The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 17, 2025 - Council - AddendumTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING ADDENDUM Thursday, July 17, 2025 6. A Susanne Schlotzhauer re Residential Building Height 13.2 A Report TR-16/25 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2025 Q2 Variance Report 17-JUL-25 SMS DELEGATION —MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS DELEGATION: Request to Amend Village Residential R1 & R2 Maximum Building Height to 10.5m To: Mayor Ketchabaw and Members of Council Date: July 17, 2025 Mayor Ketchabaw and Members of Council, In 2022, Bayham amended its zoning by-law to impose a 7.0 metre maximum building height in the Village Residential R1 and R2 zones. This restriction was introduced under a “housekeeping amendment,” with the stated purpose of addressing fire service limitations. Under staff report DS-19/25, the sole rationale for maintaining this height cap remains unchanged: operational limitations of Bayham’s Fire and Emergency Services (BFES), including ladder length, volunteer availability, and mutual aid reliance. However, operational concerns do not constitute valid planning justification to restrict property rights — particularly under the province’s current housing framework. On June 5, 2025, Council received a detailed information package from Minister Rob Flack (dated May 13, 2025) outlining Bill 17: Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act. This legislation introduced Section 35(1.1) into the Building Code Act, making it explicit: Municipalities are prohibited from enacting or enforcing construction standards or performance requirements beyond those established in the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Despite the ministerial guidance, on June 19, 2025, staff presented a report to Council that attempted to use zoning as a tool to enforce fire-related performance standards — a direct violation of Bill 17. That same day, the report was pulled from the agenda, with staff citing the need for “further legal review unrelated to Bill 17”. Subsequently, correspondence dated June 19, 2025, from the Deputy Minister’s Office was distributed to municipalities across Ontario. That letter unequivocally confirms that municipalities do not have — and have never had — the authority to pass by-laws that establish construction or demolition standards, even under the Planning Act or site plan control. The Deputy Minister emphasized the purpose of the Building Code amendment under Bill 17 is to: •Ensure predictability and consistency for builders and developers across Ontario; and •Eliminate the need for developers to redesign their products from one jurisdiction to another. The delegation presented to Council by Barry Wade that same evening should have reinforced this point further. He delivered a compelling presentation outlining how Bayham’s 7.0 metre height cap has: •Burdened residents with unnecessary red tape and $18,000 in avoidable fees; •Attempted to impose construction-related standards outside municipal authority; and •Placed Bayham out of step with both regional zoning practices and provincial housing legislation. — Page —1 17-JUL-25 SMS DELEGATION —MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS On July 17, staff brought forward a revised version of report DS-19/25, claiming they only came to understand the legal implications of Bill 17 after receiving the Deputy Minister’s June 19th letter. Yet, despite the Minister’s formal guidance and the Deputy Minister’s clarification, the amended report continues to assert that the 7.0 metre restriction is necessary due to fire service limitations — which remains, at its core, an attempt to interfere with as-of-right development under the guise of public safety. Municipalities cannot use zoning as a backdoor to impose design limitations or performance standards. Doing so is unlawful. 📊 Comparative Evidence Let’s put this under perspective with comparative evidence that highlights just how far out of step Bayham’s 7.0 meter building height restriction truly is. The attached Building Height Comparison Tables unequivocally demonstrate that Bayham’s 7.0 metre cap is unprecedented — not only across Bayham, but among neighbouring municipalities in Elgin and Norfolk Counties, and across comparable rural municipalities in Ontario: •Table 1 reveals internal inconsistency: Bayham permits 10.5 metres in Hamlet and Rural Residential zones — yet restricts its serviced villages to 7.0 metres. The Village Residential cap is just 1 metre higher than for mobile home parks. •Table 2 shows that neighbouring municipalities, many with similar or smaller fire services, permit 10.5 metres or more for residential dwellings. •Table 3 compares Bayham to rural municipalities across Ontario with designated villages and volunteer fire departments — every one of them permits 10.5 metres. This broader rural comparison demonstrates that other communities manage growth and fire safety through capital planning, mutual aid, and adherence to the Ontario Building Code — not by suppressing housing design rights. Bayham’s restriction is an outlier. It adds cost, complexity, and confusion. And it undermines the goals of: •Bill 23: More Homes Built Faster Act •Bill 109: More Homes for Everyone Act •Bill 17: Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act These acts collectively aim to remove housing barriers, ensure consistency across municipalities, and prevent regulatory overreach. This isn’t about pushing big-city development. It’s about aligning with what rural Ontario already permits — municipalities like Norwich, Zorra, and North Huron. None of them have million-dollar fire fleets — but all of them respect what the Building Code allows. Bayham stands alone in treating basic, code-compliant housing as a fire hazard. This hurts our ability to attract builders, modernize our housing stock, and grow responsibly. — Page —2 17-JUL-25 SMS DELEGATION —MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS ⚖ Legal and Procedural Risk Let me be clear: public safety and housing supply are not mutually exclusive. The OBC ensures minimum safety. BFES — or any fire department — cannot dictate zoning policy through anecdotal concerns or staffing constraints. Even by staff’s own admission, the 7.0 metre cap is not grounded in land-use planning — it’s a workaround for operational limitations. That’s precisely what Bill 17 prohibits. If Council adopts Option 1, it knowingly endorses a policy that: •Contradicts provincial legislation; •Imposes arbitrary and unequal restrictions on residents; and •Conflicts with staff’s own record of minor variance approvals beyond 7.0 metres. While Council has authority under the Planning Act to regulate maximum building height, it cannot use that authority as a proxy to impose performance standards governed exclusively by the Building Code Act. Continuing to enforce the 7.0 metre limit under the guise of fire service limitations exposes Bayham to legal and policy challenge — including potential oversight or intervention from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. “As this clarification is reflected in municipal processes, the ministry has been directed to monitor outcomes to ensure actions are not taken to bypass this, which would erode efforts to ensure standardization of mandatory requirements across the province. If necessary… the government is prepared to take additional legislative action to ensure municipalities are adhering to the provincial framework and reducing red tape in this space.” ✅ Request for Action THAT Council adopt Option 2 and direct staff to prepare a municipal-led zoning by-law amendment to revise Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, specifically Sections 10.5 and 11.6, to increase the maximum permitted height in the Village Residential R1 and R2 zones to 10.5 metres (34.4 feet) — consistent with the rest of Bayham and surrounding jurisdictions. AND THAT the amendment be brought forward for Council consideration no later than the end of Q3 2025. Thank you for your time. I respectfully reserve the right to amend this delegation based on additional concerns or correspondence. [Comparison Tables follow.] — Page —3 17-JUL-25 SMS DELEGATION —MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS TABLE 1: Local Permitted Maximum Building Height — Municipality of Bayham TABLE 2: Neighbouring Jurisdictions Permitted Maximum Building Heights — Norfolk County & Elgin County Lower Tier Municipalities Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, Consolidated October 21, 2022 Max Building Height (m) Section 5.0 — Agricultural A1/A1-A 20 Section 6.0 — Special Agricultural (A2) 20 Section 7.0 — Rural Residential (RR) 10.5 Section 8.0 — Estate Residential (ER)— Section 9.0 — Hamlet Residential (HR)10.5 Section 10.0 — Village Residential (R1) (Z751-2022)7.0 ❌ Section 11.0 — Village Residential (R2) (Z751-2022)7.0 ❌ Section 12.0 — Mobile Home Park (MH)6.0 All other Commercial, Industrial, Institutional & Open Space Zones 12.0 Municipality Zone and Dwelling Type Max Building Height (m) Norfolk County Urban Residential R1-A & R1-B Street, Group & Stacked Townhouses Semi-Detached & Duplex Dwellings 11 Central Elgin Low density buildings Medium density buildings 11 22 Dutton Dunwich Hamlet Residential HR Village Residential VR1 & VR2 10.5 12 Malahide Village Residential VR1 & VR2 Hamlet Residential HR, Rural Residential RR 10.5 Southwold Residential R1 — single detached Residential R2 — single detached, duplex, semi Residential R3 — multiple dwelling, rowhouse 12 14 14 West Elgin Residential R1 & R2 Residential R3 10.5 3-storey — Page —4 17-JUL-25 SMS DELEGATION —MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS TABLE 3: Rural Ontario Village Residential Building Heights (Comparable Municipalities) Municipality Zone Type Max. Residential Height (m) Notes Bayham (current)Village Residential R1 & R2 7.0 Cap imposed in 2022; fire service justification; now legally questionable Norwich (Oxford County) Village Residential R1 10.5 Small-town setting; volunteer fire services Zorra (Oxford County) Rural Residential / Village Residential 10.5 Multiple villages and hamlets; no ladder truck North Middlesex Residential Low- Density 10.5 Rural; focused on intensification through flexible height South-West Oxford Hamlet Residential 10.5 Similar to Eden or Richmond designation Central Huron R1 Residential (Clinton & villages) 10.5 Predominantly volunteer fire service Ashfield-Colborne- Wawanosh Residential General (Village Cluster) 10.5 Very low-density, coastal/rural township Mapleton (Wellington) Residential R1, R2 (Alma, Drayton, Moorefield) 10.5 Similar rural context and demographic North Huron Residential Zones (Blyth, Wingham) 10.5 Fire services supplemented by mutual aid West Perth Residential R1, R2 10.5 Fire services provided by small composite department — Page —5 REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Lorne James, Treasurer DATE: July 17, 2025 REPORT: TR-16/25 SUBJECT: 2025 Q2 VARIANCE REPORT BACKGROUND The Q2 (second quarter) financial reports are provided for Council’s fiduciary review. This Report provides a summary of current revenue and expenditure to June 30, 2025, and variances to the Operating Budget and Capital Budget. DISCUSSION The Operating Budget and Capital Budget are both at expected levels given the cyclical nature of operations and ongoing current trade war and tariff impacts, supply sourcing price increase. Capital expenses have commenced in all departments, and with the early adoption of Capital and Operating Budgets, departments have been able to secure competitive pricing and availability of service providers. 2025 Q2 variance information for capital and operating items are attached to this Report. Investments The Municipality has an opportunity again to consider another round of investing of short-term investments. All municipal investments matured in March 2025 due to timing of the Ojibwa debt payout. Currently, global equity and debt vehicles are seeing lower market yields due to global trade turmoil caused by tariff uncertainty stemming from the United States. Given the current investment landscape, the Municipality could consider a few options with respect to investments: 1. Leave the cash in the operating account. This option generates 3.29 percent on account, subject to prime rate. The Bank of Canada is possibly cutting rates twice this year, which would have a negative effect on yields if the cuts occur. 2. Invest with RBC – GIC or Bond. The current rates on a one-year GIC are 4.1 percent and would guarantee that return for the balance of 2025 and into 2026. The Municipality would not be subject to rate-cut impacts. 3. Invest with a different financial institution. Some institutions are currently offering between 3.5 and 4.1 percent on a one-year term. The higher rates are generally in credit unions as of current. Canaccord Genuity’s rate sheet is attached to this Report. The investment accounts for Eden Cemetery and Cemetery (Care and Maintenance) have been renewed for a one-year term at 4.1 percent. Straffordville Cemetery is also investing $10,000 in a one-year GIC vehicle. Investment Value Yield Eden Cemetery $16,029.96 4.1% Cemetery ( Care and Maintenance) $238,687.52 4.1% Straffordville Cemetery $10,000.00 4.1% STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2: Quality of Governance > To continually demonstrate financial responsibility to the community. Initiative(s): Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. Appendix A: 2025 Q2 Operating Revenue & Expense Variance Report 2. Appendix B: 2025 Q2 Capital Expense Variance Report 3. Appendix C: Canaccord Genuity Investment Rate Sheet RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report TR-16/25 re 2025 Q2 Variance Report be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council provide direction regarding an approach for addressing the current cash on-hand from matured investments. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, Lorne James, CPA, CA Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer Revenues 05.10 General Taxation $3,483,920 $6,715,270 52% 05.20 Other Revenues $633,335 $1,304,800 49% 10.10 General Government $32,988 $97,500 34%management fee not booked yet 10.20 Council 20.10 Fire Services $170,183 $45,000 378%MVC, fire grants and cost recovery 20.20 Police Services $10,016 $4,000 250%2024 and 2025 POA 20.30 Conservation Authority 20.40 Building Services $91,718 $262,000 35%lower building activity 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services $20,227 $46,000 44% 25.10 Roads $336,153 $605,951 55% 25.20 Winter Control $5,889 $5,000 118%seasonality 25.40 Street Lights 30.10 Water $405,774 $779,899 52% 30.15 Richmond Water $51,449 $104,267 49% 30.30 Waste Disposal $12,607 $35,000 36%seasonality 30.20 Waste Water $496,110 $999,500 50% 35.20 Cemeteries $869 $2,000 43%seasonality 40.10 General Assistance 45.10 Parks & Recreation $200 $2,600 8%seasonality and student grant 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre $18,010 $20,000 90%higher utilization 45.40 Libraries $42,989 $78,904 54% 45.50 Museums $16,859 $13,200 128%additional student grant received 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism $132,503 $123,500 107%collections in advance of services 50.15 Tourism & Marketing $40,292 $85,000 47%paid parking started in q2 50.20 Environmental Services $0 $6,500 0%grant at year end reporting Capital $371,214 $6,895,250 5%refer to capital sheet Expenditures 05.10 General Taxation 05.20 Other Revenues 10.10 General Government $665,787 $1,263,885 53% 10.20 Council $53,214 $109,708 49% 20.10 Fire Services $303,826 $701,839 43% 20.20 Police Services $400,668 $980,727 41% 20.30 Conservation Authority $79,999 $111,665 72%timing of LPRCA billing 20.40 Building Services $67,748 $233,316 29%lower shared service time 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services $72,243 $155,666 46% 25.10 Roads $1,068,128 $2,148,168 50% 25.20 Winter Control $79,694 $129,306 62%seasonality 25.40 Street Lights $20,675 $44,000 47% 30.10 Water $299,084 $779,900 38%timing of billing 30.15 Richmond Water $30,257 $104,266 29% 30.20 Waste Water $396,018 $999,500 40% 30.30 Waste Disposal $205,393 $490,000 42%seasonality 35.20 Cemeteries $1,020 $22,500 5%seasonality 40.10 General Assistance $7,440 $9,000 83% 45.10 Parks & Recreation $45,371 $117,940 38% 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre $36,069 $64,346 56% 45.40 Libraries $17,642 $78,904 22% 45.50 Museums $32,323 $61,476 53% 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism $92,984 $239,438 39% 50.15 Tourism & Marketing $48,010 $112,399 43% 50.20 Environmental Services $4,530 $8,444 54% Capital $2,365,151 $9,264,750 26%refer to capital sheet Municipality of Bayham Appendix A: 2025 Q2 Operating Revenue and Expense Variance Report 2025 Actuals 2025 Budget % Consumed 2025 2025 % Actuals Budget Consumed General Government Liability Reserve Transfer 15,000$ 15,000$ 100%booked Working Capital Transfer 10,000$ 10,000$ 100% booked Election Reserve Transfer 15,000$ 15,000$ 100% booked DC Study Continued 18,360$ 25,000$ 73% ongoing Office 365 Upgrades 25,000$ 0% after IT services transition Chamber Upgrades 15,000$ 0% repurposed to IT services transition Guarantorship Loan Reserve Transfer 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 100% booked Fire Bunker Gear 12,607$ 14,000$ 90% complete SCBA Replacement 210,000$ 210,000$ 100% booked Radio System Reseve 30,000$ 30,000$ 100% booked Cistern - SCC 129,000$ 0% Fire Equipment Reserve Transfer 100,000$ 100,000$ 100% booked Thermal Imaging Cameras 7,063$ 7,000$ 101% complete Portable Radios 5,403$ 6,000$ 90% complete Roads Tunnel Line Culvert removal 460,000$ 0% Tandem 447,565$ 540,000$ 83% complete Elliott Rd. 26,483$ 250,000$ 11% ongoing Gravel Program 413$ 215,000$ 0% Carson Line 5,766$ 150,000$ 4% just started Sidewalks 100,000$ 0% Road Signs 7,500$ 0% Guardrails 10,000$ 0% Roads Needs Study - AMP 3,594$ 25,000$ 14% ongoing Road Side Brushing 6,033$ 50,000$ 12% Hill Management 30,000$ 0% Lakeshore Line Study 35,000$ 0% ongoing PB Storm Sewer - Phase 1C 1,650,000$ 0% Water Waste Water System Equipment 21,593$ 46,000$ 47% ongoing SCADA Comp. 30,000$ 0% Air Blowers 28,000$ 0% Wastewater Sampler 29,000$ 0% Manhole rehab 26,000$ 0% Waterline 37,583$ 2023 holdback Parks Straffordville Pavilion 10,000$ 0% Straffordville Storage Sheds 25,000$ 0% Utility Corr Repairs 757$ 70,000$ 1% Canoe Launch 19,869$ 60,000$ 33% East Pier Rehabilitation 50,000$ 0% Facilities Facility Audit 60,000$ 0% SCC Expansion 15,366$ 2,171,000$ 1% PB Lighthouse 1,506,250$ 0% Marine Musuem 103,462$ carry over from 2024, no levy impact Planning and Development Official Plan Review 1,531$ 30,000$ 5% Municipality of Bayham Appendix B: 2025 Q2 Capital Expense Variance Report 1Lorne JamesFrom:Dorr, WilliamSent:July 7, 2025 11:21 AMTo:Lorne JamesSubject:Investments | Canaccord GenuityAttachments:Account Opening Questionnaire.pdfCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Lorne, It was nice speaking with you today and I would appreciate the opportunity to compete for your investment needs! Guaranteed Investment CerƟﬁcates Issuer Credit Rating & Guarantee Term Rate Libro Credit Union (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 2 Year Fixed 3.95% WFCU (*Min $500K) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.93% Kawartha Credit Union (*Min $250k) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% Provincial Credit Union $125,000 Guarantee by CUDIC (PEI) 3.90% DUCA Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% Haventree Bank (*Min $1M) $100,000 Guarantee by CDIC 3.87% Prospera Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.80% YNCU (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.75% FirstOntario Credit Union (*Min $1M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.67% Meridian Credit Union (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.66% Coast Capital Savings (*Min $1M) BBB (high) – $100,000 Guarantee by CDIC 3.65% Sunshine Coast Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.65% 2WFCU (*Min $500K) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 18 Month Fixed 3.95% Provincial Credit Union $125,000 Guarantee by CUDIC (PEI) 3.95% Kawartha Credit Union (*Min $250k) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% DUCA Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% YNCU (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.85% Haventree Bank (*Min $1M) $100,000 Guarantee by CDIC 3.84% Meridian Credit Union (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.64% Libro Credit Union (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 1 Year Fixed 4.10% WFCU (*Min $500K) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 4.10% Provincial Credit Union $125,000 Guarantee by CUDIC (PEI) 3.95% Kawartha Credit Union (*Min $250k) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% DUCA Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.90% Prospera Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.75% Khalsa Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.65% Meridian Credit Union (*Min $5M) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.61% Sunshine Coast Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.61% FirstOntario Credit Union $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.60% Innovation Federal Credit Union R‐1 (low) ‐ $100,000 Guarantee by CDIC 3.60% BlueShore Financial Credit Union 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.60% Vancity Savings Credit Union R‐2 (high) – 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.60% Coast Capital Savings (*Min $1M) R‐1 (low) – $100,000 Guarantee by CDIC 3.60% BCU Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 270 Day Fixed 3.80% DUCA Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 3.70% Vancity Savings Credit Union (*Min $1M) R‐2 (high) – 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.45% BCU Financial (*Min $250K) $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 180 Day Fixed 3.40% Vancity Savings Credit Union (*Min $1M) R‐2 (high) – 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.35% 3DUCA Financial $250,000 Guarantee by FSRA 90 Day Fixed 3.45% Vancity Savings Credit Union (*Min $1M) R‐2 (high) – 100% Guarantee by CUDIC 3.35% Cash Management Group | Canaccord Genuity Canaccord’s Cash Management Group has developed the largest deposit network in the country. We enhance our clients’ cash management returns through a network of over 70+ banks and credit unions which allows for greater diversiﬁcaƟon and improved yield. Account Opening Process Explained: The investment process at Canaccord Genuity’s Cash Management Group is simple and straighƞorward. Simply ﬁll outthe aƩached preliminary account opening quesƟonnaire, and our operaƟons team will follow up to create and send you the signature pages via DocuSign.All the best! William William Dörr Senior Investment Advisor | Cash Management Group Canaccord Genuity Corp. 2500-1133 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC T: +1.604.643.0101 E: cgcashgroup.ca MEMBER OF THE CANADIAN INVESTOR PROTECTION FUNDCanaccord Genuity Wealth Management is a division of Canaccord Genuity Corp. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The information contained in this e-mail is drawn from sources believed to be reliable, but the accuracy and completeness of the information is not guaranteed, nor in providing it doesCanaccord Genuity Corp. or its subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, "The Firm" assume any liability. Canaccord Genuity Corp., its subsidiaries oraffiliated companies, disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability (including negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refrainingfrom acting, on such information. Unless otherwise stated, this transmission is neither an offer nor the solicitation of an offer to sell or purchase anyinvestment. As a solicitation, this e-mail was intended for distribution in those jurisdictions where The Firm is registered as advisors or dealers insecurities. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly 4prohibited. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing Canaccord Genuity Corp., its subsidiaries or affiliated companies' client agreements. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and destroy and delete the message from your computer. (Disclaimer)