) or (10)
of the Act.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM THIS 21st DAY OF
APRIL 2023.
Margaret Underhill Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160, 56169 Heritage Line Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca W: www.bayham.on.ca
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-26/23 FILE NO. C-07 /L03
Roll # 3401-000-007-05100 SUBJECT: By-law No. 2023-032 Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement
Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd.
BACKGROUND: The Municipality has been approached by Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. to consider permitting the temporary use of an existing residence while a new residence is being constructed on the same property described as Concession 7 NTR N Pt Lots 110, 111 RP 11R6257 Pt Part 1, known
municipally as 53777 Talbot Line. Section 4.12 of Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003 provides that as a temporary use, an existing residence may remain in place and be occupied while a new residence is constructed on the lands and that such arrangements be in accordance with an Agreement between the landowner and the Municipality. DISCUSSION Mr. Schrijver approached the Chief Building Official for a building permit to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence, and was made aware of the Agreement
requirement. Mr. Schrijver will deposit with the Municipality the security amount of $10,000 once the Agreement is approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft By-law No. 2023-032 Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement with Agreement
attached.
Staff Report DS-26/23 Roy Schrijver Farms 2
RECOMMENDATION THAT Report DS-26/23 re Schrijver Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement be received for information; AND THAT By-law No. 2023-032, being a by-law to authorize an Agreement between Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. and The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham, be presented for enactment.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2023-032 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY USE AND DEMOLITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROY SCHRIJVER FARMS LTD. AND THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM WHEREAS Section 4.12 of Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, provides that as a temporary use, an existing residence located on the subject property may remain in place and be occupied while a new residence is constructed on the subject property.
AND WHEREAS the Property Owner has applied for a building permit for construction of a new residence at 53777 Talbot Line, legally described as Concession 7 NTR N Pt Lots 110, 111 RP
11R6257 Pt Part 1, being Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement with Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. attached hereto and forming part of this By-law and marked as Schedule “A”. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4th DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO BY-LAW NO. 2023-032 THIS TEMPORARY USE AND DEMOLITION AGREEMENT DATED THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM (Hereinafter called the “Municipality”) -and-
ROY SCHRIJVER FARMS LTD. (Hereinafter called the “Property Owner”)
WHEREAS Section 4.12 of Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the “By-law”), provides that as a temporary use, an existing residence located on the subject property may remain in place and be occupied while a new residence is constructed on the subject property; AND WHEREAS the Property Owner will apply for a building permit for construction of a new residence at 53777 Talbot Line, legally described as Concession 7 NTR N Pt Lots 110, 111 RP
11R6257 Pt Part 1, Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100; AND WHEREAS the Property Owner commits to submitting a security deposit in the amount of
$10,000.00 dollars to the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham; AND IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto as
follows: 1. The Owner agrees that the construction of the new residence shall be completed and occupied within two (2) years of the passing of this By-law. 2. The existing residence shall be demolished by the Property Owner within six (6) months of the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or within two (2) years of completion of construction of the new residence, whichever comes first. 3. The required $10,000.00 security deposit shall be paid by the property owner to the Municipality of Bayham in the form of a bank cheque, certified cheque or a certified
Letter of Credit. The deposit will be refunded after the existing residence is completely demolished and all debris removed to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Bayham’s Chief Building Official. 4. Failure to comply with this Agreement will result in the Municipality of Bayham using the security deposit funds to demolish the existing residence and remove all debris. Any
further costs for this demolition incurred by the Municipality will be added to the property taxes of the subject property Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as at the date first stated above.
Schedule ‘A’ to By-law No. 2023-032 Roy Schrijver 2
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
Dated ) THE CORPORATION OF THE ) MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
) ) ) ) __________________________________ ) Ed Ketchabaw, Mayor )
) ) __________________________________ ) Thomas Thayer, Clerk ) ) ) ________________________________ ) __________________________________ Signature of Witness ) Roy Schrijver, Owner
Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. I have authority to bind the Corporation.
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-27/23 FILE NO. C-07 / D09.23GUND
Roll # 3401-000-001-01401/002-001-42200 SUBJECT: Consent Application E21-23 Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd.
55267 Orchard Line
BACKGROUND
A consent application E21-23 was received from the Elgin County Land Division Committee
submitted by Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd. proposing to sever 4.3 hectares (10.6 acres) of land
and retain 32.29 hectares (79.8 acres) of land with the severed land being added to an adjacent
parcel of land. The subject property is known as 55267 Orchard Line.
The subject land is designated “Agriculture”, “Natural Heritage” and “Mineral Aggregate
Resource Area” on Schedule ‘A1’ Municipality of Bayham Land Use and “Significant
Woodlands” and “Hazard Lands” on Schedule ‘A2’: Constraints of the Official Plan. Also, a
portion of the retained lands are designated “Open Space” on Schedule “D” Port Burwell: Land
Use and Constraints. The retained lands are zoned Special Agriculture (A2) on Schedule “A1”
Map No. 14 in Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. The severed lands are designated “Open Space”
and “Hazard Lands” on Schedule “D” in the Bayham Official Plan. The severed lands are zoned
Tourist Commercial (C3) on Schedule “I” Port Burwell and Special Agriculture (A2) on Schedule
“A” Map No. 14 and a portion of the lands are identified as being with the LPRCA Regulation
Limit.
Elgin County Land Division Committee will consider the application on May 24, 2023.
DISCUSSION
The planner’s memorandum dated, April 20, 2023, analyzes the application subject to the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
Conditions relating to the requirement to merge the parcels, and obtain Site Plan Amendment approval prior to the development of the severed lands in accordance to the Official Plan and
Staff Report DS-21/23 Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd. 2
rezoning are included. As well as, our standard conditions include: survey, planning report fee, and any drainage reassessment if required.
Staff and municipal planner recommend the support of the consent application for the lot addition with the recommended conditions. ATTACHMENTS
1. Consent Application E21-23 2. Arcadis IBI Group Memorandum, dated April 20, 2023 RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report DS-27/23 regarding the Consent Application E21-23 Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd. be received; AND THAT Council recommend to the Elgin County Land Division Committee that Consent Application E21-23 be granted subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. That the owner provides a Letter of Undertaking for the severed lands to merge on title with 5 Bridge Street 2. That the owner obtains approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the severed lands zoning from the C3 and A2 Zones to a site-specific C3-1 zone consistent to the Big Otter Marina and Campground lot addition lands, including
the number and type of sites, if necessary, and to specifically permit seasonal travel trailer park use on the severed lands in accordance wo the Official Plan 3. That the owners of the lot addition lands, located at 5 Bridge Street, obtain Site
Plan Amendment approval prior to the development of the severed lands in accordance to the Official Plan 4. Digital copy of the registered plan of survey
5. Planning Report fee payable to the Municipality 6. That the applicant initiate and assume, if required, all engineering costs associated with the preparation of a revised assessment schedule for the Richmond Main Drain in accordance with the Drainage Act, RSO 1990, as amended, with a deposit to be paid in full to the Municipality prior to the condition being deemed fulfilled. If the deposit does not cover the costs of the revised assessment schedule, the applicant will be billed for any additional costs incurred. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
Memorandum
To/Attention Municipality of Bayham Date April 20, 2023
From Paul Riley BA, CPT Project No 3404-896
cc William Pol, MCIP, RPP
Subject Gregory Underhill Farms Ltd. – Part of Lots 11 and 12, Concession 1, Bayham – Application for Consent E21-23
1. We have completed our review of Consent application E21/23 (Revised April 18,
2023), submitted by David Roe of Urban Planning Solutions on behalf of Gregory
Underhill Farms Ltd. for lands located at Part of Lots 11 and 12, Concession 1,
Port Burwell and known municipally as 55309 Orchard Line. The applicant is
requesting consent for severance of 4.3 hectares (10.6 acres) of land and to retain
32.29 hectares (79.8 acres) of land, with the severed land being added to an
adjacent parcel of land.
2. The retained lands are designated “Agriculture”, “Natural Heritage” and “Mineral
Aggregate Resource Area” on Schedule ‘A1’ Municipality of Bayham: Land Use
and “Significant Woodlands” and “Hazard Lands” on Schedule A2: Constraints of
the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan (Bayham OP). There is also a portion of
the retained lands designated “Open Space” on Schedule “D" Port Burwell: Land
use and Constraints. The retained lands are zoned Special Agriculture (A2) on
Schedule “A1” Map No. 14 in Zoning By-law Z456-2003 (Zoning By-law). The
severed lands are designated “Open Space” and “Hazard Lands” on Schedule
“D” in the Bayham OP. The severed lands are zoned Tourist Commercial (C3) on
Schedule “I” Port Burwell and A2 on Schedule “A1” Map No. 14 and a portion of
the lands are identified as being within the LPRCA Regulation Limit, in the Zoning
By-law.
3. The proposed severed lot has zero lot frontage and is vacant of buildings and
used for farming. A portion of the severed lands have a separate Property
Identification Number than the retained lands, however, it is understood that the
lands are joined in some fashion in the Ontario Land Registry. The intent is to add
the severed portion to adjacent lands known as 5 Bridge Street for an expansion
of the Big Otter Marina campground. There is no separate lot being created.
4. The retained lands have lot frontage of 356 metres (1,168 feet) and lot depth of
747 metres (2,450.8 ft) and are vacant. The retained lands include farmlands and
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of BayhamMunicipality of Bayham – April 20, 2023
2
woodlands associated with the Big Otter Creek valley system. The Consent does
not propose any development on the retained lands.
5. The severed lands include portions of hazard lands and the applicant is advised
that any development of the subject lands will require consultation with the
Municipality and Long Point Region Conservation Authority to determine if an
Environmental Impact Study is required and to confirm the scope of the study.
6. The Bayham OP policies Section 4.6.2 indicate that Seasonal Travel Trailer Parks
are permitted in the “Open Space” designation subject to Zoning By-law
Amendment (ZBA) and that a Development Agreement / Site Plan Approval is
required after ZBA approval is granted. The owner shall rezone the severed lands
from C3 to a modified site-specific Tourist Commercial (C3-1) zone consistent to
the zoning for the existing seasonal travel trailer park to which the severed lands
will be added. The owner obtaining ZBA, Site Plan Amendment and revised site
plan agreement approval with the Municipality, the proposed development would
be in conformity to the Official Plan. There is an existing Site Plan Agreement in
place for the Big Otter Marina and campground that would need to be amended.
The continued use of the retained lands for agriculture is in conformity to the
Official Plan.
7. The Zoning By-law zones the severed lands Tourist Commercial (C3) and
Special Agriculture (A2) and the retained lands Special Agriculture (A2). The
continued use of retained lands for agriculture in the A2 zone is in conformity to
the Zoning By-law. The severed lands are being added to the Big Otter Marina
and Campground located at 5 Bridge Street which have a site specific C3-1
zoning. A condition of the consent should be to rezone the severed lands from
the C3 and A2 zone to a modified C3-1 zone. The C3-1 zone sets out the
number of permanent seasonal travel trailer park sites, seasonal travel trailer
park sites and camp sites and minor existing reduced setbacks. The ZBA will
need to include details of the proposed use and number of sites to update the
site-specific regulations.
8. Based on the above review of consent application E21-23 we have no objection
to the proposed consent for lot addition severance of 4.3 hectares land area and
to retain 32.29 hectares of land and recommend the following conditions for
consent approval:
a. That the owner provides a Letter of Undertaking for the lands to merge.
b. That the owner merge the severed lands on title with the lands at 5 Bridge
Street.
c. That the owner obtains approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to
change the severed lands zoning from the C3 and A2 Zone to a site-
specific C3-1 zone consistent to the Big Otter Marina and campground lot
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of BayhamMunicipality of Bayham – April 20, 2023
3
addition lands, including number and type of sites, and to specifically
permit seasonal travel trailer park use on the severed lands in accordance
to the Official Plan.
d. That the owners of the lot addition lands, located at 5 Bridge Street, obtain
Site Plan Amendment Approval prior to development of the severed lands
in accordance to the Official Plan.
e. That the owner provide a digital copy of a survey of the lands;
f. That the applicant provide a Planning Report Fee payable to the
Municipality of Bayham;
g. That the applicant initiate and assume, if required, all engineering costs
associated with the preparation of a revised assessment schedule in
accordance with the Drainage Act, RSO 1990, as amended, with a
deposit to be paid in full to the Municipality prior to the condition being
deemed fulfilled. If the deposit does not cover the costs of the revised
assessment schedule, the applicant will be billed for any additional costs
incurred.
Paul Riley
IBI Group
Paul Riley Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-28/23 FILE NO. C-07 / D13.RIDE
Roll # 3401-000-006-03702 SUBJECT: Rezoning Application ZBA-04/23 – Rideout, B and C. Lavallee
55326 Maple Grove Line
Draft Zoning By-law No. Z756-2023 BACKGROUND
Byron Rideout and Crystal Lavallee have submitted a rezoning application to rezone a property
at 55326 Maple Grove Line, located on the north side and west of Sandytown Road, legally
described as Concession 8 S Part Lot 15 RP11R3735 Part 1. The lands are currently
designated “Agriculture” on Schedule ‘A1’: Land Use of the Official Plan of the Municipality of
Bayham and are zoned Rural Residential (RR) on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 in Zoning By-law No.
Z456-2003.
The purpose of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone to a ‘site-specific Rural Residential (RR-xx)’ zone to permit maximum accessory building floor area of 130 m2 (1,399.3 ft2) whereas 95 m2 (1,022.6 ft2) is the permitted maximum in the RR zone, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located at 55326 Maple Grove Line, Eden.
The effect of this By-law will be to permit the development of an oversized accessory building (garage/shop) on the subject lands for personal storage accessory to the residential use.
The public meeting was held April 20, 2023 with the landowner in attendance speaking to the application and no written public submissions. DISCUSSION
The attached planner’s memorandum, dated April 21 2023, provides an analysis of the application against the Zoning By-law.
Staff Report DS-28/23 Rideout Lavallee 2
Staff and planner agree the rezoning application meets the policies and recommend approval to change to the site-specific Rural Residential (RR-46) zone to permit maximum accessory
building floor area of 130.5 square metres. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rezoning Application ZBA-04/23 2. Arcadis IBI Group Memorandum, April 21, 2023 3. Draft Zoning By-law No. Z756-2023 RECOMMENDATION THAT Report DS-28/23 regarding the Rideout and Lavallee rezoning application ZBA-04/23 be
received for information; AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities Act,
2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held April 20, 2023 associated with this application, there were no written submissions and one oral presentation received regarding this matter; AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing the zoning on a property located in Concession 8 South Part Lot 15 RP11R3735 Part 1, known municipally as 55326 Maple Grove Line from Rural Residential (RR) to site-specific Rural Residential (RR-46) Zone to permit maximum accessory building floor area of 130.5 square metres; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z756-2023 be presented to Council for enactment.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects
Memorandum
To/Attention Municipality of Bayham Date April 21, 2023
From Paul Riley, BA, CPT Project No 3404 - 895
cc William Pol, MCIP, RPP
Subject Byron Rideout and Crystal Lavallee - Application for Zoning By-law amendment ZBA 04/23, 55326 Maple Grove Line
1. We have completed our review of application for Zoning By-law amendment
submitted by Byron Rideout and Crystal Lavallee for property located at 55326 Maple
Grove Line, north side and west of Sandytown Road. The applicant is requesting an
amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 6,072 m2 (1.5 ac) parcel of land
from a ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone to a ‘site-specific Rural Residential (RR-xx)’ zone
to permit maximum accessory building floor area of 130 m2 (1,399.3 ft2) whereas 95
m2 (1,022.6 ft2) is the permitted maximum in the RR zone. The lands are designated
“Agriculture” on Schedule ‘A1’: Land Use of the Official Plan of the Municipality of
Bayham. The lands are zoned Rural Residential (RR) on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 in
Zoning By-law Z456-2003.
2. The subject lands have lot frontage of 65.3 m (214.2 ft) and lot depth of 93.0 m (305.1
ft). The lands comprise a single detached dwelling and the proposed accessory
building would be located to the east of the existing dwelling. Surrounding uses are
agriculture in all directions.
3. The subject lands are zoned Rural Residential (RR) in the Municipality of Bayham
Zoning By-law. Accessory residential uses are permitted in the RR zone and are
intended for additional storage for the residential dwelling use. The proposed accessory
building floor area of 130 m2 represents a 37% increase to the permitted maximum
accessory building floor area which warrants a site-specific zoning amendment
process. The applicant has indicated that the building would be characterized as a 2-
car garage and hobby workshop and would be used for storing cars, recreation and
yard maintenance vehicles and personal storage accessory to the residential use. The
intent of the limitation to accessory building floor area is to limit potential impacts to
neighbouring uses in the form of shadows, aesthetics, and/or noise or land use
activities (small businesses) that are not appropriate on residential lands.
4. It is recognized that some people have additional vehicles for hobby purposes and that
some residents on larger rural residential lots may require more space for property
maintenance and recreation equipment. There are no dwellings within the immediate
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 21, 2023
2
area which may be impacted by impacts such as noise, etc. from the new building.
Additionally, there were no public comments or concerns raised at the Public Meeting
held on April 20, 2023.
5. The use of the building for vehicles and property maintenance equipment support the
permission of oversized accessory building floor area through the rezoning process.
The proposed location and existing location of the dwelling is in accordance to the
setback and yard requirements of the RR Zone.
6. Based on our review we would have no objection to the requested Zoning By-law
Amendment to change the zoning to a site-specific Rural Residential (RR-xx) zone, to
permit maximum accessory building floor area of 130.5 square metres.
Paul Riley
Arcadis IBI Group
Paul Riley, BA, CPT
Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z756-2023
RIDEOUT / LAVALLEE
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW No. Z456-2003, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to amend Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “A” Map No. 5 by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Rural
Commercial (RC) zone to a site-specific Rural Residential (RR-46) zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked RR-46 on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
2) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Section 7.13 Exception – Rural Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
7.13.46.1 Defined Area
RR-46 as shown on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 to this By-law.
7.13.46.2 Maximum Accessory Building Floor Area
130.5 square metres
4) THIS By-law comes into force:
a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or
b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
READ A FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-29/23 FILE NO. C-07 / D13.HIEB
Roll # 3401-000-004-33800 SUBJECT: Rezoning Application ZBA-05/23 – Hiebert, A
56282/56284 Heritage Line, Straffordville
Draft Zoning By-law No. Z757-2023 BACKGROUND
Agent David Roe has submitted a rezoning application on behalf of Anthony Hiebert to rezone a
property at 56282/56284 Heritage Line, Straffordville, located on the north side and east side of
Duke Street, legally described as Plan 205 Lot 3 RP 11R10968 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. The subject
lands are designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘B’ of the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan
and are zoned Village Residential (R1) on Schedule ‘F’ of Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The purpose of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from a Village Residential (R1) Zone to two site-specific Village Residential (R1-xx) zones to permit: minimum lot area of 348.66 m2 (3,752.9 ft2) whereas 400.0 m2 (4,305.6 ft2) is the permitted minimum and minimum lot frontage of 8.41 m (27.6 ft.) whereas 10.0 m (32.8 ft.) is the permitted minimum for the retained/easterly lands; and to permit minimum lot frontage of 11.7 m (38.4 ft.) whereas 13.0 m (42.7 ft.) is the permitted minimum for a corner lot for the severed/westerly lands, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The effect of this By-law will be to fulfill several conditions of Consent E89-22 to rezone the
retained and severed lands by splitting a parcel comprising of a semi-detached dwelling building resulting in reduced frontage and lot area.
The public meeting was held April 20, 2023 with the Agent in attendance speaking to the application and no written public submissions. DISCUSSION The planner’s memorandum, dated January 26, 2023, accompanying Staff Report DS-10/23, dated February 2, 2023, provided an analysis of the application against the Zoning By-law. The
Staff Report DS-29/23 Hiebert 2
requested amendment is to rezone the retained lands to a site-specific R1 zone to permit minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage and to rezone the severed lands to a site-specific
R1 zone to permit minimum lot frontage. Staff and planner agree the rezoning application meets the policies and recommend approval to change the zoning on the retained portion to the site-specific Village Residential (R1-20) zone to permit minimum lot area of 349 square metres and minimum lot frontage of 8.4 metres and change the zoning on the severed portion to the site-specific Village Residential (R1-21) zone to permit minimum lot frontage on a corner lot of 11.7 metres. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rezoning Application ZBA-05/23 2. Draft Zoning By-law No. Z757-2023 RECOMMENDATION THAT Report DS-29/23 regarding the Hiebert rezoning application ZBA-05/23 be received for information; AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held April
20, 2023 associated with this application, there were no written submissions and one oral presentation received regarding this matter; AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing the zoning on a property located in Plan 205 Lot 3 RP11R10968 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, known municipally as 56282/56283 Heritage Line from Village Residential (R1) to site-specific Village Residential (R1-20) Zone on the retained parcel to permit minimum lot area of 349 square metres and minimum lot frontage of 8.4 metres and changing the zoning on the severed portion to the site-specific Village Residential (R1-21) zone to permit minimum lot frontage on a corner lot of 11.7 metres. AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z757-2023 be presented to Council for enactment. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC
Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z757-2023
HIEBERT
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW No. Z456-2003, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to amend Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “F” Straffordville by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Village Residential (R1) zone to a site-specific Village Residential (R1-20) zone, which lands are
outlined in heavy solid lines and marked R1-20 on Schedule “F” to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
2) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending
Section 10.12 Exception – Village Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
10.12.20.1 Defined Area
R1-20 as shown on Schedule “F” to this By-law.
10.12.20.2 Minimum Lot Area
349 square metres
10.12.20.3 Minimum Lot Frontage
8.4 metres
3) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “F” Straffordville by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Village Residential (R1) zone to a site-specific Village Residential (RR-21) zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked RR-21 on Schedule “F” to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
4) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending
Section 10.12 Exception – Village Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
10.12.21.1 Defined Area
R1-21 as shown on Schedule “F” to this By-law.
10.12.21.2 Minimum Lot Frontage, Corner Lot
11.7 metres
4) THIS By-law comes into force:
a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or
b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
READ A FIRST TIME SECOND TIME THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-30/23 FILE NO. C-07 / D.08COUNTY
SUBJECT: Review: Draft Elgin County Official Plan 2023
BACKGROUND
The County of Elgin is undertaking an Official Plan 5-Year Review update. The purpose of this
update is to ensure that the community vision/values, directions, policies, and actions in the Plan reflect changes and meet the needs of the community for the future, and to review for consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement. The purpose of an Official Plan Review is to ensure it reflects the changing needs, opportunities, and aspirations of the County, and that any changes to community vision/values, directions, policies, and actions are reflected in the Official Plan. It has taken two years of research, analysis, and community consultation to arrive at an updated County Official Plan. The County has circulated the Draft Elgin County Official Plan (OP) for public and lower tier review with a deadline for comment by May 9, 2023. Staff have provided the Draft OP via hyperlink, above, due to the size and scope of the information within the document and review to-date. DISCUSSION Municipal staff requested IBI Group to provide a Memorandum review of the Draft OP with the
intention of providing any direction or comment as to potential impacts to the Municipality from any policy changes and to provide comment to Elgin County during the statutory comment period.
The planner’s memorandum, dated April 24, 2023, is attached for Council’s consideration.
In short, the planner has positive comments to say about the Draft OP document layout and direction for lower-tiers, and does not recommend any specific comments in regards to the Draft Elgin County Official Plan.
Staff Report DS-30/23 County OPR 2
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Arcadis IBI Group memorandum, dated April 24, 2023 RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report DS-30/23 regarding the Draft Elgin County Official Plan be received for information; AND THAT Staff Report DS-30/23 be forwarded to the County for information, along with a copy of the associated resolution.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
Memorandum
To/Attention Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO Date April 24, 2023
From Paul Riley, BA, CPT Project No 3404-837
cc William Pol, RPP, MCIP
Subject Review: Draft Elgin County Official Plan
This memo responds to the Municipality of Bayham request to provide a review of
proposed Elgin County Official Plan. The intent is to determine potential impacts to the
Municipality from the proposed policy changes and to provide options for Council to
consider providing comment to Elgin County during the statutory comment period.
The Draft Elgin County Official Plan was endorsed by the Rural Initiatives Planning
Advisory Committee in February 2023 and was made available for public review and
comment on March 16th, 2023. The draft County OP is built around ten strategic
directions that will help to guide policies and decision-making on important matters such
as but not limited to: housing; economic development; the rural area; and natural
resource management.
The following excerpt from the high-level review document released with the Draft OP
indicates the following “general changes”:
All policies and designations were updated to comply with all Planning Act amendments, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and all current provincial
and national development guidelines.
The existing Plan contains a ‘community vision’ that is not an actual vision statement, but rather just a physical description of the County. As it can be
confusing to the reader and does not provide any direction to the development
of the policies in the existing Plan it was replaced with an approach built around 10 strategic directions that serve as the basis for the Plan.
These 10 ‘strategic directions’ which form the basis of the chapters of the Plan
are not new directions, but rather are a reorganization of the existing policy directions of the Plan.
A general housekeeping of language and terminology was conducted
throughout the entire document. The approach to this housekeeping and editing was two part:
o Improve the use of plain language to increase the accessibility and readability of the Plan by the general public; and,
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
2
o Reduce the overall length of the document by removing repetitive policies and redundant language, again to increase the readability of the
Plan by the general public.
The draft OP provides 10 strategic directions are included as separate Sections of the Draft OP which will be further outlined below. The policies in the draft OP provide a reorganization of the existing policy sections and the general housekeeping and terminology review provides for a more readable plan for the general public.
The following paragraphs are organized by new Chapters of the Draft OP and are based on a review of the draft OP and the high-level review document released with the Draft OP. A planning comment in relation to the interests of the Municipality of Bayham follows each section where necessary:
Chapter 1.0: Introduction
Included an ‘overview’ of the County to provide context to the reader. This
overview is largely based on the previous ‘vision statement’ contained in the
current plan.
Included a new explanation of the Ontario planning system and the relationship
between the County Official Plan, local official plans, and the Provincial Policy Statement to assist the reader in understanding how the planning system works.
Includes a new section outlining the structure of the Plan and how it should be read and cross-referenced.
Chapter 2.0: Growth Management
The schedules were updated to reflect the most up to date urban boundaries…
Maintains the existing hierarchy of settlement areas (i.e. Tier I, II, and III
settlements).
Maintains the current approach to re-designation of rural lands and expansion of
settlement areas.
Clarifies that ‘conceptual’ urban boundaries in local official plans can be refined without the need for an amendment, so long as no more land is added to the
urban area.
Includes a revised residential infilling and intensification target of 16% as
opposed to the current 15%, to reflect the assumptions made by the
County’s Population Projections and Land Needs Assessment Report.
Removed the requirement for the completion of a ‘settlement area
capability study’ for certain types of new development given the lack of
clarity around what instances it would be required, instead relying on clarified infrastructure, servicing, and natural heritage policies to achieve
the same goal.
The updated schedules and maintenance of the tiered hierarchy and re-designation of
rural lands and expansion of settlement areas is adequate. The refinement of urban boundaries has been made less stringent than in the past by way of provincial changes
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
3
to planning legislation and the Draft OP recognizes this which ensures more flexibility to the Municipality in the case of proposals to amend or update the boundaries.
The removal of the requirement for Settlement Area Capability Study is advisable due to the lack of clarity around the policies in the current County OP.
The new growth management chapter has removed population trends and projections as per recent Provincial policy changes.
Chapter 3.0: Economic Development
Restructured the economic development policies to focus on the County’s three
major economic priorities: industrial growth, agriculture, and tourism and refocused the section on physical development as opposed to programming as
programming is not a core mandate of the planning department.
Identified employment areas that are of ‘strategic importance’ to the County due
to their size and location, along with policies to protect these areas as well as
county-wide important transportation corridors and facilities.
Renamed the existing ‘Tourism Corridors’ to ‘Scenic Routes’ to better reflect
their role and include a policy to encourage high-quality development along them.
Expanded community improvement plan policies by clarifying what types of programming the County may jointly fund in conjunction with a local
municipality.
Chapter 4.0: Housing
Created a new section entitled ‘Housing’ and consolidated a number of existing
policies in this chapter to reflect its critical importance to the County.
Developed a new requirement for a mix of housing types in new subdivisions
whereby a minimum of 30% of new dwellings must be another form of housing other than single-detached dwellings (i.e. semi-detached, row house, duplexes,
apartment, etc.), and the conditions under which this requirement could be
waived.
Added new language around additional dwelling units to reflect recent changes
to the Planning Act.
Maintained the Plan’s existing target of 25% of new homes being affordable but
introduced new requirements for local official plans to demonstrate how this target will be achieved and require developers to demonstrate how this will be
achieved for new development.
Incorporated a new policy that requires local municipalities to incorporate
policies in their official plans that address the conversion of rental housing.
Introduced policies that encourage the County to explore affordable housing
development for surplus lands and facilities.
Introduced policies to encourage the creation of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and community housing.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
4
Introduced a policy to encourage coordination with higher levels of government
to increase affordable housing supply in the County.
The new requirement for a mix of housing types in subdivisions is intended to promote affordability and ensures that the County maintains options for households at all stages
of their lifecycle. Section 4.3 also provides criteria whereby such requirement could be waived in certain circumstances which provides some flexibility depending on the scale and circumstances of the location; and the Bayham Official Plan can contain an alternative typology mix.
Section 4.4 Affordable Housing Target
Affordable housing is defined by provincial policy and its provision ensures that low-
and moderate-income households can access both appropriately priced rental units and
homeownership in the County. To that end, 25% of all new residential units developed in the County shall be targeted as affordable under provincial policy. To assist in
reaching this target the County will:
a) Require all local official plans to develop policies advising how this target will be achieved;
b) Advise all applicants with residential development proposals of what price thresholds constitute an affordable dwelling unit, and require all new
applications for plans of subdivision or condominium to demonstrate how they
will work towards achieving the affordable housing target;
c) Examine opportunities to fund affordable housing community improvement
programming; and
d) Report annually to County Council on progress in meeting the affordability target.
The proposed policy would require the Municipality to include policies on how to reach the 25% target, up from 20% in the current County OP. The Bayham OP currently has affordability policies which will be reviewed in the upcoming Official Plan 5-Year Review.
The Municipality does not have the resources to advise applicants of the price thresholds that constitute an affordable dwelling, therefore, County advisement on such matters is positive to realizing the community housing affordability challenges to development.
Chapter 5.0: The Rural Area
Reorganized and re-drafted most policies to reflect the major changes to the Provincial Policy Statement. Since the original plan was adopted, provincial
policies allow a greater mix of uses in the agricultural area (i.e agricultural
related uses, on-farm diversified uses, etc.) and policies were redrafted to reflect this.
Introduced a policy to protect ‘rural character’, particularly for non-farm development.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
5
Clarified existing permissions around temporary outdoor events (e.g. concerts,
fairs, festivals, etc.).
Introduced policy that encourages new development to mitigate against the
effects of climate change.
Removed the existing ‘special policy area’ designation on Central Elgin
employment area around airport and incorporated these lands into Central
Elgin’s urban boundary to reflect their planned function and servicing.
Maintained existing minimum lot size of 40 ha for farm parcels as per provincial
direction.
Maintained existing prohibitions on residential lot creation and existing policies
permitting ‘surplus farm dwelling severances’ as no substantive changes to provincial policy have been introduced since the original plan was adopted.
The proposed Chapter 5.0 provides for appropriate redrafted and reorganized policies for a greater mix of uses in the agricultural area and maintained existing prohibitions on residential lot creation which is appropriate.
On April 6, 2023 (after the new Draft OP), the Province released proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe to be combined into one document called the Provincial Planning Statement, 2023, which
will likely be adopted in the fall. The County may have to amend proposed Section 5.7 Residential Uses; Section 5.8 New Residential Lots in the Agricultural Area; and Section 5.9 Additional Residential Units, in order to respond to the proposed Provincial
Planning Statement.
The draft policies are generally more permissive of additional residential uses in the agricultural area. The new PPS will be reviewed in the coming weeks and through the
upcoming Municipality of Bayham Official Plan 5-Year Review the new policy framework will be reviewed and incorporated into an amended Official Plan.
Proposed Section 5.12 Home-Based Businesses and Industries provides direction for proposals for on-farm diversified uses and secondary uses where the owner resides on the lands and provides criteria for evaluating the merits of the proposal. This policy is generally the same as the current OP and is a useful resource for the Municipality in evaluating such proposed uses.
Chapter 6.0: Settlement Areas
Clarified that local official plans will be relied upon for most development policies
in settlement areas.
Introduced a new policy to protect ‘urban character’ of the County’s towns and villages.
Established a new minimum net density of 20 units / ha in fully serviced settlement areas, and when this may be waived.
Introduced policy that encourage new development to mitigate against the
effects of climate change.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
6
Sections 6.7 to 6.9 provide clearer development criteria for each “Tier” of settlement area, Tier I (Vienna, Port Burwell) and Tier II (Straffordville, Eden) and Tier III (Corinth,
North Hall, Richmond and Calton).
Chapter 7.0: The Natural System
Schedules incorporate the mapping contained in the ‘Elgin County Natural
Heritage Study’ while maintaining minimum compliance with provincial policy
regarding the protection of natural heritage areas.
No changes were made to the levels of protection for natural heritage features
or the features that are protected.
Clarified how development proposals within the Natural System will be evaluated.
Expanded upon the watershed planning policies and introduces policies that encourage the development of subwatershed studies and require that watershed considerations be taken into account when conducting an
environmental impact assessment.
Clarified that the limits of the Natural System designation are not precise, and
that refinements of these boundaries do not require an amendment.
Incorporated a new requirement for compensatory restoration when natural areas are destroyed through development.
Incorporated a clarified requirement for hydrogeological assessments and
cumulative impact assessments for subdivisions serviced by groundwater.
Incorporated a clarified requirement a geotechnical assessment for subdivisions
on septic systems to protect groundwater.
The proposed clarifications, specifically including requirements for supporting hydrogeological and geotechnical reports, and maintenance of protections for natural heritage features are appropriate.
Chapter 8.0: Transportation & Infrastructure Systems
Incorporated the new county road design standards arising from the County’s
draft Transportation Master Plan.
Clarified policies around how development that is not proposed on full municipal services is to be justified and assessed.
Included source water protection mapping on land use schedules since these
plans were not in place when the current Plan was adopted.
Clarified setbacks from railways to reflect national guidelines not in place when
the current Plan was adopted.
Introduced policy for development adjacent to linear infrastructure (i.e. hydro
lines, pipelines, etc.) to clarify how regulations of the respective operators will be
incorporated into development.
Clarified and consolidated language and policies on waste management
facilities.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
7
Incorporated the Noise Exposure Forecast / Noise Exposure Projection (NEF/NEP) contours around St. Thomas Municipal Airport on land use
schedules as data layers are now available.
The proposed policies for servicing approaches based on justification, and generally within new Sections 8.15-8.18, provide improved clarity on servicing for new developments, without being overly prescriptive. The Municipality will be required to develop detailed policies with respect to servicing development for the Rural Area and for the Settlement Areas and sufficient capacity of municipal servicing systems will need to be established before the County will approve proposed developments. The policies are adequate.
Chapter 9.0: Natural Resource Management Areas
Clarified language around when development is permitted in areas of natural resource potential in accordance with provincial policy.
Otherwise existing policies were reorganized and clarified but not substantively
altered.
Chapter 10.0: Development Hazards
As a result of Bill 23, a new policy was introduced to clarify how conservation
authority (CA) regulations will be dealt with should the provincial government create regulations that exempt CA permitting when a Planning Act approval
occurs.
Removed references to CA shoreline management plans as these plans will be implemented primarily by respective CA’s and local municipalities.
Otherwise existing policies were reorganized and clarified but not substantively
altered.
Chapter 11.0: Cultural Heritage
Clarified that cultural heritage protection is primarily a local matter, but that
archaeological protection is a primarily county matter due it’s cross-jurisdictional nature.
Simplified language around how to determine an area of archaeological
potential (using the Province’s simplified checklist) and therefore when assessments are required.
Introduced new policies around Indigenous archaeological resources and requirements for engagement with Indigenous communities.
Introduced policies around unexpected archaeological discoveries and protocols
for addressing unexpected discoveries.
Introduced a policy that County could create an archaeological management
plan to reduce requirements of developers to complete assessments.
Chapter 12.0: Review of Development Applications
Expansion of existing policies on how development applications are to be
reviewed. No substantive changes have been introduced, primarily clarification.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham, c/o Thomas Thayer, CAO – April 24, 2023
8
Introduced policies on when and how exempted condominiums and part lot control exemption applications will be considered and evaluated.
Clarified when a severance may be applied for versus a plan of subdivision.
Expanded the list of studies that may be required to form part of a complete application.
Clarified that the County will determine who is qualified to prepare required
studies.
Expanded Indigenous consultation policies including the creation of an
engagement protocol to assist with the County and local municipalities ‘duty to
consult’.
Overall primarily a reorganization and clarification of existing policies.
The clarification and reorganization of these policies is appropriate.
Chapter 13.0: Implementation & Administration
Introduced policies to establish a Planning Advisory Committee as required by previous changes to the Planning Act
Incorporated a new policy that requires annual reporting to County Council on
achieving the goals and objectives of the Plan.
Overall primarily a reorganization and clarification of existing policies.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposed Official Plan provides for a more readable and concise Official Plan document while incorporating provincial changes. The balance of the new/modified policies appear to be appropriate and adequate to provide the necessary direction for
the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan, the “lower-tier” plan subject to the “upper-tier” Official Plan. Therefore, we would not recommend any specific comment from Council in regard to the proposed Draft Elgin County Official Plan.
Paul Riley
IBI GROUP
Paul Riley, BA, CPT Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: DS-31/23 FILE NO. C-07
SUBJECT: Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 – Staff Report DS-34/22 Option 3
BACKGROUND
The Province of Ontario introduced Bill 109 More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 on March 30,
2022, passed legislature and received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. The Bill made changes to
the Planning Act, the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Development Charges Act, 1997.
On June 2, 2022 Council considered Staff Report DS-34/22, which included IBI Group Memorandum dated May 26, 2022 presenting the following three (3) Options for consideration:
Option 1 – Site Plan Control By-law – Review Delegation of Authority for Site Plan Applications and Extension of Timeframes
Councils are required to delegate approval authority for Site Plan Control and to indicate that the approval timeframe is extended from 30 days to 60 days before July 1, 2022. IBI Group is available to review and provide recommended amendments to the SPC By-law
to include that the CAO or other body or person have the authority to approve Site Plan Control applications and to indicate the new 60-day timeframe. Option 2 – Site Plan Control By-law / Pre-Consultation By-law – Review Delegation of Authority for Site Plan Applications, timeframes, mandatory pre-consultation, and any other potentially necessary changes Council may wish for Staff and consultants to conduct a thorough review of the SPC By-law, including Option 1 above, and Pre-Consultation By-law to determine if any changes are necessary, including but not limited to, the timeframe of regarding gradual refunding of fees by January 1, 2023, complete application requirements, mandatory pre-consultation, etc. Option 3 – Option 1-2 Above and Review of policies and or by-laws in effect for combined Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan
Control
Staff Report DS-31/23 Bill 109 2
In advance of the legislation coming into effect as of January 1, 2023 for gradual refunds of application fees for OPAs, ZBAs and Site Plan Control, it may be beneficial to set out
policies or by-law provisions whereby combined planning applications and the timeframes associated with the processing of such applications might become an issue. We would review Councils options and make recommendations where available to ensure application timeframes proceed without the need to possibly refund application fees. Council passed the following resolution: THAT Report DS-34/22 regarding Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, be received for information; AND THAT in consideration of the IBI Group Memorandum, dated May 26, 2022, Council directs staff to proceed with Option 3; AND THAT an Appointment By-law be brought forward to appoint the Municipality of Bayham’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) as the approval authority for Site Plan Control applications.
On December 15, 2022, Council considered an additional Staff Report DS-63/22, which included IBI Group Memorandum, dated December 8, 2022 and passed the following resolution:
THAT Report DS-63/22 regarding Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, be received for information; AND THAT in consideration of the IBI Group Memorandum, dated December 8, 2022, Council directs staff to continue the review for the next several months to further deliberate on actions to improve the Municipality’s land use planning policies, procedures and by-laws in response to the new legislation. DISCUSSION
The municipal planner now provides in the attached memorandum, dated April 26, 2023, additional details as to the implications of Bill 109 on the pre-application consultation process, combined Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, and fee refunds and Site Plan
applications. The planner’s final recommendations on Bill 109 are as follows:
We recommend that any minor changes to policies, zoning regulations, by-laws or processes to improve clarity or improve processes be considered during the upcoming
Official Plan 5-Year Review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Arcadis IBI Group memorandum, dated April 26, 2023
Staff Report DS-31/23 Bill 109 3
RECOMMENDATION THAT Report DS-31/23 regarding the Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 be received for information; AND THAT Council agrees with the planner’s recommendation that any minor changes to policies, zoning regulations, by-law or processes to improve clarity or improve processes be included for consideration during the upcoming Official Plan 5-year Review commencing in 2023. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk CAO|Clerk
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
ARCADIS IBI GROUP 203 – 350 Oxford Street West London ON N6H 1T3 Canada tel 519 472 7328
arcadis.com
Memorandum
To/Attention Municipality of Bayham Date April 26, 2023
From Paul Riley, BA, CPT Project No 3404 – 866
cc William Pol, MCIP, RPP
Subject Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 - Report DS-
34/22 Option 3
Introduction
The Council of the Municipality of Bayham has requested a review of policies and by-laws
regarding Provincial legislative changes to the Planning Act as a result of Bill 109, the More
Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 (hereafter “Bill 109”). Based on the IBI Group recommendations
in memorandum dated May 26, 2022, Council direction was to proceed with Option 3, including
Option 1 & 2, review of policies and/or By-laws in effect for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning
By-law Amendments and Site Plan Control. And a subsequent Memorandum Dated December
8, 2023 provided Council with additional information in regard to Option 3. The following
provides final recommendations on Bill 109.
Pre-Application Consultation
The Pre-Consultation By-law and Official Plan Section 8.5.1 accounts for any Planning Act
applications, not just Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments. Site Plan Control is a
Planning Act application, therefore, amendments to the Pre-Application Consultation By-law
would not be necessary to include Site Plan Control.
Combined Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Fee Refunds
It was suggested in the December 8th memo that the Municipality could explore changes to
policy or By-law processes to only accept standalone OPAs in an effort to avoid situations
where fees may have to be refunded. After further review our recommendation is to work within
the timelines by way of combined OPA and ZBA.
The 120-day timeframe severely limits the ability for determination of approval, however, there
is enough time to complete the process, depending on efficient determination at the County
level. The time limitations are intended to increase the speed of approvals, however, it impacts
the ability for the Municipality to work with applicants to find solutions to proposal details,
therefore, there is no time available to allow applicants to resubmit revised application details.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
2
Although the potential approach to separate combined OPA and ZBA applications may have
provided some additional processing time, there does not seem to be an effective or
reasonable approach to separating the processes, therefore, no changes are proposed to
Bayham OP policies or By-laws and therefore Municipal Staff, Council, and the County will
need to work within the prescribed timelines. This is anticipated to lead to more OPAs being
refused; lack of ability for applicants to revise their proposals and/or approvals of applications
lacking information or proposing undesirable approaches to amendments; and more Appeals
to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Site Plan Applications
The Official Plan does not contain specific Complete Application requirements for Site Plan
Approval as with Official Plan, Zoning By-law or Community Improvement Plan Amendments.
New Complete Application requirements for Site Plan Control include public notification
changes. The existing policies do indicate that applications should proceed according to the
Planning Act, as amended from time to time, therefore, amending the Official Plan to
essentially restate the applicable requirements within the Planning Act would not be required.
This matter will be further reviewed through the upcoming Official Plan 5-Year Review process.
Recommendation
We recommend that any minor changes to policies, zoning regulations, by-laws or processes
to improve clarity or improve processes be considered during the upcoming Official Plan 5-
Year Review.
Paul Riley
IBI GROUP
Paul Riley, BA, CPT Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham
Page 1 of 2
April 24, 2023
Area Members of Provincial Parliament
Sent via email
Dear Area Members of Provincial Parliament:
Re: Councillor J. Erb Notice of Motion
Please be advised that the Council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at their
regular meeting held on April 19, 2023, approved the following motion:
WHEREAS the Municipal Elections Act requires all individuals wishing
to be a candidate in a municipal or school board election to file
Nomination Paper - Form 1 with the municipal clerk;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Elections Act requires all candidates who
sought election to a municipal council or school board to file Financial
Statement – Auditor’s Report Candidate – Form 4 with the municipal
clerk;
AND WHEREAS Form 1 requires candidates to provide their qualifying
address;
AND WHEREAS Form 4 requires candidates to list the name and home
address of any donor contributing over $100.00
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Elections Act specifies that these
documents are not protected by the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, and requires the municipal clerk to make
Form 4 available on a website;
AND WHEREAS there has been concern expressed about those who
hold public office and those who support them that they have been the
subject of unnecessary attention and excessive scrutiny;
AND WHEREAS the requirement to publish the personal home address
of donors to specific candidates may discourage individuals from
4366498 Page 2 of 2
engaging in the democratic process to elect municipal and school
board politicians.
THEREFORE, BE RESOVLED THAT the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo calls on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the
Province of Ontario to protect the privacy of candidates and donors by
removing the requirement for their street name, number and postal code
to be listed on publicly available forms.
AND FURTHER THAT for verification purposes, the addresses of all
candidates and all donors over $100 be submitted to the municipal clerk
on separate forms that are protected by the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act and will not be published.
AND FINALLY, that this resolution be forwarded to the Area Members of
Provincial Parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the
Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, the Ontario
Public School Boards' Association, the Ontario Catholic School
Trustees' Association, and all Ontario municipalities.
Please accept this letter for information purposes only. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact Rebekah Harris,
Research/Administrative Assistant to Council, at RHarris@regionofwaterloo.ca or
519-575-4581.
Regards,
William Short
Regional Clerk/Director, Council and Administrative Services
WS/hk
cc: Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
Ontario Public School Boards' Association
Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association
Ontario municipalities
The Corporation of the
County of Northumberland
555 Courthouse Road
Cobourg, ON, K9A 5J6
Northumberland County Council Resolution
Northumberland County Council Resolution
SENT VIA EMAIL April 19, 2023
All Ontario Municipalities
Re: Northumberland County Resolution – Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s
(AMO) Call to Action on Housing and Homelessness
At a meeting held on April 12, 2023 Northumberland County Council approved the following
Council Resolution # 2023-04-12-270.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s (AMO) Call to Action on Housing and
Homelessness
Moved by: Councillor Hankivsky
Seconded by: Councillor Logel
“Whereas the homeless crisis is taking a devastating toll on families and communities,
undermining a healthy and prosperous Ontario; and
Whereas homelessness requires a range of housing, social service, and health solutions from
government; and
Whereas homelessness is felt most at the level of local government and the residents that
they serve; and
Whereas municipalities and District Social Administration Boards are doing their part, but do
not have the resources, capacity, or tools to address this complex challenge; and
Whereas leadership and urgent action is needed from the Provincial Government on an
emergency basis to develop, resource, and implement a comprehensive plan to prevent,
reduce and ultimately end homelessness in Ontario;
The Corporation of the
County of Northumberland
555 Courthouse Road
Cobourg, ON, K9A
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Corporation of the County of Northumberland calls
on the Provincial Government to urgently:
1. Acknowledge that homelessness in Ontario is a social, economic, and health crisis;
2. Commit to ending homelessness in Ontario;
3. Work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and a broad range of
community, health, Indigenous and economic partners to develop, resource, and
implement an action plan to achieve this goal; and
Further Be It Resolved That County Council direct staff to send a copy of this resolution to
the Honourable Doug Ford (Premier of Ontario), the Honourable Steve Clark (Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing), the Honourable Michael Parsa (Minister of Children,
Community and Social Services), the Honourable David Piccini (Minister of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks and MPP for Northumberland-Peterborough South), the Association
of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), and to all Ontario Municipalities.”
Council Resolution # 2023-04-12-270 Carried
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at matherm@northumberland.ca or by telephone at 905-372-3329 ext. 2238.
Sincerely,
Maddison Mather
Manager of Legislative Services / Clerk
Northumberland County
Bail Reform Resolution
WHEREAS the cost of Policing and Emergency Services in Northern Communities is harming a
community’s ability to support local Social and Health issues
WHEREAS a small percentage of those affected by an Addiction in the communities of Northern
Ontario are committing crimes
WHEREAS many of those committing crimes are not housed in the correctional system,
therefore, remain in our communities, often those that do require treatment for their Addiction
issue receive none.
WHEREAS some committing crimes become violent, but are released back into the community,
due to the negative impacts Federal Bill C75
WHEREAS the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities (FONOM) believes that more must
be done by the Federal Government on Bail Reform
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities (FONOM)
requests the Federal Government make these Legislative changes
1. Create a Designation of a chronic persistent offender.
2. Allow community impact statements at bail and at bail hearings.
3. Creating reverse onus in bail for all firearms offences.
4. All bail-related gun charges go to the superior court for bail release.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, Federal
Justice Minister, Premier of Ontario, The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Minister of
Infrastructure, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Northeastern MPs and MPPs, Leaders of the
Opposition, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Federation of Northern
Ontario Municipalities.
City of Stratford
Corporate Services Department
Clerk’s Office
City Hall, P. O. Box 818
Stratford, Ontario N5A 6W1
Tel: 519-271-0250, extension 5237
Email: clerks@stratford.ca
Website: www.stratford.ca
April 17, 2023
Via email: ltcminister@ontario.ca
Ministry of Long-Term Care
6th Floor, 400 University Avenue
Toronto, ON M5G 1S5
Dear Hon. Paul Calandra:
Re: Resolution – Use of Long-Term Care Funding to Support Community Care
Services
At their April 11, 2023 Regular Council meeting, Stratford City Council adopted the
following resolution requesting the provincial government to support community driven
home care services through the redirect of ministry beds in abeyance funding:
THAT staff be requested to send a letter to the provincial government to endorse the redirect of current ministry beds in abeyance funding towards the
support of community care services.
We kindly request your support and endorsement.
Sincerely,
Chris Bantock
Chris Bantock
Deputy Clerk
cc: Premier Doug Ford
Matthew Rae, MPP
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
All Ontario municipalities
The Corporation of The Township of The Archipelago
Council Meeting
Agenda Number:15.1.
Resolution Number 23-058
Title:Road Management Action on Invasive Phragmites
Date:Friday, April 21, 2023
Moved by:Councillor Barton
Seconded by:Councillor Lundy
WHEREAS Phragmites australis (Phragmites) is an invasive perennial grass that continues to cause
severe damage to wetlands and beaches in areas around the Great Lakes including Georgian Bay;
and
WHEREAS Phragmites australis grows and spreads rapidly, allowing the plant to invade new areas
and grow into large monoculture stands in a short amount of time, and is an allelopathic plant that
secretes toxins from its roots into the soil which impede the growth of neighboring plant species; and
WHEREAS Phragmites australis results in loss of biodiversity and species richness, loss of habitat,
changes in hydrology due to its high metabolic rate, changes in nutrient cycling as it is slow to
decompose, an increased fire hazard due to the combustibility of its dead stalks, and can have an
adverse impact on agriculture, particularly in drainage ditches; and
WHEREAS invasive Phragmites has been identified as Canada’s worst invasive plant species by
Agriculture and Agrifood Canada; and
WHEREAS the Ontario government has made it illegal to import, deposit, release, breed/grow, buy,
sell, lease or trade invasive Phragmites under the Invasive Species Act; and
WHEREAS Phragmites occupy over 4,800 hectares of land around Lake St. Clair alone, while 212
hectares of Phragmites occupy land along the St. Lawrence River. The Georgian Bay Area is
particularly affected by Phragmites australis, with more than 700 stands along the shorelines and
multiple visible stands on the highways and roads that threaten valuable infrastructure and wetland
areas; and
WHEREAS volunteers, non-governmental organizations, and various municipalities have invested tens
of thousands of dollars in investments and labour annually for more than eight years in executing
managements plans to control invasive Phragmites on roads, coasts, shorelines and in wetlands; and
WHEREAS roads and highways where Phragmites that are left untreated become spread vectors that
continually risk new and treated wetlands and coastal shoreline areas; and
WHEREAS according to “Smart Practices for the Control of Invasive Phragmites along Ontario’s
Roads” by the Ontario Phragmites Working Group, best road management practices for Phragmites
australis include early detection, herbicide application, and cutting; and
WHEREAS these best management practices are most effective when used in a multi-pronged
approach as opposed to when used as stand-alone control measures; and
WHEREAS Mother Nature does not recognize political boundaries. Therefore, it is imperative that
Municipalities, Districts, the Province, and the Federal government work together in collaboration to
eradicate Canada’s worst invasive plant species Phragmites australis.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Council for the Township of The Archipelago directs its
staff to implement best management practices to promote early detection of invasive Phragmites, and
to implement best management practices for invasive Phragmites, and to join the Ontario Phragmites
Working Group to collaborate on the eradication of Phragmites in Ontario.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Township of The Archipelago directs staff to insert
clean equipment protocols into tenders and that there is oversight that the protocols are followed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Township of The Archipelago requests the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation to map and treat invasive Phragmites annually on all its highways.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) communicates the
strategy on mapping (detecting sites) and controlling invasive Phragmites on provincial highways, the
specific highway management plans and results by each MTO region and each highway in the region
and work in coordination with Township of The Archipelago.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Township of The Archipelago directs its staff to send
this resolution to all municipalities that are part of the Georgian Bay watershed, to the Minister of
Transportation, Christopher Balasa the Manager, Maintenance Management, and MPP (the
Municipality’s local MPP).
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that Council for the Township of The Archipelago requests all levels of
government to consider funding support to aid the Township of The Archipelago in managing invasive
Phragmites; and directs staff to send a copy of this resolution to the Ontario Minister of Environment,
Conservation and Parks and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Carried
Good Morning Thomas,
I hope you are doing well. Thank you for taking the opportunity to speak with me earlier this morning.
Further to our discussion I have attached a template letter to this email that is representative of the
general support we are hoping that you, the Municipality of Bayham, and our council are willing to
provide to us.
We are essentially looking to ensure the long-term operations of Erie Shores Wind Farm through a
renewal of our existing PPA contract with the I.E.S.O., which is set to expire in 2026.
Showing that we have general support within our community and the Municipality will help us to ensure
the continued operations of our facility.
If you could assist us in obtaining this letter, or a letter of a similar nature, it would be much appreciated
and is something we could take to our discussions with the Minister of Energy and the I.E.S.O. during our
contract renegotiations.
Again, thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Tina Epple
Office Manager / Accountant
Erie Shores / CPMS
Capstone Infrastructure Corporation 155 Willington Street West, Suite 2930 Toronto, Ontario Canada Attention: Patrick Leitch RE: Letter of Support for Extending the Operating Life of Erie Shores Wind Farm – Municipality of Bayham Dear Mr. Leitch, We wish to support the efforts made by Capstone Infrastructure (“Capstone”) toward extending the 99 MW Erie Shores Wind Farm (“Erie Shores Wind Farm”) operating life in Bayham, Ontario. Capstone has a strong track record of collaboration and investment in our community through the 99 Megawatt Erie Shores Wind Farm, which went into operation in 2006. The Erie Shores Wind Farm has demonstrated good value to Ontario and directly produced 4 TWh of generated clean energy and a substantial reduction in GHG emission since 2006. We understand the current contract with the Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”) expires in 2026 and there is presently no pathway to enable Capstone to reinvest in the project and long-term operations. We believe long-term operations of the Erie Shores Wind Farm is in our community’s best interest as it helps the Municipality of Bayham, to continue being a Canadian leader in innovation and low-carbon economy solutions. We look forward to working with you and sharing our ideas on how best to support an energy transition that creates local investment, jobs and ensures continued prosperity within our community.
Hello Mr. Froese. My name is Mark Hill and I live at the intersection of Plank Rd. and Light Line.
I would like to bring something to your attention that is a major safety concern. If I understand
correctly, the Vienna village limit is Light line, due to the fact that the Vienna sign has been
moved to a position north of Light line. The 50 kph speed sign for Vienna is considerably south
of that. I would like to know why that 50 kph speed sign is not slightly north of the "Vienna"
sign that indicates you are entering Vienna village limits. The 50 kph signs have been been
moved for Eden on both the north and south ends, extending the boundaries. Why not for
Vienna? The safety concern is that drivers of all vehicle types, are not aware that they are
entering/ leaving Vienna village limits due to the position of the speed signs. When drivers are
leaving Vienna, heading north, they see the 80 kph sign (that is within Vienna limits), and seem
to think that from that sign to Calton Line, is like a ¼ mile race track. I have witnessed vehicles
traveling well in excess of 100 kph going through the Light Line intersection, vehicles passing
others while going through the intersection at excessive speed. I have also witnessed the same
for drivers and vehicles heading south. Someone is going to be seriously hurt, or worse due to
the excessive speed of vehicles passing through the Plank Rd./ Light Line intersection. I am
asking that the 50 kph sign be moved north from its current position to correctly reflect the
boundaries of Vienna village limits, and possibly requesting some better police presence in this
area for a while, to deter individuals from driving at excessive speed.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I look forward to hearing from you regarding
this matter.
Regards,
Mark Hill
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: CAO-28/23 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT – GRAHAM ESTATES INC. o/a
LEGEND RUBBER INC. – 56957 TALBOT LINE, BAYHAM (APPLICATION
NO. SPA-03/22)
BACKGROUND
At its June 2, 2022 meeting, Council received Report DS-34/22 re Bill 109, the More Homes for
Everyone Act, 2022. Report DS-34/22 presented Council with amendments to the Municipality’s existing site plan control by-law – By-law No. 2016-047 – and recommended that, to ensure compliance with Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) be appointed to be the Site Plan Control approval authority for the Municipality. Council passed the following motion: Moved by: Councillor Donnell Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Report DS-34/22 regarding Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, be received for information; AND THAT in consideration of the IBI Group Memorandum, dated May 26, 2022, Council directs staff to proceed with Option 3; AND THAT an Appointment By-law be brought forward to appoint the Municipality of Bayham’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) as the approval authority for Site Plan Control applications.
Council subsequently adopted By-law No. 2022-046, Site Plan Control By-law, on June 16, 2022. The CAO’s delegated authority is assigned under Section 6(1) of By-law No. 2022-046. In September 2022, Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc. submitted a Site Plan Control Application requesting amendment to the existing Site Plan Agreement for the property known municipally as 56957 Talbot Line, Bayham. The application was deemed complete by Planning staff in March 2023.
DISCUSSION Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc. are requesting amendment to the existing Site Plan Agreement in support of a 1637 m2 (17,620.6 ft2) addition to the front of the existing 4556 m2 (48,040.3 ft2) warehouse. With respect to the addition, 371.6 m2 (4000 ft2) is office space and 1265.4 m2 (13,620.6 ft2) is warehousing/processing The final drawings were received on March 28, 2023 with approval from the Municipal Engineer. The Fire Pond information has been updated and expanded on the design drawings. The site grading has also be augmented and the existing site features have been surveyed and adjusted
to account for the proposed addition. As the CAO is the delegated authority for Site Plan Control approval, this information is provided
for informational purposes only. ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan Control Application – Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc., 56957 Talbot Line, Bayham
2. Executed Agreement between The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc., 56957 Talbot Line, Bayham
RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-28/23 re Amendment to Site Plan Agreement – Graham Estates Inc. o/a Legend Rubber Inc. – 56957 Talbot Line, Bayham (Application No. SPA-03/22) be received for information. Respectfully Submitted by:
Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC
CAO|Clerk
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: CAO-29/23 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT No. 0766 – a+LINK ARCHITECTURE – EXTENSION BACKGROUND
In Q3 2021, the Municipality issued RFP 21-02 Request for Architectural Services regarding the Straffordville Community Hub Construction & Rehabilitation project, which was approved in 2021 and received 73.33 percent funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP). Council awarded the RFP to a+LINK Architecture Inc. (a+LINK) at its August 19, 2021 meeting by way of the following motion: Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report DS-45/21 re Proposal Results – RFP 21-02 Request for Architectural Services be received for information;
THAT Addendum to Report DS-45/21 re Proposal Results – RFP 21-02 Request for Architectural Services be received for information;
AND THAT Council accept the proposal submission from a+Link Architecture for architectural services for the Straffordville Community Centre project. And further adopted an Agreement by by-law at the December 16, 2021 meeting by adopting By-law No. 2021-073. The Agreement is No. 0766 in the Municipality’s files. DISCUSSION Section 13 of the Agreement deals with Term. The wording currently is as follows: “The Service Provider shall carry out the Service with the utmost dispatch, subject to delayed
beyond its control, between the Effective Date of the Agreement noted at the top of page 1 and July 1, 2023.”
The Agreement Effective Date is December 16, 2021 and, as noted, the Term ends on July 1, 2023. When the Agreement was originally drafted and contemplated by Council, it was intended that any
design changes, procurement, and construction would take place prior to the identified end-of-Term
date. However, due to revisions to the schematic drawings, cost re-estimations, scope reconsiderations, and delayed procurement, the project will extend past July 1, 2023.
Staff have been in discussion with a+LINK who have advised that they are amenable to an extension for the life of the project or grant, whichever is sooner, to ensure continuity of service and smooth completion of the project.
Staff recommend that the appropriate by-law be brought forward to amend the existing Agreement to identify a new Term for Agreement No. 0766. RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report CAO-29/23 re Agreement No. 0766 – a+LINK Architecture – Extension be received for information;
2. AND THAT the appropriate amending by-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully Submitted by: Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC
CAO|Clerk
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2023
REPORT: CAO-31/23 SUBJECT: BILL 23, MORE HOMES BUILT FASTER ACT, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022. The Bill amends various pieces of legislation including:
Planning Act
Municipal Act
Ontario Heritage Act
Ontario Land Tribunal Act
Development Charges Act
Conservation Authorities Act
New Home Construction Licensing Act
Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act and seeks to encourage more rapid development in municipalities across Ontario to support additional housing and curtail increasing prices associated with home purchase and ownership. Over Q4 2022, Council received a number of pieces of correspondence from industry organizations and municipalities in general opposing the changes proposed in Bill 23, and outlining their impacts to
municipalities and the sector overall. Additionally, Council has adopted a development charge by-law and directed investigation of
another. On October 6, 2022, Council finalized the formal process to establish a development charge by-law
for water and wastewater by adopting By-law No. 2022-067 through the following motion: Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT By-Law No. 2022-065, 2022-066, 2022-067 & 2022-069 be read a first, second, and
third time and finally passed.
Prior to this, Council received a pair of Reports from the CAO and Treasurer, respectively, on the
Municipality’s unsuccessful Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) application for multiple phases of the Port Burwell Stormwater Master Plan and, on September 15, 2023 after receiving Report TR-14/22 re 2022-2023 DMAF Update, passed the following motion:
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Staff Report TR-14/22 2022-2023 DMAF Update be received for information. AND THAT staff work with Watson and Associates to prepare and present any applicable background works or studies regarding a Special Area Rate for Port Burwell and municipal Stormwater Development Charge as own-source revenue components and report back to Council when appropriate. This Report is presented to Council to outline changes in Bill 23 and their foreseeable impacts to the Municipality with respect to planning and development finance. DISCUSSION: Planning The Municipality is in receipt of an IBI Memorandum, dated April 26, 2023, which speaks primarily to the planning implications of Bill 23. The said Memorandum is attached hereto.
The Memorandum provides a general overview of the Bill 23 changes, then focuses on impacts to additional residential units, parkland dedication, and site plan control.
The recommendations from the Memorandum are as follows:
“Based on the above review of Bill 23 we recommend all of the changes presented in Section 2.0
above, the specific details of which will be consistent to the Planning Act or other applicable Acts. A Municipality-led Official Plan Amendment and changes to By-laws should be processed in the near
future and we are available to prepare such OPA or By-law update in consultation with municipal
Staff.
Revision to the Parkland By-law, to include new exempt classes of development and replace
Schedule “A” with a revised policy Section 8.18, can be implemented following the approval of an OPA and Staff shall be aware that should such type of dwelling unit be proposed in the interim,
Parkland dedication should not be required.
Revision to the Site Plan Control By-law do not appear to be dependent on an OPA, therefore,
revisions to the By-law can proceed at any point, however, it may be more efficient to process revisions to the By-laws at one time.”
Staff recommend consideration and implementation of the recommendations as identified and in concert with a Municipal-led Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. Development Charges Throughout Q4 2022 and into Q1 2023, Watson and Associates Land Economists Inc. (Watson) have been providing general public information on the impacts of Bill 23 to municipalities, specifically with respect to development charges.
Council has received some of this information over the previous months by way of general
correspondence attached for Information on the December 1, 2023 Council Agenda. This correspondence is attached hereto for context and reference purposes. Additionally, the IBI
Memorandum does also speak high-level to development charges, but not in the same level of detail.
Exemptions Changes through Bill 23 include exemptions for affordable and attainable dwelling units, non-profit Inclusionary Zoning units, and additional “secondary” units. The expected impact of this is not fully quantifiable at this time, but expected to be minimal. The majority of the development proposals considered by the Municipality do not specifically include affordable or attainable units, generally because these terms are nebulous concepts and more difficult to apply to freehold housing stock. With respect to secondary units, the Municipality’s existing Development Charge By-law (No. 2022-067) includes language in keeping with the Development Charges Act, 1997, RSO 1997, c27, as amended (the “DCA”), which requires exemptions be made for certain types of units under certain
conditions. These units and conditions are expanded upon in Section 2(3.1 – 3.3) of the DCA and illustrated in O.Reg 82/98 – General – Section 2, under the DCA. This Table is included in By-law No. 2022-067 and below for Council’s information:
Based on the above exemptions already accounted for in our By-law, the expected impacts from
these changes are minimal overall. Mandatory Phase-in Specific to Bill 23 changes to the DCA and its impact to Bayham, Bill 23 amends the DCA to require a mandatory five-year phase-in of Development Charges duly authorized by by-law as follows:
Year 1 – 80%
Year 2 – 85%
Year 3 – 90%
Year 4 – 95%
Year 5 to expiry – 100%
This is important for the Municipality as, on October 6, 2022, Bayham Council adopted a development charge by-law for water and wastewater services in the municipality, with an immediate 100% allocation and subject to annual CPI inflation. The effect of Bill 23 requires the Municipality to apply the statutory 80-percent factor in Year 1 (October 2022 – October 2023), subject to CPI inflation. The impact is such that, for the balance of
the Year 1 period, will collect as follows when compared to the pre-Bill 23 context (single/semi-detached homes as proxy):
January – October 2023 Single/Semi-Detached Development Charge
Settlement Area Service 80% Phase-in 100% Difference
Port Burwell Water $3,676.57 $4,595.71 -$919.14 Wastewater $10,531.44 $13,164.30 -$2,632.86 $14,208.01 $17,760.01 -$3,552.00
Vienna Water $3,732.34 $4,665.43 -$933.09
Wastewater $12,039.25 $15,049.06 -$3,009.81
$15,771.59 $19,714.49 -$3,942.90 Straffordville Wastewater $12,039.25 $15,049.06 -$3,009.81
Eden Wastewater $12,039.25 $15,049.06 -$3,009.81
Richmond Water $12,555.18 $15,693.98 -$3,138.80
On developments where full services are accessible, the Municipality is losing out on $3,552 - $3,943 per dwelling. On developments where partial services is accessible, the Municipality is losing out on $3,139 (water only) or $3,010 (sanitary only) per dwelling. This means that the Municipality is losing anticipated revenues due to Bill 23, and any loss in revenue due to the mandated phase-in would have to be subsidized by the rate user via the levy to
make up the loss. This is particularly impactful when recognizing that water and wastewater are critical infrastructure and essential services, expansion of which are more difficult to defer when deemed necessary to support the lifecycle and quality of the systems. This is visualized in the below
table based on possible development figures: Number of Houses Average DC Loss* Revenue Loss Levy Impact
10 $3,331
$33,310 +0.55%
15 $49,965 +0.83%
20 $66,620 +1.11%
25 $83,275 +1.39% 30 $99,930 +1.67% *Calculated as an average DC loss over 5 settlement areas
**Based on proxy of 1% levy = $60,000
It is worth noting that this mandatory phase-in will apply to any other development charge by-law
adopted by Council. As mentioned, Council has provided the direction for a Stormwater Development Charge, which will assist in the long-term funding of stormwater infrastructure in certain areas of the municipality. Council may also, in the future, choose to consider a homogenous
development charge, which would include other services such as Parks and Recreation, Roads, and Fire and Emergency Services. These are currently not covered by a development charge by-law, but there is merit in considering their inclusion in the near-term. If considered for adoption,
once more, the mandatory phase-in applies, which will require that, for the first four years in effect, the Municipality will not be receiving 100 percent of intended development charge revenues and will have to supplement from other sources for capital expansion needs. Removal of Studies from Definition of Capital Cost The Municipality utilizes studies to inform infrastructure expansion and servicing. Any expansion to the wastewater and/or water systems will likely require such a background study to inform staff recommendations and Council decisions. While not specifically quantified here, it is expected that any future study would have to be levy-funded or reserve-funded, rather than supplemented or completely offset by development charges, due to this omission.
Staff can advise that, within the next couple of months, a Report will be forthcoming to Council regarding sanitary service expansion in Eden, with the requirement for an Environmental Assessment for same – likely Class B. Under the previous regime, this background work, being led
by CJDL, could have been funded by development charges as it applies to the wastewater system. The changes, however, remove this ability.
Expiration Under the previous regime, a development charge by-law would expire after five (5) years. The new changes extend this to ten (10) years. Bayham will save some money insofar as the Municipality will have to engage in development charge background studies half as often; however, it is expected that losses in revenue from the mandatory phase-in will more than offset any study savings, making the venture a continuous net-loss to Municipal coffers. Requirement to Allocate One final change to how development charges are administered and allocated is the new requirement under Section 35 of the DCA to spend or allocate reserve funds annually. The newly-added Subsection 35(2) reads as follows:
(2) Beginning in 2023 and in each calendar year thereafter, a municipality shall spend or allocate at
least 60 per cent of the monies that are in a reserve fund for the following services at the beginning
of the year:
1. Water supply services, including distribution and treatment services.
2. Waste water services, including sewers and treatment services.
3. Services related to a highway as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or subsection 3 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be. 2022, c. 21, Sched. 3, s. 10.
It should be noted that a 2023 allocation under this Subsection does not apply as Bayham did not
have any funds in a development charges reserve fund to commence the year. However, this will apply for 2024.
Under the above, the Municipality is required to spend or allocate 60 percent of its received water and wastewater development changes from the reserve on an annual basis. This change impacts long-term capital planning, in that when the Municipality considers its annual Capital Budget and 10-
Year Capital Plan, it is commonplace that priorities will change from year-to-year depending on emergent capital pressures, or even within a fiscal year. For instance, a pre-allocation to a project in 2024 would potentially eliminate use of that allocation for a separate, time-sensitive project that arises mid-year. This also limits the degree to which the Municipality can build its reserve fund for a large-scale infrastructure expansion, if required. An example would be a growth-related expansion to an aspect of the wastewater system or Wastewater Treatment Plant as outlined in the Report received from CJDL on December 1, 2022, which may be multiple years in the future and/or with a multi-million-dollar cost associated. One of the principal tenets of development charges is the notion that “growth pays for growth”, in that when a building permit is applied for, the development charges levied through the development will pay for associated and future capital expansion to support further development. This mechanism removes the burden of subsidizing growth from the rate user; however, many of the changes associated with Bill 23, and discussed in this Report, are in direct conflict with this tenet and require
the general rate user to subsidize growth, transferring the financial burden of home ownership rather than reducing it. ATTACHMENTS 1. IBI Memorandum, dated April 26, 2023, re More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) –
Review of Provincial Planning Changes 2. Watson & Associates Letter, dated November 16, 2022, re Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-31/23 re Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 be received for information; 2. AND THAT the recommendations contained in the IBI Memorandum, dated April 26, 2023, be considered and implemented through the appropriate planning and municipal processes.
Respectfully Submitted by: Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC CAO|Clerk
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
Memorandum
To/Attention Municipality of Bayham Date April 26, 2023
From Paul Riley, BA, CPT Project No 3404 – 882
cc William Pol, MCIP, RPP
Subject More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) - Review of Provincial
Planning Changes
Introduction
The Municipality of Bayham has requested information on the More Homes Built Faster Act,
2022 (hereafter “Bill 23”) in relation to possible policy or regulatory changes in response to the
new legislation. The following paragraphs provide an outline of the new legislation, related and
actions for Council and staff to consider.
1.0 Summary Bill 23
Bill 23 received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022, and several of the amendments
contained in Bill 23 are now in effect while other amendments will come into effect on a date
to be determined. Bill 23 implements fundamental changes in nine (9) pieces of legislation
related to development in Ontario, including: the City of Toronto Act; the Conservation
Authorities Act; the Development Charges Act,1997; the Municipal Act, 2001, the New Home
Construction Licensing Act,2017; the Ontario Heritage Act; the Ontario Land Tribunal Act,
2021; the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012; and the Planning
Act.
The Municipality has one year from the adoption of the new legislation to comply with
the legislation, which year ends on November 28, 2023.
The following paragraphs describe various changes from Bill 23 for Council’s general
understanding of the Bill. The key topics for the Municipality are underlined and further
reviewed in the subsequent sections.
Housing Supply
Landowners are permitted a maximum of three residential units “as of right” on lands zoned
for detached houses, semi-detached houses, or rowhouses in urban residential areas
without the need for a zoning by-law amendment. No more than one additional parking
space can be required.
Within 1 year of a Major Transit Station Area or Protected Major Transit Station Area being
approved by the Minister, municipalities must update zoning by-laws to include the
prescribed heights and densities.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
2
Introducing a new term “attainable housing” to be defined in future regulations, as distinct
from “affordable housing.”
Section 51 is amended to eliminate the requirement for a public meeting in relation to an
application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision.
Setting an upper limit of 5% of the total number of units in a development that can be
required to be affordable in Inclusionary Zoning By-laws.
o Capping the maximum affordability period at 25 years.
Environment & Heritage Protection
Streamlining the 36 Conservation Authorities into a single regulation and updating
regulated areas and permit requirements.
Permitting the Minister to direct authorities to freeze the fees they charge for a specific
period of time.
Municipalities will not be permitted to issue a notice of intention to designate a property
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act unless the property is already on the heritage
register when the current 90-day requirement for Planning Act applications is triggered.
o Registered Properties must be designated within 2 years or they are removed
from the municipal register.
Cost, Fees, and Taxes
Exemptions from municipal development charges, parkland dedication levies and
community benefit charges for affordable housing, non-profit housing, inclusionary zoning
units, and select attainable housing units.
Reduction of development charges for rental construction.
Review of other fees charged by provincial ministries, boards, agencies and commissions.
Ontario Land Tribunal
The Tribunal will have increased powers to order costs against a party who loses a hearing
at the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is being given increased power to dismiss appeals for undue delay.
Development Charges
Introducing a standard five-year phase in of DC rates after passing of the By-law.
Removal of “housing services” as a service in which a DC may be imposed.
Increasing the expiration of DC By-laws from 5 to 10 years.
Introduction of a maximum new interest rate that a municipality can charge on a DC.
Exemptions made for affordable and attainable housing, non-profit Inclusionary Zoning
units and additional dwelling units (secondary suites)
Purpose-built rental units are discounted with a sliding scale for larger, family-sized units.
Exclude the cost of several studies related to acquiring or improving lands, buildings and
facilities, including a Development Charge Background Study, from recovery through DCs.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
3
Municipalities will be required to spend/allocate at least 60% of DC reserves for priority
services (i.e., water, wastewater and roads) annually.
Upper Tier Approval Power
All upper-tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, as well as Waterloo and Simcoe
are classified as not having planning responsibilities in relation to lower-tier Official Plans,
Official Plan Amendments and Plans of Subdivision.
The Minister therefore becomes the approval authority for all lower tier OP and OPAs, and
Minister’s decisions are not subject to appeal. Lower-tier municipalities would be delegated
approval authority for Plans of Subdivision and Consents.
Site Plan Control
Exterior design is no longer a matter that is subject to site plan control.
Site Plan Control would no longer apply to developments with fewer than 10 residential
units.
2.0 Relevant Changes and Recommendations
Additional Residential Units
a maximum of three residential units “as of right” on lands zoned for detached houses,
semi-detached houses, or rowhouses in urban residential areas without the need for a
zoning by-law amendment.
The changes also prohibit municipalities from applying minimum unit sizes or requiring
more than one parking space in connection with these units.
The Bayham Official Plan Section 4.7 Second Dwelling Units provides policies with
respect to additional dwelling units and the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law (Zoning By-
law) Section 4.59 Second Dwelling Units provides regulations for additional dwelling units.
Official Plan Section 4.7 indicates one additional residential unit is permitted whereas the new
legislation permits up to 2 as-of-right. There are also polices for limiting floor area increase for
existing dwellings which are adding additional units; requires additional onsite parking;
adequate water and sewer services; and, limits the gross floor area increase for the additional
residential dwelling to “not greater than 40% of the combined total gross floor area of both the
primary and second dwelling units”.
Section 4.7 and 4.7.1 title should be amended from “Second Dwelling Unit” to
“Additional Residential Unit”.
Section 4.7.1 should indicate up to two (2) additional residential units.
Subsection 4.7.1 a) may need to be revised to remove 10% floor area increase
limitation, for existing building reconstruction for new additional residential units.
Subsection 4.7.1 c) may need to be revised to remove “where the gross floor area of
the second dwelling is not greater than 40% of the combined total gross floor area of
both the primary and second dwelling units.”
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
4
The Zoning By-law Section 4.59 Second Dwelling Units should be amended generally as
follows:
Section 4.59 title should be changed from Second Dwelling Units to Additional
Residential Units.
Section 4.59 a) should be changed from permitting maximum one unit to maximum 2
units on one lot.
Section 4.59 b) requires minimum one parking space per additional dwelling unit which
should be retained even though zero parking spaces is possible under the new
legislation.
Section 4.59 f) and/or h) may have to be removed to not limit the size of the additional
residential units.
Development Charges and Parkland Dedication
Exemptions from municipal development charges, parkland dedication levies and
community benefit charges for affordable housing, non-profit housing, inclusionary zoning
units, and select attainable housing units.
We understand that Watson and Associates is advising the Municipality on changes to
the Development Charges regime/By-law.
The Bayham OP includes Parkland Dedication in Section 8.18 and is associated with
Cash-in-lieu of Parkland By-law 2020-053. The policies in Section 8.18 and specifics in the
Parkland By-law need to be revised to be consistent to Bill 23 changes.
The maximum amount of land that can be conveyed or paid in lieu is capped at 10% of the
land or its value for sites under 5 ha, and 15 % for sites greater than 5 ha.
Maximum alternative dedication rate reduced to 1 ha/600 units for land and 1 ha/1000 units
for cash in lieu.
Exemptions for: Added Units to Rental Apartments; 3 units per detached, semi or
rowhouse; Affordable Residential Units – rental or purchase; Attainable Housing Units;
Inclusionary Housing Units; Non-Profit Housing Development
Bayham OP Section 8.18 Parkland Dedication will need to be amended, as well as the
Municipalities “Parkland” By-law No. 2020-053.
The current rate for parkland is 5% for residential and 2% for commercial/industrial
development, therefore, no changes are necessary.
Amend Bayham OP Section 8.18.1 from 1 ha/300 units to one ha/600 units and indicate
maximum one ha/1000 units for cash-in-lieu.
Revise the Parkland By-law Section 9 Exemptions by adding new subsection c),
generally as follows:
(c) Where the development consists of any of the following types of residential
units:
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
5
Added units to rental apartments; three units per detached, semi-detached or
rowhouse dwelling unit (additional or secondary units); affordable residential
units as defined by Provincial legislation; attainable housing units as defined by
Provincial legislation; inclusionary housing units; or non-profit housing
development.
Revise Schedule “A” with the amended Official Plan Section 8.18 once the Official Plan
Amendment is approved.
Site Plan Control
Exterior design is no longer a matter that is subject to site plan control.
Site Plan Control would no longer apply to developments with fewer than 10 residential
units.
Bayham OP Section 18.17.1.2 indicates that:
Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, any residential buildings or use which
is situated, or proposed to be situated in a Hamlet Residential (HR) Zone; an Estate
Residential (ER) Zone; a Rural Residential (RR) Zone or an Open Space Zone; or,
which otherwise is permitted as an accessory residential building or use in any zone
other than an Agricultural (A1) Zone shall be subject to site plan control. The application
of site plan control measures for such uses or in zones as described herein shall
however, be limited to such matters as controlling the location of access, parking,
grading and drainage.
The following should be added at the end of the first paragraph “shall be subject to site
plan control where 11 or more residential dwelling units are proposed.”
Bayham OP Section 8.17.1.3 indicates that:
Municipal Council may require the drawings mentioned in paragraph 2 of subsection
41(4) in accordance with subsection 41(5) of the Planning Act, regardless of the
number of dwelling units in a residential building or use subject to this policy.
The policy should be revised by removing “regardless of the number of dwelling units”
and replace it with “where site plan control is required” or similar.
Bayham OP Section 8.17.1.4 indicates that:
The establishment of either a mobile home park or a seasonal travel trailer park shall
be subject to site plan control, regardless of the number of dwelling units contained
therein.
The policy should be revised by removing “regardless of the number of dwelling units
contained therein.” And replacing it with “where 11 or more units are proposed”, or
similar.
IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM
Municipality of Bayham – April 26, 2023
IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. is a member of the IBI Group of companies
6
The Municipality of Bayham Site Plan Control By-law No. 2016 – 047 Section 3.0, subsection
(3) indicates that any other dwelling than a single-detached, semi-detached, or duplex
dwellings would be subject to site plan control.
A new subsection c) should be added to Subsection 3.0 (2) Exempt classes of
Development to indicate residential developments with 10 or less residential dwelling
units and subsection 3.0 (3) should be removed.
The Site Plan Control By-law should be revised to indicate the general sections of the Planning
Act with respect to site plan control.
Plan of Subdivision
Public Section 51 is amended by repealing certain provisions respecting public meetings.
Bayham OP Section 8.6.1.3 for plan of subdivision indicates that:
8.6.1.3 The public will be given the opportunity to present their views on a proposed plan of
subdivision at a public meeting, which will be held by the Municipal Council in
connection with the regular cycle of scheduled meetings.
This policy should be removed from the Bayham OP by way of Official Plan Amendment.
Recommendations
Based on the above review of Bill 23 we recommend all of the changes presented in Section
2.0 above, the specific details of which will be consistent to the Planning Act or other applicable
Acts. A Municipality-led Official Plan Amendment and changes to By-laws should be processed
in the near future and we are available to prepare such OPA or By-law update in consultation
with municipal Staff.
Revision to the Parkland By-law, to include new exempt classes of development and replace
Schedule “A” with a revised policy Section 8.18, can be implemented following the approval of
an OPA and Staff shall be aware that should such type of dwelling unit be proposed in the
interim, Parkland dedication should not be required.
Revision to the Site Plan Control By-law do not appear to be dependent on an OPA, therefore,
revisions to the By-law can proceed at any point, however, it may be more efficient to process
revisions to the By-laws at one time.
Paul Riley
IBI GROUP
Paul Riley, BA, CPT Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham
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
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2023-032 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY USE AND DEMOLITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROY SCHRIJVER FARMS LTD. AND THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM WHEREAS Section 4.12 of Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, provides that as a temporary use, an existing residence located on the subject property may remain in place and be occupied while a new residence is constructed on the subject property.
AND WHEREAS the Property Owner has applied for a building permit for construction of a new residence at 53777 Talbot Line, legally described as Concession 7 NTR N Pt Lots 110, 111 RP
11R6257 Pt Part 1, being Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Temporary Use and Demolition Agreement with Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. attached hereto and forming part of this By-law and marked as Schedule “A”. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4th DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO BY-LAW NO. 2023-032 THIS TEMPORARY USE AND DEMOLITION AGREEMENT DATED THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM (Hereinafter called the “Municipality”) -and-
ROY SCHRIJVER FARMS LTD. (Hereinafter called the “Property Owner”)
WHEREAS Section 4.12 of Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the “By-law”), provides that as a temporary use, an existing residence located on the subject property may remain in place and be occupied while a new residence is constructed on the subject property; AND WHEREAS the Property Owner will apply for a building permit for construction of a new residence at 53777 Talbot Line, legally described as Concession 7 NTR N Pt Lots 110, 111 RP
11R6257 Pt Part 1, Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100; AND WHEREAS the Property Owner commits to submitting a security deposit in the amount of
$10,000.00 dollars to the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham; AND IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto as
follows: 1. The Owner agrees that the construction of the new residence shall be completed and occupied within two (2) years of the passing of this By-law. 2. The existing residence shall be demolished by the Property Owner within six (6) months of the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or within two (2) years of completion of construction of the new residence, whichever comes first. 3. The required $10,000.00 security deposit shall be paid by the property owner to the Municipality of Bayham in the form of a bank cheque, certified cheque or a certified
Letter of Credit. The deposit will be refunded after the existing residence is completely demolished and all debris removed to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Bayham’s Chief Building Official. 4. Failure to comply with this Agreement will result in the Municipality of Bayham using the security deposit funds to demolish the existing residence and remove all debris. Any
further costs for this demolition incurred by the Municipality will be added to the property taxes of the subject property Assessment Roll No. 3401-000-007-05100.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as at the date first stated above.
Schedule ‘A’ to By-law No. 2023-032 Roy Schrijver 2
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
Dated ) THE CORPORATION OF THE ) MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
) ) ) ) __________________________________ ) Ed Ketchabaw, Mayor )
) ) __________________________________ ) Thomas Thayer, Clerk ) ) ) ________________________________ ) __________________________________ Signature of Witness ) Roy Schrijver, Owner
Roy Schrijver Farms Ltd. I have authority to bind the Corporation.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2023-033
BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AND MOBIL SERVICES INC. FOR BRIDGE WASHING SERVICES WHEREAS section 8(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, grants a
broad scope of powers to municipalities to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate;
AND WHEREAS RFT-22-01 Bridge Washing Tender was issued on Wednesday, July 27,
2022 and closed on Thursday, August 25, 2022;
AND WHEREAS One submission was received from Mobil Services Inc.; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of entering into an agreement with Mobil Services Inc. for the provision of Bridge Washing Services;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY
OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law between The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Mobil Services Inc.;
2. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4th DAY OF MAY, 2023.
___________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK
Schedule ‘A’ to By-Law 2023-033
THIS AGREEMENT DATED THE DAY OF , 2023
BETWEEN: MOBIL SERVICES INC. (Hereinafter called the "Contractor") and
of the First Part
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM {Hereinafter called the "Municipality") of the Second Part
WHEREAS The Municipality contracts for the Bridge Washing Services at various locations within the
Municipality;
NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein contained, the payments
required hereby, and such other consideration as the parties hereto deem acceptable, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1- Definitions
For the purposes of this Agreement, 1.1 "Council" shall mean the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham;
1.2 "Manager of Public Works" shall mean the Manager of Public Works of the Municipality of Bayham or designate;
Section 2 - General Provisions 2.1 The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the bridge washing services within the
Municipality of Bayham for the time period of January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024 in
accordance with this Agreement and in accordance with the reasonable directions given by the
Manager of Public Works, or designate from time to time.
Item No. Description
1 Port Burwell (county Rd. 42) between Chatham and Robinson St.
2 Glen Erie Line (county Rd.42) between Plank Rd. and Clarke Rd. 3 Vienna north and south along Plank Rd between Chapel St. and Chute Line
4 Calton Line (county Rd. 45) between Dennis Rd. and Richmond Rd 5 Richmond Rd. (county Rd. 43) north and south between James Line and Heritage Line (county Rd. 38)
6 Culloden Rd. (county Rd. 46) between Heritage Line and Otter Gate Line
7 Eden Line (county Rd. 44) between Sandytown Rd. and Murray Rd.
8 Plank Rd. (county Rd. 19) between Black Bridge Line and Maple Grove Line
11 Bayham Drive between Carson Line and Hwy 3
12 Carson Line between Plank Rd. and Hwy 3
13 Baynor Rd. between Eden Line and Coyle Rd.
14 Light Line between County Rd. 55 and Tollgate Rd.
15 Tunnel Line between County Rd. 55 and Godby Rd.
16 Godby Rd. between Tunnel Line and Glen Erie Line
17 Clarke Rd. between Tunnel Line and Glen Erie Line
2.2 At mutual agreement between the Municipality and Contractor, the Term may be extended for two one-year periods at an agreed-upon 1.5 percent per year as outlined in Appendix “A”. 2.3 The Contractor shall supply all labour, equipment and materials required to clear the bridges of all accumulated sand/gravel and salt (collectively referred to as debris) on the bridge structure. In order to limit the migration of these materials, the contractor is to first remove as much of the debris as possible prior to washing the structure. The Contractor is required to remove and to properly dispose of all debris from the bridge structure.
2.4 The Contractor shall clean the structure including all structural components using high
pressure water washing that will render all those components free of dirt, debris and salt
residue. 2.5 Bridge Washing shall include, but is not limited to, the cleaning of the bearings, approaches, joints, curbs and gutters attached to the structure, hand rails, barrier walls, light standards, sign supports, bearing seats, deck drains, sidewalks, curbs, structure components, railings and the deck surface.
2.6 It is the Municipality’s intent to power sweep the structures prior to the commencement of the bridge washing. The Municipality sweeps the structures early in the spring to facilitate good drainage. This work shall not, in any way, alleviate the contractor from their obligation to remove any unwanted debris on the structure prior to undertaking the bridge washing. 2.7 The Contractor is required to submit inspection reports for each structure detailing the work completed and identifying any bridge deficiencies or damages which were found during the work. A sample report may be obtained from the municipality prior to the commencement of
work. 2.8 The Contractor shall supply a competent supervisor as defined by OHSA and operators(s) suitably trained and experienced to perform and monitor the process of sweeping and pressure
washing processes. The contractor is responsible for all signage and traffic control during bridge washing.
2.9 The Contractor shall supply pressure washing equipment including pump, spray wand, nozzle,
hoses, valves, on/off controls suitable to perform the required operation. The minimum acceptable requirements for pressure washing equipment are 520kPa (75 PSI) with a volume of 225 litres (50 gallons) per minute, continuous running operation.
2.10 The Municipality expects that once the project starts the Contractor will work continuously
towards its completion. The Contractor shall be required to notify the Municipality of any delays. The Contractor will provide a contact list of phone numbers for their onsite
supervisors/office.
Section 3 – Schedule of Work & Payment for Work 3.1 The Municipality does not guarantee any volume of work and volume of work is
dependent upon budget. The Municipality reserves the right, at its sole direction, to procure either more or less without altering the contracted price.
3.2 Payment shall be made in accordance to attached ‘Appendix A “’ subject to the provision of monthly invoices submitted to the Municipality.
Section 4 - Insurance 4.1 The Contractor shall, at his/her expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this
Agreement, Commercial General Liability Insurance satisfactory to the Municipality, including
the following and underwritten by an insurer licensed to conduct business in the Province of
Ontario: i. A limit of liability of not less than $2,000,000/occurrence
ii. The Municipality shall be named as an additional insured
iii. The policy shall contain a provision for cross liability in respect of the named
insured
iv. Non-owned automobile coverage with a limit of at least $2,000,000 including contractual non-owned coverage v. Products and completed operation coverage (Broad Form) with an aggregate limit
not less than $2,000,000
vi. That 30 days prior notice of an alteration, cancellation or material change in policy
terms which reduces coverage shall be given in writing to the municipality
4.2 A Certificate of said insurance shall be provided to the Municipality prior to any bridge washing
activities and upon each renewal.
4.3 The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the Municipality from all injuries and accidents arising from any work undertaken as a result of this Agreement save and except from damage caused by the negligence of the Municipality or their employees.
4.4 The Contractor shall be required to show proof of registration with the WSIB. Once the contract
commences, each invoice must be accompanied by a current WSIB Clearance Certificate not
more than 3 months old.
Section 5 - Termination 5.1 If the Contractor neglects or fails to carry out or to comply with any of the terms, covenants, undertakings or conditions of this Agreement, the Municipality may, after having given written
notice to the Contractor of such default, terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days notice
in writing to the Contractor and this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated on the day
specified in the notice.
5.2 The Contractor may terminate this Agreement for any reason by giving thirty (30) days notice in
writing to the Municipality and this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated on the day
specified in the notice.
Section 6 - Notice
6.1 All notices, consents, approvals or other communications permitted or required to be given under this Agreement (collectively "Notices") shall be in writing, shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Agreement, and shall be personally delivered; or sent by prepaid registered mail to the applicable address set out below:
(a) in the case of the Municipality: Attention: Steve Adams, Manager of Public
Works|Drainage Superintendent
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line
PO Box 160
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Office: (519) 866-5521 sadams@bayham.on.ca
(b) in the case of the Contractor: Attention: Tracy Edgar Company: MOBIL SERVICES INC. Address: 5 Bayview Court Unit 1, London ON N5W 5W4 Phone Number: 519 453 5020
Email: tracy@mobilservices.ca Section 7 - Agreement Definition 7.1 No amendment of this Agreement shall be deemed valid unless effected by a written amendment
signed by both parties and no waiver of rights of any kind under this Agreement shall be effective
unless in writing by the party for whom they are a benefit. 7.2 If a Court of competent jurisdiction should declare any section or part of a section of this Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable, such section or part of a section shall not be construed as being an integral part of the Agreement or having persuaded or influenced a party to this Agreement to execute the same, and it is hereby agreed that the remainder of the Agreement shall be valid and in full force and effect. 7.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties to this Agreement and supersedes any prior Agreements and understandings, oral or written.
7.4 Nothing in this Agreement derogates from, interferes with, or fetters the exercise by the Municipality of all of its rights and obligations as a municipality (whether discretionary or mandatory), or imposes any obligations on the Municipality in its role as a municipality, and the Municipality shall not be prevented from or prejudiced in carrying out its statutory rights and responsibilities, including its planning rights and responsibilities. Nothing in this Agreement derogates from, interferes with, or fetters the exercise by the Municipality's officers, employees, agents, representatives or elected and appointed officials of all of their rights, or imposes any obligations on the Municipality's officers, employees, agents, representatives or elected and
appointed officials, other than as expressly set out in this Agreement. 7.5 No communication or dealing between the Contractor and any department, committee, body, officer, employee, agent, representative or elected or appointed official of the Municipality that is not clearly in respect of and in accordance with this Agreement will not be deemed to be a communication or dealing under this Agreement between the Contractor and Municipality as parties to this Agreement or affect the Municipality with notice of any such communication or dealings. It is intended and agreed that any communication or dealing between the Contractor and
the Municipality as parties to this Agreement will only be effective if delivered in accordance with the notice provisions in this Agreement. No communication or dealing between the Municipality as
party to this Agreement and the Contractor as a party to this Agreement will relieve the Contractor from the responsibility of discharging its lawful obligations to the Municipality imposed by statute, regulation, by-law or by any other lawful manner separate and apart from the obligations imposed under this Agreement. Section 8 - No Waiver
8.1 No condonation, excusing or overlooking by the Municipality of any default, breach or non- observance of any of the Contractor's obligations under this Agreement at any time or times shall affect the Municipality's remedies or rights with respect to any subsequent (even if by way of continuation) default, breach or non-observance.
8.2 No waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Municipality. 8.3 Any written waiver by the Municipality shall have effect only in accordance with its express terms.
8.4 Except as stated otherwise in this Agreement, time shall be of the essence in the performance of all covenants and agreements herein. Section 9 - Successors and Assigns 9.1 This Agreement shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
9.2 This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred in any way by the Contractor.
Section 10 - Counterparts 10.1 This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
Section 11-Interpretation
11.1 In construing this Agreement, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and words importing the masculine shall include the feminine, and the neuter and vice versa, and words importing persons shall include corporations and vice versa.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement this day of , 2023
SIGNED,SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MAYOR
CLERK
MOBIL SERVICES INC.
APPENDIX ‘A’ TO BY-LAW 2023-033
BRIDGE WASHING RATES 2023 - $10,800 + HST
2024 - $10,800 + HST
2025 - $10,962 + HST
2026 - $11,126.43 + HST
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z756-2023
RIDEOUT / LAVALLEE
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW No. Z456-2003, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to amend Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “A” Map No. 5 by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Rural
Commercial (RC) zone to a site-specific Rural Residential (RR-46) zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked RR-46 on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
2) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Section 7.13 Exception – Rural Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
7.13.46.1 Defined Area
RR-46 as shown on Schedule “A” Map No. 5 to this By-law.
7.13.46.2 Maximum Accessory Building Floor Area
130.5 square metres
4) THIS By-law comes into force:
a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or
b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
READ A FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z757-2023
HIEBERT
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW No. Z456-2003, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to amend Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham enacts as follows:
1) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “F” Straffordville by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Village Residential (R1) zone to a site-specific Village Residential (R1-20) zone, which lands are
outlined in heavy solid lines and marked R1-20 on Schedule “F” to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
2) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending
Section 10.12 Exception – Village Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
10.12.20.1 Defined Area
R1-20 as shown on Schedule “F” to this By-law.
10.12.20.2 Minimum Lot Area
349 square metres
10.12.20.3 Minimum Lot Frontage
8.4 metres
3) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Schedule “F” Straffordville by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from Village Residential (R1) zone to a site-specific Village Residential (RR-21) zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked RR-21 on Schedule “F” to this By-law, which schedule is attached to and forms part of this By-law.
4) THAT By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending
Section 10.12 Exception – Village Residential (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses:
10.12.21.1 Defined Area
R1-21 as shown on Schedule “F” to this By-law.
10.12.21.2 Minimum Lot Frontage, Corner Lot
11.7 metres
4) THIS By-law comes into force:
a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or
b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
READ A FIRST TIME SECOND TIME THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BEING A BY-LAW TO APPOINT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
BY-LAW NUMBER 2023-034
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, S.11(1), as amended, confers
broad authority to municipalities to enable them to govern their affairs as they consider
appropriate and to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of
utilizing various types of Committees;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham appointed
Members of Council to External Committees through resolution on December 15, 2022;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham appointed
members of the public to Advisory Committees through resolution at the April 6, 2023
and May 4, 2023 Regular Meetings of Council;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Committee Members attached hereto as “Schedule A” and forming
part of this By-law be hereby appointed;
2. THAT By-law No. 2022-012 and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed;
3. THAT this By-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4th DAY
OF MAY, 2023.
___________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK
Schedule “A” to By-Law 2023-034 Legislated/External Committees: Committee of Adjustment i. Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham ii. Secretary-Treasurer – Margaret Underhill
iii. Chairperson – Mayor iv. Alternate Chairperson – Deputy Mayor Court of Revision v. Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
vi. Chairperson – Mayor vii. Alternate Chairperson – Deputy Mayor Long Point Region Conservation Authority (Representing Malahide & Bayham) viii. Deputy Mayor Weisler Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System Joint Board of Management (Representing Aylmer, Malahide & Bayham) ix. Pete Barbour (Primary) x. Councillor Emerson (Alternate) Port Burwell Secondary Water Supply System xi. Councillor Emerson (Primary) xii. Deputy Mayor Weisler (Alternate)
Elgin County Land Division Committee xiii. John Seldon Elgin Group Joint Police Services Board (Representing Malahide & Bayham) xiv. Dominique Giguère
Joint Otter Valley Utility Corridor Board of Management b. Appointees i. Mayor Ketchabaw ii. Councillor Chilcott
iii. Councillor Froese
Municipality of Bayham – Committee Members
Bayham Joint Cemetery Board i. Councillor Froese (Chair) ii. One representative from each individual Cemetery Board (as appointed by each Board)
Individual Cemetery Boards Appointees a. Straffordville i. Perry Grant – Board Rep ii. Gerald Taylor
iii. Al Stewart iv. Joe Neville v. Dave Andrews vi. Lori Kalmokov
c. Calton i. Roger James – Board Rep ii. Frank Sawatzky iii. Ben Sawatzky iv. Lynda Millard
v. Robin James vi. Debbie Hayward d. Guysboro i. Bonnie Ball Coelho – Board Rep
ii. Vera May Dickhout iii. Emery Silverthorn iv. Joseph N Dickhout v. Daphne Dickhout vi. Marion Knab
vii. Dan Rayson e. Bayham West i. Ralph Carter – Board Rep ii. Larry Milmine
iii. Edward Carter iv. Marlene Carter v. John Scott vi. Valerie Donnell
f. Eden i. Cathy Crocker ii. George Sivyer g. Light
i. Gloria Wardle
Waterfront Advisory Committee
i. Deputy Mayor Weisler (Chair)
ii. Earl Shea iii. Ashley Cardinal iv. Marni Wolfe v. Serge Pieters
Museums Advisory Committee i. Councillor Chilcott (Chair) ii. Jean-Ann Baranik iii. Robert Ponzio
iv. Ron Bradfield v. Roy Sullivan Property Standards Committee i. Patricia Chatterson
ii. Wayne Murray iii. ____________ iv. ____________ v. ____________
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2023-035 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 4, 2023 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 May 4, 2023 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 4th DAY OF MAY 2023.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK