Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
October 16, 2025 - Council
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, October 16, 2025 7:00 p.m. The October 16, 2025 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 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 Meeting of Council held October 2, 2025 B. Special Meeting of Council held October 9, 2025 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-10/25 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re Proposal Award – RFP 25-03 2026-2028 Concession Food Booth Port Burwell Municipal Beach Council Agenda October 16, 2025 2 B. Report PS-11/25 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re 2025-2026 Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service 12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION 12.1 Correspondence 12.1.1 Receive for Information A. Notice of Passing re ZBA-12/25 Coblentz B. Notice of Passing re ZBA-21/25 Municipality of Bayham 12.1.2 Requiring Action 12.2 Reports to Council A. Report DR-10/25 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re Quotation Award – Grewal Drain Extension B. Report DR-11/25 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re 2025 3rd Quarter Drainage Report C. Report DS-42/25 by Scott Sutherland, CBO re 2025 3rd Quarter Building Report D. Report DS-41/25 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Declare Lands as Part of the Open Public Highway System – Part 2 11R-11368, Part of Coyle Road E. Report DS-43/25 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 34T-BA2501 Countryside Communities Inc. 13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 13.1 Correspondence 13.1.1 Receive for Information A. City of Kitchener re Postage B. Town of Newmarket re Automated Speed Enforcement C. Niagara Region re Respecting State of Emergency on Mental Health, Homelessness and Addictions D. County of Elgin re Speeding on County Roads E. Long Point Region Conservation Authority re September 3, 2025 Minutes F. Elgin OPP Detachment Board re June 25, 2025 Minutes G. Elgin OPP Detachment Board re September 16, 2025 Minutes H. St. Thomas-Elgin Social Services re Community Living Elgin Concludes 20+ Years Leading EarlyON Programs Council Agenda October 16, 2025 3 13.1.2 Requiring Action A. Elgin OPP Detachment Board re Request for Proposals – Financial Management Services 13.2 Reports to Council A. Report TR-18/25 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2025 Q3 Variance Report 14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. 2025-061 Being a by-law to authorize and to declare lands in the Municipality of Bayham as part of the open public highway system (Part 2 of 11R-11368 – Part of Coyle Road) B. By-law No. Z817-2025 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. Z456-2003 – Countryside Communities Inc. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 In Camera A. Confidential Item re Personal matters about an identifiable individual; Labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources) 16.2 Out of Camera 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-law No. 2025-062 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, October 2, 2025 7:00 p.m. The October 2, 2025 Council Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube. PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER COUNCILLORS DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT ABSENT: TIMOTHY EMERSON STAFF PRESENT: CAO THOMAS THAYER *via Zoom CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT PLANNING COORDINATOR / DEPUTY CLERK MARGARET UNDERHILL MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS / DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS FIRE CHIEF HARRY BARANIK 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest declared. 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Chilcott reminded residents that the Bayham Historical Society is hosting an awareness presentation on Lyme Disease on Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 2 pm at the Edison, Vienna and Area Museum. Chief Baranik reminded Council that Fire Prevention Week runs from October 5 - 11, 2025. The 2025 Fire Prevention Week theme is “Charge into Fire Safety: Lithium-Ion Batteries in Your Home”. The fire stations will have open houses at the following times: Straffordville Station: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm Port Burwell Station: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm 5. PRESENTATIONS Council Minutes October 2, 2025 2 6. DELEGATIONS A. Darren Schembri re Backyard Hens Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the delegation from Darren Schembri re Backyard Hens be received for information. CARRIED B. Kristen Young re Responsible Hen Keeping Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the delegation from Kristen Young re Responsible Hen Keeping be received for information. CARRIED Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT staff be directed to report back with information and the associated changes to allow Backyard Hens in residential areas. CARRIED 7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Regular Meeting of Council held September 18, 2025 B. Statutory Planning Meeting held September 18, 2025 Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the minutes from the Regular Meeting of Council held on September 18, 2025 and the minutes from the Statutory Planning Meeting held September 18, 2025 be approved as presented. CARRIED 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM One (1) member of the public spoke to item 13.1.1 H. 10. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Council Minutes October 2, 2025 3 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-09/25 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent re Quotation Award RFQ 25-02 2025-2030 Supply and Stacking of Winter Sand Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Report PS-09/25 re Quotation Award – RFQ 25-02 – 2025-2030 Supply and Stacking of Winter Sand be received for information; AND THAT the contract for 2025-2030 Supply and Stacking of Winter Sand be provided to Johnston Bros. Ltd. in accordance with their quotation submission in the amount of $17.98 + HST per tonne; AND THAT the appropriate by-law to enter into an agreement with Johnston Bros. Ltd for the provision of 2025-2030 Supply and Stacking of Winter Sand be brought forward for Council’s consideration. CARRIED 12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION 12.1 Correspondence 12.1.1 Receive for Information A. Notice of Decision re Minor Variance Application COA-07/25 Wiebe Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT item 12.1.1 A be received for information. CARRIED 12.1.2 Requiring Action 12.2 Reports to Council A. Report DS-39/25 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Rezoning Application ZBA-12/25 Coblentz and Stoll 53609 Eden Line Council Minutes October 2, 2025 4 Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Report DS-39/25 regarding the Coblentz rezoning application ZBA-12/25 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 September 18, 2025 associated with this application, there was one oral presentation by the appointed agent and no written public submissions 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 lands located in North Part Lots 1 and 2 Concession 8, municipally identified as 53609 Eden Line, from Agricultural (A1) Zone to Site-specific Agricultural (A1-54) Zone to permit the construction of an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) and attached garage requiring the following provisions: • Section 4.59 e) to permit an ARU with a Maximum Gross Floor Area that is 50% (88.4m² or 951.5 ft2 in size excluding garage) of the primary dwelling unit (176.5 m2 or 1,900 ft2 in size), whereas Section 4.59 e) states the maximum gross floor area, per additional residential unit, shall not exceed 40% (70.6 m2 or 760 ft2) of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit; and • Section 4.59 f) to permit an ARU located 140 metres (459 ft.) from the primary dwelling unit, whereas Section 4.59 f) requires an ARU to be located within 40 metres (131.2 ft) of the primary dwelling unit. AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z815-2025 be presented to Council for enactment. CARRIED B. Report DS-40/25 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Zoning Amendment ZBA-21/25 Municipality of Bayham Residential Maximum Building Height Regulations Zone R1 and R2 Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Report DS-40/25 regarding Residential Maximum Building Height Regulations 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 September 18, 2025 associated with this application, there was one oral presentation by a resident and no written public submissions regarding this matter; AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; Council Minutes October 2, 2025 5 AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by increasing the Maximum Building Height from 7.0 metres to 8.0 metres in Sections 10.5 and 11.6; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z816-2025 be presented to Council for enactment. CARRIED 13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 13.1 Correspondence 13.1.1 Receive for Information A. Township of Bonfield re Canada Post Labour Dispute and Impact on Municipal Communications B. Township of Woolwich re Bill C-61 First Nations Clean Water Act C. City of Dryden re Water Safety Education D. Municipality of Brighton re Political Sphere in Canada E. Joint Board of Management re June 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes F. Joint Board of Management re July 30, 2025 Meeting Minutes G. Elgin County re Economic Development Fall Newsletter H. James Hicks re SCC Expansion Vote Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT items 13.1.1 A – H be received for information. CARRIED 13.1.2 Requiring Action 13.2 Reports to Council 14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. 2025-058 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Johnston Bros. Ltd. for supply and stacking of winter sand B. By-law No. Z815-2025 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. Z456-2003 – Coblentz C. By-law No. Z816-2025 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. Z456-2003 – Municipality of Bayham Council Minutes October 2, 2025 6 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT By-law Nos. 2025-058, Z815-2025 and Z816-2025 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS A. Procedural Motion re October 9, 2025 Special Agenda Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT the sections of Delegations and Open Forum be included in the October 9, 2025 Special Meeting of Council agenda. CARRIED 16.1 In Camera Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 7:47 p.m. to discuss: A. Confidential Item re Labour relations, employee negotiations (Compensation) B. Confidential Item re Personal matters about an identifiable individual; labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources) CARRIED 16.2 Out of Camera Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” Session at 8:32 pm and report on Confidential Item re Labour relations, employee negotiations (Compensation) and Confidential Item re Personal matters about an identifiable individual; labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources). CARRIED Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott Council Minutes October 2, 2025 7 THAT Confidential Item re Labour relations, employee negotiations (Compensation) be received for information; AND THAT staff proceed as directed. CARRIED Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Confidential Item re Personal matters about an identifiable individual; labour relations, employee negotiations (Human Resources) be received for information; AND THAT staff proceed as directed. CARRIED 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-law No. 2025-059 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Confirming By-law No. 2025-059 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 8:33 p.m. CARRIED MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, October 9, 2025 6:00 p.m. The October 9, 2025 Special 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 THOMAS THAYER CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT PLANNING COORDINATOR / DEPUTY CLERK MARGARET UNDERHILL TREASURER LORNE JAMES FIRE CHIEF HARRY BARANIK MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS / DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest declared. 3. DELEGATIONS A. Barry Wade re SCC Expansion Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Emerson THAT the delegation by Barry Wade re SCC Expansion be received for information. CARRIED B. Cindy Stewart re SCC Expansion Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the delegation by Cindy Stewart re SCC Expansion be received for information. CARRIED Council Minutes October 9, 2025 2 4. OPEN FORUM Five (5) members of the public spoke to item 5. A. 5. REPORTS TO COUNCIL A. Report CAO-41/25 by Thomas Thayer, CAO re Tender Award – Bayham (Straffordville) Community Centre Expansion – ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation Stream Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Report CAO-41/25 re Tender Award – Bayham (Straffordville) Community Centre Expansion – ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation Stream be received for information; AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham awards the tender to PK Construction Inc. in their effective tendered amount of $2,928,070 plus applicable HST, which is subject to the following inclusions and exclusions: o Accept Alternate Prices for Siding and Seed o Accept Separate Price items for ▪ Accessible walkway around Straffordville Community Park ▪ Old Chapel parking lot and walkway ▪ Wider doorways ▪ Millwork and kitchen equipment ▪ Plumbing chases in Main Hall o Accept temporary heating only / Reject temporary HVAC for Main Hall; AND THAT Council authorizes the use of the following reserves and reserve funds to fund aspects of the project: o SCC Capital Donations Reserve in the amount of $48,129.42 o SCC Reserve Fund in the amount of $2,207.87 o Facilities Reserve in the amount of $707,000; AND THAT Council allocates, on top of the award and to be funded through debt: o $100,000 for finishing works associated with information technology, security, communications, and other necessary items. o 10 percent of the tender award value of $2,928,070 to act as contingency for the project; AND THAT Council Authorizes the use of up to $1,389,000 in debt through Infrastructure Ontario (IO) for funding for this project; AND THAT staff be directed to report to Council in Q1 2026 with the 2025 surplus report, identifying any 2025 surplus funds that can potentially be allocated to the SCC expansion project to reduce the requirement for IO debt; AND THAT staff be directed to include in the 2026 Draft Operating Budget a debt service estimate associated with the upper limit of the authorized IO debt. CARRIED Council Minutes October 9, 2025 3 6. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-law No. 2025-060 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Confirming By-law No. 2025-060 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 7. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Emerson THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 7:08 p.m. CARRIED MAYOR CLERK REPORT PHYSICAL SERVICES TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: PS-10/25 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL AWARD – RFP 25-03 – 2026-2028 CONCESSION FOOD BOOTH – PORT BURWELL MUNICIPAL BEACH BACKGROUND Agreement No. 0743, as authorized by By-Law No. 2020-080, for the provision of a Concession Food Booth – Port Burwell Municipal Beach, with Simply Scoops expiring December 31, 2025. On September 10, 2025, the Municipality of Bayham issued RFP 25-03 Concession Food Booth – Port Burwell Municipal Beach. RFP 25-03 Concession Food Booth – Port Burwell Municipal Beach closed on October 6, 2025. DISCUSSION The Port Burwell East Beach, proudly maintaining its Blue Flag designation, seeks a concession booth operator who will provide consistent service throughout the summer season. The concession should present an operation that is visually appealing, well-maintained, and offers an inviting space for both residents and visitors to enjoy quality food while visiting the beach. Municipal staff have observed a steady increase in beach usage over recent years. While it is becoming more common across Ontario for beachgoers to bring their own lunches and snacks, the Municipality recognizes the importance of continuing to offer a convenient, diverse food menu as part of the overall beach experience. Concession booth operations at the Port Burwell East Beach must adhere to strict regulatory compliance, including but not limited to the following authorities: Southwestern Public Health (SWPH) Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Municipal Fire and Safety Regulations The result of RFP 25-03 Concession Food Booth – Port Burwell Municipal Beach are as follows: RFP 25-03 Concession Food Booth – Part 1 Financial Assessment Bidder 5046827 Ontario Inc. o/a Simply Scoops Murney’s Beachside Bites Bidder Monthly Fee Payable to the Municipality of Bayham $2,300+HST $1,800+HST Scored (%) Weighted (%) Scored (%) Weighted (%) Bidder – Percentage 17.5 25 15 25 RFP 25-03 Concession Food Booth – Part 2 General Assessment Scored (%) Weighted (%) Scored (%) Weighted (%) Contractor Experience 15 15 12 15 Concession Operational Plan 16 20 16 20 Equipment Condition/ Appearance 22.5 25 20 25 Proposal Compliance 15 15 15 15 Total 86% 100% 78% 100% The previous Agreement included a monthly bid price of $3,000, while the current bid of $2,300 per month represents a 23% decrease in overall revenue for the five-month operating season – a decrease of $3,500 overall for the season. The annual concession revenue helps offset the Municipality’s costs associated with water, hydro, waste disposal, and general beach maintenance. Simply Scoops has been operating at the Port Burwell East Beach since 2021, offering a variety of food options to beach visitors. Over the past two years, the vendor has adapted its menu to reflect changing customer preferences and to provide greater diversity in its offerings. Staff recommend proceeding with Simply Scoops as the 2026-2028 Port Burwell East Beach Concession Booth Operator. STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2: Quality of Governance > To continually demonstrate financial responsibility to the community. Initiative(s): Not applicable RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report PS-10/25 re Proposal Award – RFP 25-03 – 2026-2028 Concession Food Booth – Port Burwell Municipal Beach be received for information; 2. AND THAT staff be directed to bring forward a by-law to enter into an Agreement with 5046827 Ontario Inc. o/a Simply Scoops for provision of a Concession Food Booth at the Port Burwell Municipal Beach. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Manager of Public Works| Chief Administrative Officer Drainage Superintendent REPORT PHYSICAL SERVICES TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works/Drainage Superintendent DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: PS-11/25 SUBJECT: 2025-2026 WINTER OPERATIONS PLAN – LEVEL OF SERVICE BACKGROUND On October 17, 2024, Council received Report PS-14/24 re Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service. The following motion was passed: THAT Report PS-14/24 re Winter Operations Plan - Level of Service be received for information. AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham approve the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’; The Municipality’s Public Works Department and the Municipal contractor, each winter season, complete the following winter operations throughout the municipality, from November 15 through March 22 of the following calendar year, with a variety of different operations: Routine patrolling Roadway snow removal Sidewalk snow removal Roadway Anti-Icing The Municipality is required to follow Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMS). The MMS under the Municipal Act, 2001, identifies the Municipal role and obligation to maintain the roads to a reasonable state of repair. There is no provincial legislation that requires the Municipality to have a winter operations plan, however this has been identified and advised in the past by the Municipality’s Insurer that a Council-endorsed winter operations plan may defend the Municipality in a future claim. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy, attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’, contains updated mapping from 2023, however as no change was required and only typographical updates from the 2024-2025 document. The Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy sets out a policy and procedural framework for ensuring that the Municipality of Bayham continuously improves on the effective delivery of winter maintenance services and the management of road salt used in winter maintenance operations, as outlined in Environment Canada's Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts. The Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy is meant to allow for an annual review and updates if any changes within the MMS are made. This allows for any alterations at the start of every season and the ability to obtain any equipment, staffing or materials needed to complete the winter season. Based on the MMS, the Roadway Classifications and the Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AADT), the charts below indicate the minimum response time to address snow accumulation based on depth of snow fall. AADT REG. 239/02 Classification 15,000 or more 2 4,000 - 14,999 3 500 – 3,999 4 0 - 499 5 Class of Highway Depth (cm) Time (hours) 1 2.5 4 2 5 6 3 8 12 4 8 16 5 10 24 *Highlighted are the classification of roads that the Municipality of Bayham is responsible for During the winter maintenance period, Public Works staff has two Supervisory staff and two Operators on-call 24/7 for emergency responses. In addition, through the November 10 - March 15 period, the Municipality utilizes 7 full-time staff and 1 temporary operator. The Public Works staff monitors the roads 24/7 and operates out of the Public Works yard from 4:00am through 11:30pm Monday through Friday, along with Saturday and Sunday patrols. STRATEGIC PLAN Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy 2. 2025-2026 Winter Operations Mapping – Plow and Contractor Routes RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report PS-11/25 re Winter Operations Plan - Level of Service be received for information; 2. AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham approve the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan – Level of Service Policy and associated mapping, as attached hereto. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent Chief Administrative Officer 2025-2026 Municipality of Bayham Winter Operation Plan DISCLAIMER This document is based on normal winter weather conditions, reliability and availability of resources both human and physical. The Municipality does not guarantee a level of service under abnormal or significant weather events nor in the event of a work stoppage. It is acknowledged that conditions may occur which temporarily prevent achieving levels assigned. In such cases, efforts will be made to keep roads open, consistent with available resources. This document is designed to utilize plain language to describe the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan. If there is a conflict between a provision in this document and a provision of Ontario Regulation 239/02, the provisions of Ontario Regulation 239/02 shall apply. Section 1 – Purpose The Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan sets out a policy and procedural framework for ensuring that the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham continuously improves on the effective delivery of winter maintenance services and the management of road salt used in winter maintenance operations, as outlined in Environment Canada's Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts and the County of Elgin Salt Management Plan. The Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan is meant to be dynamic, to allow the Municipality to evaluate and phase-in any changes, new approaches and technologies in winter maintenance activities in a fiscally sound manner. At the same time, any modifications to municipal winter maintenance activities must ensure that roadway safety is not compromised. As specified in the Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts, the Winter Operations Plan for the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham was endorsed by Council on October 19, 2023. Section 2 - Definitions 2.1 Anti-icing means the application of liquid deicers directly to the road surface in advance of a winter event. 2.2 Highway includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof. 2.3 Paved Road means a road with an asphalt surface, concrete surface, composite pavement, or Portland cement surface. 2.4 Pre-treat means the application of liquids (calcium chloride, sodium chloride, etc.) to dry sand or salt prior to being loaded for storage or applied to the road surface. 2.5 Pre-wetting means the application of liquids (calcium chloride, sodium chloride, etc.) at the spinner of the truck just prior to application to the road surface. 2.6 Significant Weather Event means an approaching or occurring weather hazard with the potential to pose a significant danger to users of the highways within the Municipality as per the Significant Weather Event Policy attached hereto as Appendix ‘D’. 2.7 Surface Treated Road means a road with bituminous surface treatment comprised of one or two applications of asphalt emulsion and stone chips over a gravel road. 2.8 Unpaved Road means a road with a gravel or sand surface. 2.9 Winter Event means a weather condition affecting roads such as snowfall, wind-blown snow, freezing rain, frost, black ice, etc. to which a winter event response is required. 2.10 Winter Event Response means a series of winter control activities performed in response to a winter event. 2.11 Continuous Winter Event Response means a response to a winter event with full deployment of labour and equipment that plow/salt/sand the entire system. 2.12 Spot Winter Event Response means a response to a winter event with only a part deployment of labour and equipment or with full deployment to only part of the system 2.13 Winter Event Response Hours means the total number of person-hours per year (plowing, salting/sanding, winging back, etc.) to respond to winter events. Section 3 - Objective The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is committed to improving winter maintenance operations while continuing to ensure public safety. The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will optimize the use of winter maintenance materials containing chlorides on all municipal roads while striving to minimize negative impacts to the environment. The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham Staff will strive, insofar as reasonably practicable, to provide safe winter road conditions for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as set out in the level of service policies and within the resources established by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham. Section 4 - Policy Statement The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will provide efficient and cost effective winter maintenance to ensure, insofar as reasonably practicable, the safety of users of the municipal road network in keeping with applicable provincial legislation and accepted standards while striving to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. These commitments will be met by: i. adhering to the procedures contained within the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan; ii. reviewing and upgrading the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan on an annual basis to incorporate new technologies and new developments; iii. committing to ongoing winter maintenance staff training and education; and iv. monitoring on an annual basis, the present conditions of the winter maintenance program, as well as the effectiveness of the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan. Section 5 – Winter Maintenance Program The major activities related to winter maintenance are: • snow plowing • salt/sand application • salt/sand storage • snow removal • sidewalk plowing • anti-icing The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is responsible for winter maintenance on: Table 1 Road Type Distance (Lane KM) Paved Roads 214 Lane KM Surface Treated Roads 268 Lane KM Unpaved Roads 97 Lane KM Sidewalks 18 KM For the purposes of this winter operations plan, the highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham have been classified (Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) as per the following Table 2 which is based on the Classification of Highways table included in Ontario Regulation 239/02. Table 2 Average Annual Daily Traffic (number of motor vehicles) Posted or Statutory Speed Limit (kilometres per hour) 91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 1-40 15,000 or more 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 12,000 - 14,999 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 10,000 - 11,999 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 8,000 - 9,999 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 6,000 - 7,999 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 5,000 - 5,999 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4,000 - 4,999 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 3,000 - 3,999 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 2,000 - 2,999 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 1,000 - 1,999 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 500 - 999 1 3 4 4 5 5 5 200 - 499 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 50 - 199 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 0 - 49 1 3 6 6 6 6 6 For the purposes of Table 2, the average annual daily traffic on a highway or part of a highway under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham shall be determined by: i. counting and averaging the daily two-way traffic on the highway or part of the highway; or ii. estimating the average daily two-way traffic on the highway or part of the highway. Table 3 summarizes the road system in the Municipality of Bayham as follows: Table 3 Paved Lane/KM Surface Treated Lane/KM Unpaved Lane/KM Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Class 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Class 3 142 2 0 0 0 0 Class 4 19 0 248 0 0 0 Class 5 25 26 16 4 96 1 Class 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 6 – Level of Service 6.1 Weather Monitoring From October 1 to April 30, the minimum standard is to monitor the weather, both current and forecast to occur in the next 24 hours, once every shift or three times per calendar day, whichever is more frequent, at intervals determined by the Municipality. From May 1 to September 30, the minimum standard is to monitor the weather, both current and forecast to occur in the next 24 hours, once per calendar day. In order to determine an effective winter event response and allocate the appropriate resources the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham supplements road patrol information with weather information from various sources which includes: i. observations from municipal staff; ii. communication with staff of adjacent municipalities and MTO contractors; iii. monitoring iv. monitoring pavement temperatures by means of on-board infrared thermometers which are mounted on the patrol and other trucks, and; v. RWIS data and pavement temperature forecasts from municipally owned stations or via a data sharing agreements with other municipalities and/or the Ministry of Transportation 6.2 Snow Accumulation The minimum standard for addressing snow accumulation is, after becoming aware of the fact that the snow accumulation on a roadway is greater than the depth set out in the Table 4, to deploy resources as soon as practicable to address the snow accumulation, to provide a minimum lane width of the lesser of three metres for each lane or the actual lane width, or on a Class 4 or Class 5 Highway with two lanes, to provide a total width of at least five metres. If the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway is less than or equal to the depth set out in the Table 4, the roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation. For the purposes of this section, the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway may be determined by a municipal employee, agent or contractor, whose duties or responsibilities include one or more of the following: i. Patrolling highways; ii. Performing highway maintenance activities. The depth of snow accumulation on a roadway may be determined by: i. performing an actual measurement; ii. monitoring the weather; or iii. performing a visual estimate. SNOW ACCUMULATION Table 4 Class of Highway Depth Time 1 2.5 CM 4 HRS 2 5 CM 6 HRS 3 8 CM 12 HRS 4 8 CM 16 HRS 5 10 CM 24 HRS 6.3 Ice Formation The minimum standard for the prevention of ice formation on roadways is doing the following in the 24-hour period preceding an alleged formation of ice on a roadway: i. Monitor the weather in accordance with Section 6.1; ii. Patrol in accordance with Ontario Regulation 239/02. If the Municipality determines, as a result of its activities that there is a substantial probability of ice forming on a roadway, the Municipality may treat the roadway to prevent ice formation within the time set out in the Table 5, starting from the time that the municipality determines is the appropriate time to deploy resources for that purpose. ICE FORMATION PREVENTION Table 5 Class of Highway Time 1 6 2 8 3 16 4 24 5 24 If the Municipality meets the minimum standard set out Section 6.3 and, despite such compliance, ice forms on a roadway, the roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair until the earlier of, the time that the municipality becomes aware of the fact that the roadway is icy; or the applicable time set out in the Table 6 for treating the roadway to prevent ice formation expires. The minimum standard for treating icy roadways after the municipality becomes aware of the fact that a roadway is icy is to treat the icy roadway within the time set out in the Table 6, and an icy roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair until the applicable time set out in the Table 6 for treating the icy roadway expires. For the purposes of this section, treating a roadway means applying material to the roadway, including but not limited to, salt, sand or any combination of salt and sand. TREATMENT OF ICY ROADWAYS Table 6 Class of Highway Time 1 3 HRS 2 4 HRS 3 8 HRS 4 12 HRS 5 16 HRS 6.4 Public Information Levels of Service The Municipality of Bayham has developed carefully planned levels of winter road service to combat the diverse winter weather conditions. A combination of municipally owned vehicles and contracted units provide effective snow plowing services to Elgin County and Municipality of Bayham roads through the highway priority route system. This system assigns priority to all County Roads with the highest traffic in the Municipality. To ensure the safety of drivers and pedestrians, these County Roads routes are serviced on a priority basis. Bayham Roads are attended to regularly, but less often than Elgin County Roads. Local Hamlet Roads and select sidewalks are maintained by Contractors under Agreements with the Municipality of Bayham. Winter Operations Priority Index 1) Elgin County Roads a. See Appendix ‘A’ b. By-law No. 2023-080 2) Municipality of Bayham Rural Roads a. See Appendix ‘B’ 3) Municipality of Bayham Local Hamlet Roads & Select Sidewalks a. See Appendix ‘C’ b. Completed by Contractor under Agreement with the Municipality i. By-law No. 2020-069 c. Please note, only select sidewalks are maintained for winter operations. The Municipality does not perform snow removal operations around community mailboxes; please contact Canada Post for snow removal in this area. 6.5 Residents Information Winter Parking Restrictions As per the Municipality of Bayham Traffic By-law, parking is not permitted on any Municipal streets from 3:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m. This ensures the Municipality can completely clear streets of snow and that emergency vehicles can get down the street. Children’s Safety Please ensure that children do not play where snow is piled at the side of the road or in the middle of courts where municipal equipment operators may not see them. Driveways Piling snow to the right side of the driveway can help reduce the amount of snow pushed back into the driveway. Standing in the driveway and looking at the street determines the right side. Clearing of Snow or Ice from Sidewalks Every owner of any lot fronting any municipal highway or street where an adjacent sidewalk has been constructed shall remove and/or clear away and keep removed and cleared away all snow and ice from such sidewalk on the street side nearest to such lot, such removal to be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall. Clearing Snow on Private Property The Municipality devotes a great deal of resources to keep the streets and select sidewalks clear of snow and ice. Residents often deposit snow and ice from their property onto the street or sidewalk not realizing that this contravenes municipal regulations, contributes to unsafe driving and walking conditions and increases the cost of providing winter road maintenance. When property owners are clearing snow from private driveways, please keep this snow on your property. Your efforts in helping the Municipality make winter driving and walking safe for everyone is appreciated. Fire Hydrants The Municipality of Bayham has approximately 118 fire hydrants that need to be cleared of snowfall. The Municipality works hard to keep hydrants clear and available for emergencies, however with heavy snowfalls, this can be challenging. Residents are asked to assist by keeping fire hydrants on their properties clear of snow. Hydrants should have a clearing of one metre (3 ft.) all around and there should be a clear path to the street to ensure firefighters can readily access them. A hydrant can help save lives and property in your community, if you see a hydrant that is buried this winter, please do the neighbourly thing and dig it out. Damage to Sod Sidewalk plowing presents many challenges. It is difficult to tell exactly where the edge of the sidewalk is and when the ground is not frozen some sod damage may occur. Damage to Municipal sod, pavement and municipally owned trees may be repaired in the spring, subject to the discretion of the Roads Operation Supervisor or designate. Contact the Municipal Office when you notice damage and your address will be added to a list for repair, for consideration, when materials are available. To facilitate the removal of snow from sidewalks and to prevent damage to private property, residents are required not to place cars, fences, posts, hedges, shrubs, driveway curbs or other obstructions on the road allowance. The Municipality will not be responsible for damage to items placed on Municipal property by property owners. Mailbox Replacement The Municipality will re-install mailboxes damaged as a result of maintenance activities of an appropriate standard in an appropriate location. Installation Standards i. The post shall be a 4”x4” wooden post. ii. Posts will be installed at the rounding of the shoulder, in order that the opening of the mailbox is at the edge of the shoulder with the bottom of the box being (3.5') above the edge of the edge of the shoulder. iii. Mailboxes on a cantilever arm must meet the same height and setback requirements. iv. Mailboxes will be placed on the right hand side of road according to the courier’s line of travel in a position where the courier can reach and service it from his vehicle without being an impediment to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, where possible. v. Replacement boxes shall be a standard size weather resistant steel rural type mailbox. Limitations & Exclusions i. The Municipality is responsible for the replacement and reinstallation of a mailbox that has been removed or damaged by being physically hit by snow plowing equipment. At the sole, absolute and unfettered discretion of the Road Operations Supervisor or designate, the Municipality will repair when possible or replace a mailbox, if beyond repair, damaged by a snowplow that has physically hit the box. ii. Mailboxes hit by snow coming off the plow will not be replaced by the Municipality. The responsibility for maintaining mailboxes lies with the owner of the box. Mailbox owners are required to repair their own mailboxes that have been damaged by snow impact. iii. Where any mailbox has been damaged by operations activities, it will be replaced with a standard mailbox and post arrangement with a maximum value of $50.00. Timing of Installation i. The damaged mailbox will be replaced as soon as weather and labour permit, at the sole, absolute and unfettered discretion of the Road Operations Supervisor or designate. Completion of Winter Control Services on the roadway is a priority. Roadside Snow Removal Roadside snow removal operations are only completed within the defined urban communities in the downtown cores of Straffordville, Eden, Vienna, and Port Burwell. Roadside snow removal operations are undertaken when the available snow storage capacity on street will no longer accommodate further snow accumulations. The purpose of snow removal operations is not necessarily for pedestrian convenience but for road safety. If sufficient storage is lacking along roadway corridors and sight lines are impeded, snow removal may be scheduled at the earliest opportunity as per the following standards. i. Roadside snow removal operations may be scheduled and undertaken when the snow banks combined average height and width exceeds a value greater than 1.8 m (6’). ii. Whenever sightline and safety are compromised as determined by the Road Operations Supervisor or designate. iii. Measurements shall not be made until 72 hours following the cessation of a storm event iv. Snow removal shall only commence when reasonably feasible within the confines of the Municipal equipment and staff inventory. Assistance to Private Property Owners Under no circumstances will a municipal employee be permitted to use municipal equipment to push, pull or tow a stranded private vehicle from a roadway or parking lot. The employee, if a hazard exists, shall use the two-way radio to notify dispatch of the impending danger. Winter Operations - Frequently Asked Questions 1. What happens when it starts to snow? The Municipality of Bayham subscribes to an advanced weather forecasting service. Depending upon the timing and nature of the pending storm, staff are brought in to commence winter maintenance activities. Once the storm starts, or is completed, municipal equipment is sent out on designated routes to apply materials as necessary. 2. Why do I never see a municipal equipment when it snows? It all depends upon where you live. The Municipality's main routes are Elgin County Roads. Depending upon the time of day, traffic volumes and snowfall amounts, the average routes can take varying hours to complete one pass. The municipal equipment will continue back over these routes until the storm has stopped and these roads are clear of snow and ice. 3. Why does the plow not remove all of the snow from my road? The plows are designed to ride on "guides" (shoes) that raise the blade approximately 13 millimetres (0.5 inches) from the surface of the roadway. This is done to prevent damage to both the vehicle and infrastructure from raised manholes, catch basins or water valves. Once the street has been plowed and sanded, the interaction of the material and vehicular traffic is required to melt the remaining snow cover. Streets with low traffic volumes will therefore remain snow covered longer. 4. Why do the plows always push snow into my driveway? For a resident this can be quite annoying, but unfortunately, it cannot be helped. The snow must be removed from the travelled portion of the road. When the Municipality receives a heavy snowfall, if possible, do not shovel your driveway until after the plow has gone by. If you must shovel, do not throw the snow out onto the roadway as you may create a hazard for another vehicle, and if an accident were to occur, you might be held liable. Section 7 - Winter Maintenance Season The winter maintenance season within which the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will perform winter highway maintenance commences on November 13th, 2023 and is completed March 15th, 2024 Section 8 - Winter Preparations In the months prior to the start of the winter maintenance season, as identified in Section 7, the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham undertakes the following tasks to prepare for the upcoming winter season. 8.1 Prior to the Winter Season Prior to the Winter Season the Municipality will: i. If required, prepare and call tenders for the supply of materials (salt, sand, liquid), replacement parts (for plows, solid and liquid application equipment), value added meteorological services (VAMS) and contract equipment (plow trucks, spreader trucks, combination units). ii. Conduct a mandatory training session for staff and contract operators where all policies, procedures, schedules, reporting procedures for callout, route maps, equipment training and safety precautions will be discussed. Any issues resulting from the meeting with regard to the policies, procedures, schedules, reporting procedures for callout, route maps, equipment training and safety precautions shall be resolved either at the meeting or prior to the winter season. iii. Train winter patrollers (or staff whose duties also include patrolling) on the route of representative roads to be patrolled between winter events, their duties during a winter event, recording keeping requirements and callout procedures and the anti-icing chemicals to be applied for the forecast weather conditions. iv. Inspect equipment to ensure proper working order. Schedule and complete any and all equipment repairs. 8.2 One Month Prior to the Winter Season One month prior to the winter season the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will: i. Post the winter shift schedule in accordance with the municipality's collective agreement, if any. ii. Calibrate material application equipment. iii. Allow operators (staff and contract) time to familiarize themselves with any new equipment, material application rates, material application equipment and their route (driving the route and noting obstacles along the route). iv. Have a 50 % of the fleet ready to respond to a winter event. v. Have sufficient staff available to operate the fleet if conditions warrant a winter event response. 8.3 At the Start of the Winter Season At the start of the winter season the Municipality of Bayham will: i. Implement the winter shift schedule. ii. Begin patrolling representative roads in all maintenance classes. iii. Respond to winter events as per the winter operations plan. Section 9 - Winter Patrol During the winter maintenance season, the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham carries out a winter patrol on a route of representative roads, as per Appendix ‘D’ twice daily, seven days a week. Between winter events a patrol of representative roads will occur during daylight hours and a second night patrol will be also be scheduled. The purpose of the patrol is to monitor and record weather and road conditions and mobilize winter maintenance operators and equipment should a winter event be observed and a winter event response is required. On the approach of a winter event or during a winter event the route of representative roads may be modified, insofar as reasonably practicable, depending on the type and severity of winter event or the direction from which the storm approaches. Section 10 – Operations The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham adheres to the hours of service as set out in the Highway Traffic Act, Ontario Regulation 555/06. 10.1 Winter Materials Used Annually Table 6 Material 5 Year Average Rock salt (NaCl) 1200 tonnes Sand and salt mix* 2200 tonnes Salt brine (NaCl) 30000 Liters * Percentage of salt in sand/salt mix by weight 10% 10.2 Facilities The Municipality provides winter maintenance services from the patrol yard listed below. The patrol yard has a front-end loader capable of loading the winter maintenance fleet with sand or salt. Municipality of Bayham Public Works Yard 8354 Plank Rd Bayham, ON Equipment Storage Details: Nine bay pre-engineered steel building with a partially paved lot There is enough room in the bays to store 4 tandems, a loader, a grader, and the vac trailer. During winter months most of the equipment is stored indoors and seasonal equipment such as roadside grass cutters are stored at a different facility. Material Storage Details: All granular road construction material is stored outside. Salt and sand is stored within the storage dome as outlined with the County of Elgin Salt Management Plan. 10.3 Communications All winter maintenance vehicles are equipped with two-way communications (radios, cell phone, etc.). Municipal staff is responsible for reporting changing winter weather and/or road conditions as the changes are observed. Spectrum Communications provides a call centre which serves as the main hub for in/outgoing calls from staff, emergency services and the general public. The Call Center: Can be reached by calling 519-866-5521and is manned by Spectrum Communications outside normal business hours. The Municipality of Bayham communicates important information to the public via the municipal website www.bayham.on.ca 10.4 Authority Operational decisions will be made by the Manager of Public Works or designate with the aid of available forecasting, level of service policy, patrolling etc. However, it should be emphasized that decisions will be subjective and external input, whether in this plan or elsewhere, merely acts as an aid in determining if a call out of staff and equipment by the Manager of Public Works or designate. Section 11 - Decommissioning Winter Operations After the winter season expires, the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham ceases all winter highway maintenance operations and decommissions the remainder of the equipment providing weather forecasts warrant the decommissioning. Section 12 - Training The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham provides winter operations training for all staff involved in the delivery of winter services. It is compulsory for the municipal staff to attend the training sessions. Current Winter Operations Trainings: i. Equipment Circle Check ii. Equipment Calibration Record Keeping iii. Health & Safety iv. Winter Operations Section 13 - Record Keeping Full and accurate completion of documentation, according to the applicable procedures, ensures that the Municipality is protected from liability by providing solid due diligence that procedures have been followed. Staff, or the on-board data collection system, is responsible for keeping the following records: i. CVOR Time Card ii. Materials Used iii. Route Plowed iv. Winter Patrol Diary v. Weather/RWIS Information vi. Equipment Calibration Records Section 14 - Monitoring and Updating The purpose of monitoring and updating is to provide a basis for continuous improvement of the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan and the winter maintenance policies, practices and procedures of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham. The current winter maintenance policies, practices and procedures form the baseline or benchmark upon which improvements can be made to improve winter operations and/or the use and management of road salt in the future. The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham plans to undertake continual improvements to ensure the most efficient and effective winter operations. At the end of the winter season, a meeting to review winter operations will be held with all winter operations staff to itemize all issues that arose during the winter season and discuss how these issues may be resolved. Prior to the start of the next winter season and with sufficient lead time to implement any changes, the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will train staff on the changes to equipment and/or winter maintenance policies, practices, and procedures. Year over year performance measures will be used to determine whether the objectives of the Municipality of Bayham Winter Operations Plan and/or winter maintenance policies, practices, and procedures have been met and to identify areas for improvement. i. Monitoring the salt used: Percentage change (+/-) in the total tonnes of salt purchased annually from the benchmark year Percentage of applications where discharge rates exceeded Percentage change (+/-) in the total tonnes of salt applied annually per system km per winter event Calton Vienna Port Burwell CALTO N L I N E PL A N K R D LIGHT L I N E RI C H M O N D R D JACKS O N L I N E EL G I N C O U N T Y R O A D 5 5 VIENN A L I N E TUNNE L L I N E GLEN E R I E L I N E TO L L G A T E R D LK SH O R E L I N E GO D B Y R D CL A R K E R D NOVA S C O T I A L I N E LAMERS L I N E CO Y L E R D BR O W N R D CHUTE LINE BO G U S R D WO O D W O R T H R D MI T C H E L L R D EDISON D R CH A T H A M S T CT R S T DE N N I S R D TE A L L N E V I L L R D JAMES L I N E ROBI N S O N S T CK R D MCQUI G G A N L I N E CS I N O S R D NO R T H S T LAKE S H O R E L I N E SO P E R R D ORCH L I N E OW L C A G E R D TO L L G A T E R D Key Map µ 0 2 41 Kilometers Plow Route 1 - 2026 Total Lane 106.2km BayhamMa l a h i d e No r f o l k 0 0.5 10.25 Kilometers Port Burwell Eden Calton Corinth Richmond Straffordville PLA N K R D EDEN LINE TALB O T L I N E CALTO N L I N E HERITAGE LINE PRESSEY RD CO Y L E R D JACKS O N L I N E CU L L O D E N R D CA R T E R R D HAWKINS RD RI C H M O N D R D BEST LINE HW Y 1 9 BROWNSVILL E R D GREEN LINE HWY 3 SP R I N G E R H I L L R D SA N D Y T O W N R D CARSON LINE CU L L O D E N L I N E KESWICK RD P I G R A M L I N E MAPLE GROVE L I N E EL G I N C O U N T Y R O A D 5 5 D E R E H A M L I N E LAMERS LINE B R O A D W A Y GOS H E N R D ST E W A R T R D TL I N E Q U A R T E R BA Y H A M N O R F O L K B O U N D A R Y R D SO M E R S R D EL L I O T T R D HOWEY LINE TO L L G A T E R D BUR W E L L R D MI T C H E L L R D OTTERGATE LIN E RIDGE LINE VIE N N A R D MU R R A Y R D CONC E ST BALD W I N S T COLLEGE LINE B A Y H A M D R GLENCOLIN LINE JOHN WISE LINE BO G U S R D LO W R I E L I N E GR E G S O N R D S I D E R D C A R S O N SC H A F F E R R D C O U N T Y R D 3 0 N O R F O L K GA R N E R R D CHALET L I N E BE A T T I E R D TLINE RD DE N N I S R D JAMES L I N E SIMCOE ST BA L L L I N E OAK B A Y H A M D R I V E G L E N D A L E D R C L E A R V I E W D R BALDWIN LINE PEARL ST B E E C H B L V D OW L C A G E R D BROWNSVILLE R D SP R I N G E R H I L L R D HAWKINS RD SA N D Y T O W N R D BEST LINE TO L L G A T E R D SO M E R S R D MI T C H E L L R D Key Map µ 0 2 41 Kilometers Plow Route 2 - 2026 Total Lane 102km BayhamMa l a h i d e No r f o l k Calton Vienna Richmond Port Burwell Straffordville PL A N K R D CALTO N L I N E RI C H M O N D R D VIENN A L I N E TAL B O T L I N E HERITAGE LINE EDEN LINE CA R T E R R D NOVA SCOTIA LINE JACKS O N L I N E LIGHT L I N E WA L K E R R D TO L L G A T E R D CU L L O D E N R D SA N D Y T O W N R D CL A R K E R D JOHN WISE LINE GLENCOLIN LINE GLEN E R I E L I N E MAPLE GROVE L I N E TUNNE L L I N E BR O W N R D ST E W A R T R D CHALET LINE CHUTE LINE BO G U S R D MI T C H E L L R D WO O D W O R T H R D OTTERGATE LIN E SP R I N G E R H I L L R D SA W M I L L R D AN G E R R D LK SHOR E L I N E GR E G S O N R D SO M E R S R D EDISO N D R GA R N E R R D CH A T H A M S T CT R S T BE A T T I E R D DE N N I S R D TE A L L N E V I L L R D JAMES L I N E BA L L L I N E OAK RO B I N S O N S T CK R D MCQU I G G A N L I N E BALDWIN LINE NO R T H S T SO P E R R D ORCH L I N E WA L K E R R D CHALET L I N E TO L L G A T E R D SA W M I L L R D CA R T E R R D CA R T E R R D MIT C H E L L R D CA R T E R R D CA R T E R R D SP R I N G E R H I L L R D SA W M I L L R D Key Map µ0 3 61.5 Kilometers Plow Route 3 - 2026 Total Lane 116.6km Bayham Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k CT R S T ED I S O N D R FULTON ST E L M S T ANN ST PLANK RD UN I O N S T CHAPEL S T O A K S T PEARL S T CHESTNUT ST PI N E S T QUEEN ST OTT E R S T O A K S T 0 200 400100 Meters Vienna Vienna Port Burwell Straffordville N R D PL A N K R D LIGHT L I N E CALTO N L I N E JACKS O N L I N E EL G I N C O U N T Y R O A D 5 5 HERITAGE LINE CO Y L E R D TUNNE L L I N E GLEN E R I E L I N E TO L L G A T E R D LK SH O R E L I N E GO D B Y R D CL A R K E R D LAMERS LINE OL D N R D VIENN A L I N E BR O W N R D CHUTE LINE BO G U S R D MI T C H E L L R D BEA C H L A N E SIDE R D L O W E R BASELINE R D GR E G S O N R D NOVA S C O T I A L I N E EDISO N D R GA R N E R R D CH A T H A M S T CT R S T DON O V A N R D TE A L L N E V I L L R D ST A F F O R D R D OLD DUMP R D ROBI N S O N S T CK R D SA N D Y T O W N R D MAIN ST ASHLEY AVE CS I N O S R D NO R T H S T UN I O N S T SO P E R R D ORCH L I N E 4TH ST OW L C A G E R D BROCK ST TO L L G A T E R D MI T C H E L L R D Key Map µ 0 1,700 3,400 5,100850 Meters Plow Route 4 - 2026 Total Lane 108.8km Bayham Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k Eden Straffordville PLA N K R D EDEN LINE CO Y L E R D HERITAGE LINE SA N D Y T O W N R D HW Y 1 9 CARSON LINE TALB O T L I N E GOS H E N R D TO L L G A T E R D BA Y H A M N O R F O L K B O U N D A R Y R D HOWEY LINE BUR W E L L R D RI D G E L I N E MU R R A Y R D MAPLE GROVE L I N E B A Y H A M D R ST E W A R T R D S I D E R D C A R S O N SC H A F F E R R D C O U N T Y R D 3 0 N O R F O L K EL L I O T T R D VINCENT LINE BA L L L I N E O R A N G E H A L L R D MAIN ST SIDERD G O R E EL G I N C O U N T Y R O A D 5 5 BALDWIN LINE 3RD ST BEST LINE GRAY ST BLAC K B R I D G E L I N E BA Y H A M D R SA N D Y T O W N R D Key Map µ 0 1.5 30.75 Kilometers Plow Route 5 - 2026 Total Lane 102.2km Bayham Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k Corinth Richmond Straffordville TALB O T L I N E EDEN LINE PRESSEY ROAD HERIT A G E L I N E PLA N K R O A D BEST LINE CU L L O D E N R O A D HAWKINS ROAD GREEN LINE SP R I N G E R H I L L R O A D JACKSO N L I N E SA N D Y T O W N R O A D TO L L G A T E R O A D MAPLE GROVE L I N E RI C H M O N D R O A D BROWNSVILLE R O A D CARSON LINE PI G R A M L I N E C U L L O D E N L I N E OTTERGATE LIN E DE R E H A M L I N E ST E W A R T R O A D SO M E R S R O A D EL L I O T T R O A D COLLEGE LINE MIT C H E L L R O A D MU R R A Y R O A D GLENCOLIN LINE LO W R I E L I N E JOHN WISE LINE BA Y H A M D R I V E CHALET L I N E GA R N E R R O A D HO W E Y L I N E BA L L L I N E BE A T T I E R O A D OAK GR E G S O N R O A D HIGHW A Y 3 LAMER S L I N E RIDGE L I N E BALDWIN LINE CLEAR V I E W D R I V E MAIN STREET HARMONY ACRES L I N E BLAC K B R I D G E L I N E 4TH STREET PE T E R S C O U R T JO H N S T R E E T SO M E R S R O A D BEST LINE SO M E R S R O A D MI T C H E L L R O A D SO M E R S R O A D HAWKINS ROAD SA N D Y T O W N R O A D Key Map µ 0 2 41 Kilometers Plow Route 6 - 2026 Total Lane 97.8km BayhamMa l a h i d e No r f o l k CH A T H A M S T ROBIN S O N S T PITT S T VI C T O R I A S T PL A N K R D B R I D G E S T ER I E U S S T AD D I S O N S T ST R A C H A N S T WELLINGTON ST EL I Z A B E T H S T LIBBYE AVE WATERLOO ST MIL T O N S T NO V A S C O T I A L I N E BA R B A R A A V E ASHL E Y A V E SH A K E S P E A R E S T BROCK ST HU R L E Y S T HOMER ST WILLIAM ST COWPER ST SOUTHEY ST BURWELL ST FA Y E S T TENNYSON ST Subm a r i n e r s W a y GRACE CRT Key Map µ 0 200 400100 Meters Port Burwell Winter Maintenance 2026 Streets Total Lane 14.5km AREA 1 PORT BURWELL STREETS • Addison Street (Nova Scotia – Libbye) • Bodsworth Lane• Brock Street• Burwell Street• Cowper Street• Elizabeth Street• Erieus Street• Fay Street• Hannah Street• Homer Street• Howard Street (to Submariners Way) • Hurley Street• Libbye Avenue• Libbye Street• McNeil Court• Milton Street• Newton Street• Pitt Street• Shakespeare Street• Southey Street• Strachan Street• Tennyson Street• Victoria Street (Pitt to Wellington) • Waterloo Street• William Street• Wilson Lane PORT BURWELL PARKING LOTS • Fire Hall – Nova Scotia Line• Library Parking – 21 Pitt Street• Marine Museum Parking Lot• Pump Stations (Brock and Union) • Sewage Treatment Plant – 1 Chatham Street• Robinson St Parking Lots• Wastewater Treatment Plant• Base of Pitt St• Chatham St. Lot• Nova Scotia Line Park BayhamSidewalks 5,921m Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k Parking Lot E D I S O N D R I V E PLANK ROAD CE N T R E S T R E E T VIENNA LI N E FULTON STREET CHAPEL STR E E T E L M S T R E E T ANN STREET NO R T H S T R E E T UN I O N S T R E E T WATER S T R E E T CHESTNUT STREET O A K S T R E E T PEARL ST R E E T TUNNEL LINE OLD MILL L I N E PI N E S T R E E T WALNUT S T R E E T KING ST R E E T E A S T QUEEN STREET S N O W S T R E E T FRON T S T R E E T OTTE R S T R E E T O A K S T R E E T EDISON D R CT R S T PLANK RD FULTON ST E L M S T ANN ST CHAPEL ST VIENNA LI N E NO R T H S T UN I O N S T WAT E R S T O A K S T KING ST E O A K S T Key Map µ0 200 400100 Meters Streets 7km AREA 2 VIENNA STREETS • Ann Street• Centre Street (North of Fulton Only) • Chapel Street (to top of the hill) • Chestnut Street• Edison Street• Elm Street• Front Street• King Street• North Street • Oak Street• Otter Street• Pearl Street• Pine Street• Queen Street• Snow Street• Union Street• Walnut Street VIENNA PARKING LOTS• Community Centre• Pump Station # 6, 54 Front St. BayhamSidewalks 2859m Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k Parking Lot Winter Maintenance 2026 PLA N K R D HERITAGE LINE MAIN ST 3RD ST SA N D Y T O W N R D WE S T S T 4TH ST STEWART R D 1ST ST 2ND ST 5TH ST ART H U R S T DU K E S T AL W A R D S T OL D C H A P E L S T R E E T EL G I N S T EA S T S T R E E T GA R N H A M S T HESCH ST WE S T S T SA N D Y T O W N R D 1ST ST Key Map µStreets 3.8km AREA 3 STRAFFORDVILLE STREETS • Alward Street• Arthur Street• CPR Laneway (to dead end) • Donnelly Street• Duke Street• East Street• Elgin Street• Fifth Street• First Street• Fourth Street• Garner Road (Heritage to Wardwalk) • Garnham Street• Hesch Street• Main Street• Old Chapel Street• Second Street• Short Street• Third Street• Wardwalk Line• West Street STAFFORDVILLE PARKING LOTS • Firehall• Library/Pump Station #2• Pumping Station (8971 Plank Road• SCC 9352 Garner Rd. and 56826 Heritage Line) • Straffordville Community Centre All Entrances & Sidewalks BayhamSidewalks 5695m PL A N K R D ALWARD STREET Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k 0 200 400100 Meters Parking Lot Winter Maintenance 2026 BEST LINE CU L L O D E N R O A D GE O R G E S T R E E T HE N R Y S T R E E T Key Map µ CORINTH STREETS• George St.• Henry St.• Shady Lane BayhamSidewalks 778m OAK TALB O T L I N E SHAD Y L A N E CU L L O D E N R O A D MAPLE BayhamMa l a h i d e No r f o l k 0 50 10025 Meters 0 100 20050 Meters Streets 339.5m Contractor Winter Maintenance 2026 PLA N K R O A D EDEN LINE GRAY STRE E T TR A V I S S T R E E T Key Map µ0 100 20050 Meters Winter Maintenance 2026 Streets 423m EDEN STREETS • Gray Street • Travis Street EDEN PARKING LOTS • Pump Station #1 – 11403 Plank Road BayhamSidewalks 840m Ma l a h i d e No r f o l k HER I T A G E L I N E R I C H M O N D R O A D HOOVER V A L L E Y R O A D JOH N S T R E E T CHU R C H S T R E E T JAM E S S T R E E T RICHMOND ROAD Key Map µ 0 100 20050 Meters Streets 1.1km RICHMOND STREETS • Church Street• Hoover Valley Road• James Street• John Street• Richmond Road RICHMOND PARKING LOT • Richmond Water Treatment Plant -9190 Richmond Rd. BayhamSidewalks 793m Winter Maintenance 2026 HERITAGE LI N E CU L L O D E N R O A D BE A T T I E R O A D Key Map µContractor County Maintenance 2026 Bayham H E R I T A G E L I N E MI T C H E L L R O A D 0 50 10025 Meters 0 50 10025 Meters EDEN LINE PE T E R S C O U R T Key Map µ0 50 10025 Meters RICHMOND STREETS • Church Street • Hoover Valley Road• James Street • John Street • Richmond Road RICHMOND PARKING LOT • Richmond Water Treatment Plant -9190 Richmond Rd. BayhamContractor Winter Maintenance 2026 Eden Calton Vienna Corinth Richmond Port Burwell Straffordville PL A N K R O A D CALTO N L I N E TALB O T L I N E NO R T H R O A D EDEN LINE HERITAGE LINE VIENNA L I N E LIGHT L I N E RI C H M O N D R O A D JACKS O N L I N E PRESSEY ROA D EL G I N C O U N T Y R O A D 5 5 CO Y L E R O A D BEST LINE CU L L O D E N R O A D NOVA S C O T I A L I N E CA R T E R R O A D HAWKINS ROA D TUNNE L L I N E GLEN E R I E L I N E GOSH E N R O A D GREEN LINE HIGHWAY 3 TO L L G A T E R O A D WA L K E R R O A D LAKE S H O R E L I N E PLO W M A N S L I N E HIG H W A Y 1 9 COLLEGE LINE SP R I N G E R H I L L R O A D CARSON LINE GO D B Y R O A D SA N D Y T O W N R O A D BEACH LANE JOHN WISE LINE S I D E R O A D B E L L M I L L GLENCOLIN LINE MAPL E G R O V E L I N E P I G R A M L I N E OL D N O R T H R O A D CL A R K E R O A D 1S T C O N C E S S I O N R O A D E N R SIDE R O A D L O W E R COL O N E L T A L B O T R O A D PRESSEY LINE HOWEY LINE BASELINE R O A D CENTURY LIN E O R A N G E H A L L R O A D RIDGE LINE BR O W N R O A D RON MCNEIL L I N E SO M E R S R O A D BUR W E L L R O A D MI T C H E L L R O A D SIDE R O A D B A R T H BO G U S R O A D SA W M I L L R O A D B A Y H A M D R I V E GR E G S O N R O A D MALL ROAD GA R N E R R O A D VINCENT LINE BE A T T I E R O A D CH A T H A M S T R E E T DE N N I S R O A D CA R T E R R O A D SA W M I L L R O A D CA R T E R R O A D SO M E R S R O A D MI T C H E L L R O A D CA R T E R R O A D WA L K E R R O A D SA W M I L L R O A D Key Map µ 0 2 41 Kilometers Route of Representative Roads 2026 Total Lane 85.9km Bayham ZBA-12/25 PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF ZONING BY-LAW Z815-2025 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: JESSE FROESE (AGENT) OWNERS: COBLENTZ & STOLL LOCATION: 53609 EDEN LINE, NORTH HALL TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed By- Law No. Z815-2025 on the 2nd day of October, 2025 under Section 34 of the Planning Act. AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency as described below may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in respect of all or part of this By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Municipality of Bayham either via the OLT e-file service (first-time users will need to register for a My Ontario Account) at https://olt.gov.on.ca/e-file-service by selecting the Municipality of Bayham as the Approval Authority or by mail to the Municipality of Bayham at the address listed below no later than 4:30 p.m. on 23rd day of October 2025. The filing of an appeal after 4:30 p.m., in person or electronically, will be deemed to have been received the next business day. The appeal fee of $1,100 can be paid online through e-file or by certified cheque/money order to the Minister of Finance, Province of Ontario. If you wish to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) or request a fee reduction for an appeal, forms are available from the OLT website at www.olt.gov.on.ca. If the e-file portal is down, you can submit your appeal to munderhill@bayham.on.ca. The notice of appeal must set out the objection to the By-law and the reasons in support of the objection. THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject property from ‘Agricultural (A1)’ Zone to a ‘Site-Specific Residential (A1-54)’ Zone to permit the construction of an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) and attached garage on the property, which requires relief from the following provisions: • Section 4.59 e) to permit an ARU with a maximum GFA of 50% of the Primary Dwelling (88.4m² excluding garage); and • Section 4.59 f) to permit an ARU located 140m from the primary dwelling unit, The subject property is known as 53609 Eden Line, south side, and east of Springer Hill Road. THE EFFECT of this By-law is to permit a new Additional Residential Unit, with an attached garage, that exceeds the Maximum Gross Floor Area and Maximum Distance from the Primary Dwelling for an ARU. ONLY THE APPLICANT, SPECIFIED PERSONS, PUBLIC BODIES, REGISTERED OWNERS OF LAND TO WHICH THIS BY-LAW WOULD APPLY, AND THE MINISTER 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 SPECIFIED PERSON PUBLIC BODY, OR REGISTERED OWNER OF LAND TO WHICH THIS BY-LAW WOULD APPLY SHALL be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the by-law was passed, the specified person, public body, or registered owner of land to which the by-law would apply 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 3rd day of October 2025. KEY MAP on next page ZBA-12/25 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 ZBA-21/25 PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF ZONING BY-LAW Z816-2025 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: MUNCIPALITY OF BAYHAM LOCATION: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed By- Law No. Z816-2025 on the 2nd day of October, 2025 under Section 34 of the Planning Act. AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency as described below may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in respect of all or part of this By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Municipality of Bayham either via the OLT e-file service (first-time users will need to register for a My Ontario Account) at https://olt.gov.on.ca/e-file-service by selecting the Municipality of Bayham as the Approval Authority or by mail to the Municipality of Bayham at the address listed below no later than 4:30 p.m. on 23rd day of October 2025. The filing of an appeal after 4:30 p.m., in person or electronically, will be deemed to have been received the next business day. The appeal fee of $1,100 can be paid online through e-file or by certified cheque/money order to the Minister of Finance, Province of Ontario. If you wish to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) or request a fee reduction for an appeal, forms are available from the OLT website at www.olt.gov.on.ca. If the e-file portal is down, you can submit your appeal to munderhill@bayham.on.ca. The notice of appeal must set out the objection to the By-law and the reasons in support of the objection. THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to permit an increased Maximum Building Height of eight metres (8.0m) on all lands zoned Village Residential 1 (R1) zone and Village Residential 2 (R2) zone by amending Sections 10.5 and 11.6 of Municipality of Bayham’s Zoning By-law to permit a Maximum Building Height of eight metres (8.0m); whereas a Maximum Building Height of seven metres (7.0m) is currently permitted. The subject properties are all lands zoned Village Residential 1 (R1) zone and Village Residential 2 (R2) zone. THE EFFECT of this Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit an increased Maximum Building Height of eight metres (8.0m) on all lands zoned Village Residential 1 (R1) zone and Village Residential 2 (R2) zone. ONLY THE APPLICANT, SPECIFIED PERSONS, PUBLIC BODIES, REGISTERED OWNERS OF LAND TO WHICH THIS BY-LAW WOULD APPLY, AND THE MINISTER 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 SPECIFIED PERSON PUBLIC BODY, OR REGISTERED OWNER OF LAND TO WHICH THIS BY-LAW WOULD APPLY SHALL be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the by-law was passed, the specified person, public body, or registered owner of land to which the by-law would apply 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 3rd day of October, 2025. 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 REPORT DRAINAGE TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: DR-10/25 SUBJECT: QUOTATION AWARD – GREWAL DRAIN EXTENSION BACKGROUND The purpose of this Report is to recommend the acceptance of the lowest quotation for the provision of drainage works for the construction of the Grewal Drain Extension in Straffordville. The final reading was given to Provisional By-law No. 2025-046 that provides for the construction of the Grewal Drain Extension on June 19, 2025. The estimated cost of construction as per the Engineers Report No. 223284 is $46,000.00+HST. Quotation forms were prepared by Spriet Associates. The quotation invite notice provided for a closing date of October 6, 2025 at 4 pm. The quotes were opened in the presence of the Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent and Clerk. The following quotes were received: 1. Froese Excavating Ltd. (received Quotation Form and a Bid Bond in the amount of 10% total tender price) tender in the amount of $40,009.00+HST to commence work on or before January 1, 2026 and to complete work on or before January 16, 2026. 2. PBR Excavating Inc. (received Tender Form and a Bid Bond in the amount of 10% total tender price) tender in the amount of $25,156.49+HST to commence work on or before October 20, 2025 and to complete work on or before October 24, 2025. DISCUSSION The Engineer’s estimated cost for construction of the works as contained within the Report is $46,000.00. Section 59(1) of the Drainage Act states that where the contract price exceeds 133 percent of the engineer’s estimate of the contract price, Council of the initiating municipality is required to call a meeting to deal with the necessary modifications. The lowest quotation amount was $25,156.49 + HST, which is under 133 percent of the Engineer’s estimate; therefore, the quotation from the lowest bidder can be accepted. All expenses related to the construction work and engineering fees for the Grewal Drain Extension will be covered by the applicants of the original petition. This means that the applicants who requested the project will bear the full financial responsibility. The project has been discussed with the contractor, and the start date for construction could potentially be as early as before the end of October 2025. Staff recommend awarding the Grewal Drain Extension works to PBR Excavating Inc.in their quoted amount of $25,156.49 plus HST STRATEGIC PLAN Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report DR-10/25 regarding the Grewal Drain Extension Award Contract be received for information; 2. AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham accept the tender for the Grewal Drain Extension, as submitted by PBR Excavating Inc., in the amount of $25,156.49 + HST, with work to commence on or before October 20, 2025 and be completed on or before October 24, 2025; 3. AND THAT a by-law to authorize the execution of contract documents with PBR Excavating Inc. be presented to Council for enactment. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent Chief Administrative Officer REPORT DRAINAGE TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: DR-11/25 SUBJECT: 2025 3rd QUARTER DRAINAGE REPORT BACKGROUND: This Report is to inform Council of Q3 2025 ongoing and completed to-date drainage activities. DISCUSSION: Drainage works regarding Q3 2025 new drains and drain maintenance are outlined below: New Drains Drain Name Status Peters Drain Extension Security holdback of $8,188.88 has been returned. New Drain - VanQuaethem Extension Plank Road. Site meeting has been completed on Aug. 15, 2023 Waiting on developer’s plans for future phases to submit to Spriets. Confirmed with applicant on Oct. 7, 2025 to hold until further notice. Vienna Ridge Subdivision Complete, with exception of warranty period of 1 year. Security holdback will be kept until July 2026. 11:28 Properties Inc. Petition Submitted and filed on Oct. 23, 2023 Council passed consideration of Petition on November 2, 2023 Engineer has been assigned to prepare report Alex Visscher on February 26, 2024 has signed the petition in regards to work being completed on the West side of Plank Road. Engineer’s waiting on West side Plank development to complete report. Confirmed no change on October 7, 2025. Frank Wall - Sandytown Subdivision – Grewal Drain Extension Staff to award quotation submissions on October 16, 2025 for the construction of the drains. Drain Maintenance Drain Name Status Smith Drain – Complete Complaint filed of a large sinkhole around basin March 1, 2024. Contractor has been notified and expected completion Summer of 2025. Completed August 2025. Carruthers – On-going Inspection of drain completed April 2, 2025 Found large washout in field near outlet. Contractor to repair Fall 2025 Mueller Drain Branch A – On-going Staff had complaint of basement flooding April 2, 2025. Staff on site April 3, 2025 and connection into house was backing up do to main drain plugged. Contractor on site April 3, snaked and found blockage in large water hole. Staff added laneway culvert to release the water from flooding basement. Staff still need to complete repair when drain dries up. Contractor to complete in Fall 2025. STRATEGIC PLAN Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report DR-11/25 re 2025 3rd Quarter Drainage Report be received for information. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent Chief Administrative Officer REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Scott Sutherland, Chief Building Official DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: DS-42/25 SUBJECT: 3RD QUARTER REPORT BACKGROUND The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the activities of Building Services for the third quarter of the year for 2025. DISCUSSION The summary of building permits issued in the third quarter is as listed in the chart below: Year 2025 2024 2023 No. permits issued 31 48 20 Permit fees $31,666 $82,993 $22,919 Construction Value $2,226,000 $9,126,400 $3,033,800 Dwelling Units 1 18 5 Farm Buildings 1 2 0 ICI Buildings 1 2 N/A Demolitions 0 1 N/A Other 29 25 15 Q3 2025 building statistics have shown significant reduction from Q3 2024. Only 1 building permit was issued for a dwelling unit – 17 fewer than the same quarter in 2024 – which has led to lower Construction Value and Permit Fee figures. Bayham’s approved 2025 Operating Budget included a projection of $260,000 in total 2025 building revenues, which was projected to be consistent with 2024 actual revenues. Over the first three quarters of 2024, Bayham has received $121,056 in permit revenues, which is approximately 35 percent less than the first three-quarters of 2024. Staff currently anticipate a revenue shortfall of between $100,000 and $110,000 on the year. Staff confirm that, after discussions with local financial institutions, ongoing global market uncertainty may still be contributing to slower building and business activity, which is affecting all development sectors in the area. STRATEGIC PLAN Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Staff Report DS-42/25 re 3rd Quarter Report be received for information. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Scott Sutherland, CBCO Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Chief Building Official Chief Administrative Officer REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Mayor & Council Members FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: DS-41/25 FILE NO. C-07 / L03 SUBJECT: Draft By-law No. 2025-061 Declare Lands as Part of the Open Public Highway System - Part 2 11R-11368 Part of Coyle Road BACKGROUND: On January 22, 2025, the Elgin County Land Division Committee (LDC) granted Consent Application No. E88-24 Wood, whereby permitting the severance of a parcel with an area of 0.46 hectares (1.136 acres) for severance of a dwelling surplus to the farming operation. The parcel fronts on Coyle Road. During the application review, it was determined that a small portion of Coyle Road was in private ownership and that the conditions of consent approval would have to include the ownership transfer to the Municipality. The LDC Decision dated January 22, 2025, included the following condition: 5. That the Owner transfers Part 2 (travelled road) of the Draft Reference Plan to the Municipality of Bayham and that the Owner prepares a formal Deed to the Municipality that is acceptable to the Municipality of Bayham. DISCUSSION: The Owner has satisfied the Condition by transferring the ownership of Part 2 RP 11R-11368, a travelled portion of Coyle Road, to the Municipality and having the Transfer registered as CT259882 on October 3, 2025. Follow-up to the registration is the presentation of a by-law to Council to declare the lands as part of the Open Public Highway System. Draft By-law No. 2025-061 is presented for enactment. Staff Report DS-41/25 Declare Lands Public Highway Page 2 STRATEGIC PLAN Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Registered Plan of Survey 11R-11368 2. Draft By-law No. 2025-061 RECOMMENDATION THAT Report DS-41/25 regarding Declaring of Lands as Part of the Open Public Highway System (part of Coyle Road) be received; AND THAT By-law No. 2025-061, being a by-law to authorize and to declare lands in the Municipality of Bayham as part of the Open Public Highway System, described as Part 2 of Registered Plan 11R-11368, part of Coyle Road, be presented for enactment. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Chief Administrative Officer THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2025-061 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE AND TO DECLARE LANDS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AS PART OF THE OPEN PUBLIC HIGHWAY SYSTEM (PART 2 OF 11R-11368 – PART OF COYLE ROAD) WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001,c.25, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. AND WHEREAS ownership of Part 2 on Registered Plan 11R-11368 was transferred and registered as CT259882 on October 3, 2025; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of declaring Part 2 on 11R-11368, being a travelled portion of Coyle Road, as part of the open public highway system. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the land described as Concession 8 Part Lot 25, Municipality of Bayham, being Part 2 of Reference Plan No. 11R-11368, is hereby declared as part of the public and travelled road system of the Municipality of Bayham. 3. 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 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. ___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: DS-43/25 FILE NO. C-07/ D11.Countryside Roll # 3401-004-001-16800 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application – 34T-BA2501 Draft Plan Conditions - Countryside Communities Inc. Draft Zoning By-law No. Z817-2025 Chestnut Street/John Street/Snow Street, Vienna BACKGROUND Property Owner/Developer Countryside Communities Inc. have submitted an “Application Form – Subdivision” to the County of Elgin that was deemed to be a complete application February 11, 2025. The application is for consideration of a Draft Plan of Subdivision in Vienna, on the north side of Chestnut Street, beyond the end of the paved maintained section of Union Street and west of Oak Street. The lands are designated “Residential” on Schedule “C” Vienna: Land Use and Constraints of the Official Plan. The lands are currently zoned Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) on Schedule “H” Vienna in Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. Municipalities are not required to hold a public meeting for draft plans of subdivision, however, the Municipality held a public meeting on Thursday, July 17, 2025 for the related Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-14/25 with the appointed agent on behalf of the Countryside Communities Inc. as the one attendee making an oral presentation summarizing the application and noting that himself and the applicant were present for any questions.. The purpose and effect of this Draft Plan of Subdivision will be to divide the subject parcel of land into four (4) semi-detached residential lots (eight (8) dwelling units) and eight (8) single detached residential lots with one new internal street. The four (4) lots will be accessed by Chestnut Street, an existing local road, and the additional eight will be accessed by an internal street (Street ‘A’ – formal name to be determined) to be constructed. The residential lots will be serviced by municipal sanitary sewage disposal system, municipal water services, and municipal storm water services. DS-43/25 Countryside Communities Inc 2 The purpose of this Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject property from ‘Village Residential 1 (R1(h2))’ Zone to a ‘Site Specific Village Residential (R1-24(h2))’ Zone to permit the development of eight (8) single detached and eight (8) semi-detached residential dwellings on the subject property as part of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, application reference 34T-BA2501; which requires the additional following provisions: • Section 10.12.24 to permit a minimum Lot Area of 755m² for proposed Lot 12 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501; where-as 800m² is required for Single Detached Dwellings, under Section 10.3; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a minimum Lot Area of 375m² for proposed Lots 3 and 4 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501; where-as 400m² is required for Interior Semi-Detached Dwellings under Section 10.3; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Building Coverage of 35% for all Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501; where-as a maximum of 30% is required under Section 10.6; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Building Height of 8.0 metres for all Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501; where-as a maximum of 7 metres is required under Section 10.5; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Driveway Coverage of 60% for all Semi-detached Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501; where-as a maximum of 50% is required under Section 4.34.1. The effect of this Zoning By-law is to permit the development of eight (8) single detached dwellings and eight (8) semi-detached residential dwelling units on the subject property as part of Draft Plan of Subdivision, application 34T-BA2501 and to retain the Holding Provision (h2). The applicants will be required to apply for and obtain Zoning By-law Amendment approval to remove the Holding Provision (h2) subject to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between the Applicant and the Municipality. DISCUSSION Please refer to the Arcadis Group Memorandum, dated October 9, 2025, for the planner’s analysis of the proposal against the land use policies in the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement 2024, Elgin County Official Plan, Bayham Official Plan, and Zoning By-law. The memorandum also includes public and agency comments with responses. Correspondence provided from the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) directly to the County indicated that the entire property is outside the regulated area under Ontario Regulation 41/24 and therefore LPRCA has no comments or conditions. Southwestern Public Health (SWPH) comments are attached and discussed the planner’s memorandum. Reports submitted with the Subdivision Application include a Planning Justification Report (Strik Baldinelli Moniz, January 17, 2025), Servicing & Stormwater Management Feasibility Study (Strik Baldinelli Moniz, October 30, 2024), Geotechnical Investigation (LDS, May 14, 2021), and Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment (Lincoln Environmental Consulting Corp., November 2021), and Tree Preservation and Inventory Plans (Dan Weagant, Landscape Architect, January 27, 2023). All reports have been reviewed by staff and qualified peer reviewers as appropriate. Subject to the approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-14/25, staff and planner support the Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 to divide the subject parcel of land into eight (8) DS-43/25 Countryside Communities Inc 3 single detached residential lots and four (4) semi-detached residential lots, provided the recommended conditions are included in the approval authority’s decision and fulfilled by the applicant in the Draft Plan of Subdivision Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Municipality of Bayham. STRATEGIC PLAN 2.2: Quality of Life > To ensure, through planning and related strategies, a diversity of housing opportunities that meet the needs of new and current residents. Initiative(s): Encourage a mix of housing types in any proposed development ATTACHMENTS 1. County of Elgin – Application Form – Subdivision, received February 5, 2025 2. Application for Amendment to the Zoning By-law 3. Planning Justification Report – SBM January 17, 2025 4. Servicing & Stormwater Management Feasibility Study – SBM October 30, 2024 5. Geotechnical Investigation – LDS May 14, 2021 6. Southwestern Public Health correspondence, dated March 11, 2025 7. Arcadis Memorandum, dated October 9, 2025 8. Draft Zoning By-law No. Z817-2025 RECOMMENDATION THAT Staff Report DS-43/25 regarding the Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 Countryside Communities Inc. 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 July 17, 2025, for the zoning by-law amendment associated with this application only the appointed agent made an oral presentation; AND THAT all considerations regarding this matter were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended to rezone the Subject Lands from Holding –Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) to Holding – Site-Specific Village Residential ‘R1-24(h2)’ with the following site-specific provisions: • Section 10.12.24 to permit a minimum Lot Area of 755m² for proposed Lot 12 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, whereas 800m² is required for Single Detached Dwellings, under Section 10.3; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a minimum Lot Area of 375m² for proposed Lots 3 and 4 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, whereas 400m² is required for Interior Semi-Detached Dwellings under Section 10.3; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Building Coverage of 35% for all Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, whereas a maximum of DS-43/25 Countryside Communities Inc 4 30% is required under Section 10.6; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Building Height of 8.0 metres for all Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, whereas a maximum of 7 metres is required under Section 10.5; • Section 10.12.24 to permit a maximum Driveway Coverage of 60% for all Semi- detached Lots proposed within Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, whereas a maximum of 50% is required under Section 4.34.1. AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z817-2025 be presented to Council for enactment; AND FURTHER THAT Council supports the Draft Plan of Subdivision to divide the subject parcel of land into eight (8) single detached residential lots and four (4) semi- detached residential lots, provided the approval authority, County of Elgin, include in their decision the following conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant in the Draft Plan of Subdivision Agreement: 1. That this Draft Plan approval applies to the Countryside Communities Inc. (the “Subdivider”) Subdivision Application 34T-BA2501,referred to as Concession 3, Lot 14 in the Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin as modified and shown in Appendix X (hereinafter also referred to as the “Draft Plan”) of Report XX, and further that the final plan(s) to be registered in two (2) phases and includes the following: • Phase 1: Lots 1-4- each consisting of 1 semi-detached dwelling for a total of 8 dwelling units • Phase 2: Lots 5-12- consisting of 1 single-detached dwelling on each lot; • Block 13 for a road widening • Street A 2. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions listed below shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Municipality and at no cost to the Municipality of Bayham, sometimes referred to by these Conditions as the "Municipality". 3. That prior to registration of each Phase, that the Owner/Developer shall submit a draft Plan of Subdivision to be registered showing the final lot layout for all lots, blocks, and easements to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County. 4. That prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of the proposed development to the Municipality and registered on title. 5. Further, the Owner/Developer shall apply to remove the “h2” holding symbol for the entirety of the lands by way of Zoning By-law Amendment, with such amendment being adopted and in effect prior to registration of Phase 1. DS-43/25 Countryside Communities Inc 5 Roads 6. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct “Street A” in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards and will dedicate “Street A” to the Municipality as public highway to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 7. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct a maintenance access road within the Queen Street road allowance in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 8. That the streets on the Draft Plan of Subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 9. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct sidewalks and streetlights in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards at no cost to the Municipality, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 10. That prior to registration of Phase 2, the Owner/Developer shall dedicate Block 13 as shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision to the Municipality. Servicing, Infrastructure, Grading, and Stormwater Management 11. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site: • A final Grading and Drainage Plan. • A final Stormwater Management Report • A final Servicing Plan. • A final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 12. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality an interim storm water management report for review and approval. 13. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal sanitary sewer and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available downstream capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 14. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal water main and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on DS-43/25 Countryside Communities Inc 6 Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 15. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct stormwater management infrastructure, including storm sewers, catch basins, and underground storage with outlet to the existing municipal storm system in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 16. That prior to registration of each Phase, that the Owner/Developer shall provide easements as may be required for utility, access or drainage purposes in a form satisfactory to the Municipality or utility. Other 17. That the Owner/Developer shall agree to pay Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham By-law No. 2025-007. 18. That the Owner/Developer shall submit an updated Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan prior to any disturbance or grading of the site and prior to the registration of the Final Plan. Said plan shall identify all existing trees on-site proposed to be removed, impacted or retained as a result of the development of the Subject Lands to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County. 19. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall provide an acknowledgement letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport confirming the Ministry is satisfied the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the lands prepared by Lincoln Environmental Consulting Group and dated November 2021 is consistent with the Ministry’s standards and guidelines and no further archaeological assessment is recommended/required. Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by: Margaret Underhill Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Planning Coordinator|Deputy Clerk Chief Administrative Officer PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO PERMIT A 12-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Prepared by: Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 1599 Adelaide Street North London, ON, N5X 4E8 Prepared for: Countryside Communities Inc. 22746 Richmond Street North London, ON, N5X 4B2 SBM-21-4480 January 17, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................1 2 Site Description...................................................................................................................................................................1 3 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................................................................................................2 4 Development Proposal........................................................................................................................................................2 5 Supporting Studies..............................................................................................................................................................3 5.1 Servicing Feasibility Study (SFS).....................................................................................................................................3 5.2 Archaeological Assessment Stage 1-2...........................................................................................................................4 5.3 Transportation Impact Brief..........................................................................................................................................4 5.4 Tree Preservation Plan ..................................................................................................................................................4 6 Planning Policy Framework and Analysis............................................................................................................................4 6.1 Planning Act ..................................................................................................................................................................4 6.2 Provincial Policy Statement, 2024.................................................................................................................................6 6.3 County of Elgin Official Plan ..........................................................................................................................................7 6.4 Municipality of Bayham Official Plan.............................................................................................................................9 7 Zoning By-law analysis ......................................................................................................................................................10 8 Closing...............................................................................................................................................................................12 FIGURES Figure 1. Aerial View of Subject Lands (Source: Elgin Mapping)................................................................................................13 Figure 2. Aerial View of Subject Lands (approximate) and Surrounding Context (Source: Google Earth) ................................13 Figure 3. Subject Lands land use designation - Residential (Source: Schedule ‘C’ of Bayham Official Plan) .............................14 Figure 4. Subject Lands Existing Zoning (Source: Elgin Mapping/Bayham Zoning By-law)........................................................14 Figure 5. View of Subject Lands at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Union Street looking northeast...........................15 Figure 6.View of Subject Lands looking east..............................................................................................................................15 Figure 7. View of Subject Lands looking north...........................................................................................................................16 Figure 8. View of Subject Lands looking west............................................................................................................................16 TABLES Table 1. Section 51(24) of Planning Act analysis .........................................................................................................................5 Table 2. Section E1.2 of the Elgin County Official Plan analysis...................................................................................................8 APPENDICES Appendix A: Draft Plan of Subdivision (attached separately) Appendix B: Subdivision Layout Plan and Zoning Chart (attached separately) www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 1 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. 1 INTRODUCTION Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. (“SBM”) has been retained by Countryside Communities Inc. (the “Applicant”) to prepare a Planning Justification Report and provide planning opinion regarding a Draft Plan of Subdivision application and Zoning By-law Amendment at a later date to permit the development of a 12-lot residential subdivision on vacant lands northwest of Chestnut Street in north Vienna, Municipality of Bayham (the “Municipality”) in Elgin County. The report demonstrates that the development proposal is in keeping with Provincial, County and Municipal land use planning policies, is suitable for the subject lands, would be compatible with neighbouring land uses, and would increase the local supply of housing. This report is being prepared as part of a “complete” application for the Draft Plan of Subdivision application and future Zoning Amendment Application and reflects discussions with approval authority staff through two pre-application consultation meetings, most recently on February 5, 2024. Minutes from most recent consultation are included in the submission package. 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site currently owned by the Applicant is one legal parcel/lot located northwest of Chestnut Street, east of Union Street and south of Otter Creek, in the Vienna settlement area in the southcentral portion of Bayham, Elgin County. The legal description of this parcel is as follows: Lots 22-30 (inclusive) east of Union Street, Lots 25-29 (inclusive) west of John Street, Lots 22-24 (inclusive) west of Snow Street, Lot 20 north of Chestnut Street (Between Chestnut Street and Queen Street), Registered Plan 54, Village of Vienna, Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin. The Applicant also wishes to incorporate Part 1 on Reference Plan 11R-10901, currently part of the untravelled John Street (part of PIN 35332-0549 (LT)) owned by the Municipality of Bayham, with an area of 383.2 square metres, into its plan of subdivision. It is my understanding that the Municipality has commenced the process of transferring the Part 1 lands to the Applicant, but the transfer has not been completed as of the writing of this report. To avoid confusion, the lands proposed to be owned by the Applicant, conditional upon the successful transfer of Part 1 on Reference Plan 11R-10901, will be referred to as the “Subject Lands” from now on. In contrast, the term “Subject Site” refers to the parcel owned by the Applicant as of the writing of this report. The Subject Lands are irregularly shaped with a total area of 14,254.2 square metres (1.4 hectares), a lot depth of approximately 184 metres, and a lot width of 94 metres along Chestnut Street. They are currently vacant with a generally flat topography and not regulated by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA). Existing access is from Chestnut Street, a dedicated and paved public right-of-way (ROW). The east side of the Subject Site also abuts John Street and Snow Street to the east, which are identified as untravelled roads on surveys and, based on available information, not dedicated as public highways (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 2 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Per the Sanitary and Stormwater Management Feasibility Study dated October 30, 2024 by SBM (the “Servicing Study”), existing servicing includes a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Chestnut Street ROW and a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Queen Street ROW, a 150mm watermain in the Chestnut Street ROW, and an existing storm sewer in the Union Street ROW. A site visit was conducted on February 20, 2024 and the photos in Appendix B were taken. 3 SURROUNDING LAND USES The Subject Lands are primarily surrounded by low density residential land uses consisting of single-detached dwellings (Village Residential 1 or R1 Zone). To the west are vacant, naturalized lands zoned R1(h2). Vienna Lions Community Centre is located south within walking distance and an auto repair centre is located at 33 Elm Street, notwithstanding that it is also zoned R1. An overview of surrounding land uses is portrayed in Figure 2 in Appendix A. Note that the publicly available Elgin County aerial mapping (Figure 1 in Appendix A) is not up-to date and does not show the four (4) new single-detached houses at the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Oak Street visible on Google Earth (Figure 2). 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL As illustrated by the Draft Plan of Subdivision by SBM dated October 30, 2024 (“the Draft Plan of Subdivision”), the Applicant proposes to develop the Subject Lands via the plan of subdivision process to create 12 new residential lots – eight (8) of these lots are intended for single-detached houses and four (4) are intended for semi- detached houses. The severance/division lines to create each semi-detached dwelling would occur later in the process following draft plan approval using the part lot control process (i.e., through part lot control exemption by-laws). Each semi-detached dwelling is also envisioned to include an “additional residential unit” (i.e., secondary unit) in the basement. In total, a total of eight (8) single-detached dwellings and 16 semi-detached dwellings are possible in the proposed infill development. The proposed lots 1-12 comprise a total area of 1.289 hectares. The remaining Subject Lands area is allocated to the creation of a public right-of-way (ROW). Block 13 on the Draft Plan of Subdivision with an area of 36.4 square metres is a proposed road dedication to ensure a ROW width that meets Municipal design standards. The Draft Plan of Subdivision also indicates proposed servicing easements affecting the rear of lots 10-12 and the eastern portion of lot 12 to accommodate proposed infrastructure. The illustrated easement areas are approximate and will be refined during detailed design. Most of the single-detached lots would front on a cul-de-sac identified as Street A on the Draft Plan of Subdivision to be created out of a portion of the Subject Lands combined with portions of the untravelled John Street and Snow Street road allowances to be dedicated as a public highway that would connect to the existing Chestnut www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 3 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Street public ROW. The proposed lot 5 would front a public road currently identified as “Snow Street”. Based on available information, I assume that “John Street” and “Snow Street” are Municipally-owned lands established as road allowances on Reference Plan 54 but not formally dedicated as public highways by Municipal Council. The semi-detached lots would front the existing Chestnut Street. In addition to the Draft Plan of Subdivision, SBM has also prepared a “Subdivision Layout Plan & Zoning Chart” drawing (the “Layout Plan”) dated January 16, 2025to illustrate zoning information, including a maximum zoning envelope, to help approval authority staff, relevant stakeholders and decision-makers conceptualize what can be built on the proposed lots. The proposed development, hereafter referred to as the “Development Proposal”, is proposed to be serviced using municipal infrastructure, some of which already exists. The existing infrastructure will be improved upon to accommodate the Development Proposal, as outlined in the Servicing Feasibility Study. 5 SUPPORTING STUDIES 5.1 Servicing Feasibility Study (SFS) A Servicing Feasibility Study was completed by SBM to address servicing feasibility for the Development Proposal. The conclusions of the report are summarized below. Please review the report for the technical details and note that this report is supplemented by engineering drawings prepared by SBM, including the “Preliminary Master Servicing Plan” and the “Preliminary Subdivision Grading Plan”. Water Servicing: there is a 150mm watermain in the Chestnut Street ROW and the Development Proposal is proposed to be serviced via a new 150mm watermain which will connect into the existing 150mm watermain. Sanitary Servicing: there is a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Chestnut Street ROW which will provide an outlet for the semi-detached units. There is also a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Queen Street ROW which will provide an outlet for the single-family units. The report concludes that the proposed sanitary sewers have sufficient capacity. Stormwater Management: there is an existing available storm sewer in the Union Street ROW to service the Development Proposal. In addition, SBM and the Municipality have had preliminary discussions regarding using an underground stormwater storage system called NextStorm’s EZStorm to detain stormwater runoff and release it at pre-development/allowable flows for 2-year through 100-year storm return periods. This proposed underground system eliminates the need for surface stormwater (SWM) ponds, among other benefits. 5.2 Archaeological Assessment Stage 1-2 The Applicant retained Lincoln Environmental Consulting Corp. to complete a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the Subject Site dated November 2021. The report concludes that no archaeological resources were www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 4 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. found and that no further assessment is warranted. In a memo dated February 22, 2024, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism advised that the report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports without technical review. 5.3 Transportation Impact Brief A Transportation Impact Brief (TIB) dated October 31, 2024 was prepared by SBM to identify traffic impacts, or lack thereof, associated with the Development Proposal. The report concludes the following: The Development Proposal is expected to generate a total of 13 new trips in the AM peak hour (3 in and 10 out) and 17 trips during the PM peak hour (11 in and 6 out). The Elgin County Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Phase 1 Report indicates that there will continue to be plenty of reserve capacity on existing roads through Vienna throughout a 2051 horizon period. Traffic from the proposed subdivision is expected to be split between Plank Road (to north and south) and Vienna Line, and the peak hour volumes will have a negligible impact on the overall volumes and operations of the surrounding road network. There are no concerns with the proposed subdivision access (new cul-de-sac off Chestnut Street and new driveways on Chestnut Street) with respect to visibility or intersection/driveway spacing. No improvements to the external road network are required to accommodate the Development Proposal. 5.4 Tree Preservation Plan A Tree Preservation Plan was requested as a draft plan of subdivision complete application requirement. As such, the tree inventory and assessment were prepared by landscape architect Dan Weagant, OALA, CSLA, which is included in the submission package. However, which trees will actually be removed or retained will not be known until detailed building design and engineering drawings are prepared. 6 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS The existing planning framework includes the Planning Act, as amended; the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024; the County of Elgin Official Plan; the Bayham Official Plan; and the Bayham Zoning By-law. 6.1 Planning Act The Planning Act, 1990, as amended, is the provincial legislation that outlines how land use planning can be practiced in Ontario – it sets out rules and regulations which describe requirements for planning processes, how land uses may be controlled and by whom. Section 51(24) of the Planning Act outlines the criteria that need to be considered when evaluating consent and plan of subdivision applications, including the effect of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; the suitability of www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 5 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. the land for the purposes for which it is subdivided; and whether the plan conforms to the official plan and any adjacent plans of subdivision. Table 1 below identifies the criteria required to be satisfied under section 51(24), in addition to the overall “health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality.” Table 1. Section 51(24) of Planning Act analysis Criteria Comments (a)The Development Proposal has regard for matters of Provincial interest, including the adequate provision of a full range of housing and the appropriate location of growth and development, by converting vacant lands into residential units in an established settlement area designated for residential development by the local planning framework. (b)The Development Proposal is not premature and is in the public interest as it is an example of an infill subdivision surrounded by existing residential development that is compatible with the surrounding area. (c)The Development Proposal substantially conforms to the County and Municipal Official Plans. Please review sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this report for a comprehensive analysis. (d)The Subject Lands are suitable for a residential subdivision and the appropriate reports and drawings are being submitted to support the Development Proposal. (e)The Subject Lands currently abut Chestnut Street, which is classified as a “local road” in Schedule ‘C’ of the Bayham Official Plan. A new public road is proposed to be created by combining portions of the Subject Lands with portions of apparently unopened road allowances owned by the Municipality (i.e., John Street and Snow Street) culminating in a new cul-de-sac that would connect to the existing Chestnut Street. Detailed grading and servicing plans would be provided later in the development review process to satisfy expected draft plan of subdivision conditions. (f)With the exception of the proposed lot 12, which is constrained by the servicing easement and will likely require a custom design (i.e., custom house), the Layout Plan included in the submission package illustrates that the proposed lots are either regularly shaped and fronting an existing public road (i.e., the semi-detached lots), or typical irregular lots fronting a new cul-de-sac that provide a large potential development area with areas and frontages larger than required by the Bayham Zoning By-law. The few zoning deficiencies requested to implement the Development Proposal, which are identified on the www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 6 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Layout Plan zoning charts and will be discussed in more detail in section 7 of this report, can be addressed through a future zoning by-law amendment application to be submitted once the subdivision layout is confirmed. (g)There are no known restrictions that would prevent the development of the Subject Lands as envisioned. (h)The Development Proposal is consistent with this criterion by not developing ravine and floodplain lands. Furthermore, the Subject Lands are not subject to local Conservation Authority regulation limits and do not contain significant natural heritage features. The required planning applications are supported by the appropriate engineering reports and drawings to ensure the Development Proposal conserves natural resources and provides appropriate flood control measures. (i)As per the Servicing Feasibility Study included in the submission package, the Development Proposal is intended to be serviced by municipal sanitary and water infrastructure. As an alternative to SWM ponds, the NextStorm’s EZStorm is proposed to manage stormwater underground in conjunction with the existing Union Street storm sewer. (j)The nearest public school is Port Burwell Public School, which is an elementary school (K-6) located approximately six kilometres away from the Subject Lands. 6.2 Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Any land use planning decision shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which is in effect as of October 20, 2024 (the “PPS”). Section 2.3.1 outlines general policies for settlement areas, most of which are directed towards planning authorities. The PPS directs municipalities to focus new growth and development to settlement areas and, furthermore, identify land use patterns within settlement areas based on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources, among other priorities (Section 2.3.1.2). The housing-related policies in section 2.1 and section 2.2 also apply to this project, particularly 2.2.1b) and c). These policies promote permitting “all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents” and “all types of residential intensification”. The Development Proposal is an example of infill residential intensification of a vacant property providing housing choice (i.e., two types of residential structures) on full municipal services, which is the preferred form of servicing www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 7 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. for settlement areas per policy 3.6.2 of the PPS, that is appropriately located within the Vienna settlement area and will assist the Municipality in achieving “complete communities” and meeting its minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas. In my opinion, the Development Proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS. 6.3 County of Elgin Official Plan The Municipality of Bayham is one of seven municipalities within Elgin County. The existing County Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Housing (MMAH) in 2013. A new County Official Plan was adopted by Council on May 14, 2024, however, will not be in force and effect until approved by MMAH. Although the new Official Plan should not be determinative in reviewing the subject application, regard must be had for it since it represents Council’s intent. Any major policy changes between the existing and the newly adopted Official Plan will be highlighted in this analysis. However, relevant mapping will be extracted from the existing, in-force Official Plan. The Subject Lands, which are located in the northern part of Vienna, are designated Vienna Settlement Area, a Tier 1 settlement area, in the County of Elgin Official Plan. Per section B2.5 of the in-force County Official Plan, Tier 1 settlement areas generally have the largest populations in the County and full municipal services (i.e., municipal water and sewage services). Both the in-force and new Official Plans direct the majority of new growth, including residential growth, to Tier 1 settlement areas. Section C1.1.1 of the in-force Official Plan outlines general objectives for residential areas in settlement areas, including encouraging the provision of a range of housing types; promoting the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure by supporting opportunities for various forms of residential intensification; and encouraging increases in density in new development areas to maximize the use of infrastructure and minimize the amount of land required for new development. Section C1.3 outlines housing goals and policies. The Development Proposal would facilitate these goals and objectives and conform to the housing policies by intensifying vacant land with up to 24 new dwelling units on full municipal services in an existing residential area. Section E1.2 of the in-force County Official Plan outlines subdivision of land policies and these will be addressed in Table 2 below. Table 2. Section E1.2 of the Elgin County Official Plan analysis County Official Plan Policy Response E1.2.2a)In my opinion, the Development Proposal and supporting Draft Plan of Subdivision are generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the County Official Plan, as well as the local (i.e., Bayham) Official Plan, which will be discussed in more detail in section www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 8 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. 6.4 of this report. The proposed subdivision would be an example of infill residential development in a settlement area that can be serviced using full municipal services, as confirmed by the Servicing Feasibility Study. E1.2.2b)A Settlement Areas Capabilities Study was not requested as a complete application requirement for the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. E1.2.2c)As per the Servicing Feasibility Report, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the Development Proposal. With respect to community facilities, the Subject Lands are approximately 600 metres away from the Vienna Lions Community Centre and approximately six (6) kilometres away from a public school. Therefore the redevelopment of the Subject Lands into a residential subdivision that reflects contemporary design standards and market demand is appropriate so future residents can take advantage of the surrounding neighbourhood amenities. E1.2.2d)This policy is not relevant as full municipal services are available. E1.2.2e)The Draft Plan of Subdivision and associated engineering drawings have gone through several iterations to determine the best possible servicing strategy and address concerns expressed to the Applicant by the owner of 51 Oak Street with the intent of mitigating any impacts on surrounding uses, natural features/areas and the local water supply. E1.2.2f)As indicated throughout this report, the Development Proposal is an example of infill residential redevelopment in an established residential area on full municipal services, and the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision was designed to be mindful of existing uses, as well as potential future uses. Section E1.2.3.5 of the in-force County Official Plan outlines general policies to be considered by County Council for every Draft Plan of Subdivision application. Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision, County Council shall be satisfied that: a) the approval of the development is not premature and is in the public interest; www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 9 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. b) the lands will be appropriately serviced with infrastructure, schools, parkland and open space, community facilities and other amenities; c) the density of the development is appropriate for the area; d) the application, if approved, conforms to this Plan and the lower-tier Official Plan; e) the subdivision, when developed, will be appropriately integrated with other development in the area; and, f) the proposal has regard to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. Section E1.2.3.5 is a summary of Planning Act, PPS and County Official Plan policies that have or will be addressed in this report. Finally, the Subject Lands do not appear to be subject to natural heritage features and areas (i.e., woodlands, Provincially significant wetlands, or ANSI) as per Appendix #1 of the County Official Plan, and are not regulated by the LPRCA. Moreover, technical reports to address natural heritage features were not requested as part of the pre-application consultation process. In conclusion, the Development Proposal and the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision conform to the relevant policies of the in-force and new Elgin County Official Plans. Overall, both County Official Plans defer to local Official Plans for detailed organization and composition of individual settlement areas, per section 6.2 of the new Official Plan. The relevant policies of the Bayham Official Plan will be addressed next. 6.4 Municipality of Bayham Official Plan The Municipality of Bayham is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its Official Plan and expects to bring the final draft before Council in the first quarter of 2025. In the meantime, the 2019 approved version consolidated on April 8, 2024 is in force. The Subject Lands are designated “Residential” on Schedule ‘C’ of the Bayham Official Plan (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). Section 4 outlines general settlement area policies – these policies were reviewed, and the Development Proposal would conform with them as it is proceeding via a plan of subdivision and proposing full municipal services (i.e., appropriate water and sewer services will be available) in the Vienna settlement area. Section 4.2.2 identifies policies for residential uses and the Development Proposal conforms with 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 as the Development Proposal would intensify an existing vacant lot in an existing residential area and promote housing choice by providing single-detached and semi-detached dwellings. With respect to policy 4.2.2.3, which is directed towards the Municipality to implement, it is my understanding that market-rate housing is currently being proposed by the Applicant. Section 4.2.4 outlines intensification and redevelopment policies, including policy 4.2.4.1, which states the following: www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 10 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. The Municipality shall encourage intensification and redevelopment within settlement area boundaries on vacant or underutilized sites in order to efficiently utilize designated settlement area land and available municipal services. Many of the criteria used to evaluate multi-lot plans of subdivision, including infill subdivisions such as the Development Proposal, relate to the capacity for servicing. As such, the appropriate evidence for this analysis can be found in the Servicing Feasibility Study and associated engineering drawings being submitted in support of the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. Finally, policy 5.1.2.1 states that “the villages of Port Burwell and Vienna have both municipal sewage and water services and will be the focus of growth within the Municipality.” Of course, the Subject Lands are located in Vienna and the Development Proposal would conform to this policy. Overall, Development Proposal and associated Draft Plan of Subdivision application conform to the relevant policies of the Bayham Official Plan and should be supported with the understanding that draft plan conditions would be imposed by the approval authority (i.e., the County of Elgin) that would require detailed design drawings before final plan approval and registration. 7 ZONING BY-LAW ANALYSIS The Subject Lands are currently zoned Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) see Figure 4 in Appendix A). The “h2” symbol relates to the need for a subdivision agreement which addresses the “financial and servicing impacts of new development” to the satisfaction of the Municipality prior to its removal. Since the Village Residential 1 zone permits both single—detached and semi-detached dwellings, the existing zone can be retained, however, to accommodate the proposed development a Zoning By-law Amendment Special Site Provision is required for relief for the zoning deficiencies. 8 FUTURE ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT The subdivision Layout Plan and Site Plan provided illustrates the maximum zoning envelope and provides relevant lot dimensions including zone requirements. To achieve the most suitable utilization of the land, zoning deficiencies for the proposed building structures must be addressed. Below is an explanation and justification of deficiencies identified on the zoning data chart for each of the proposed building structures on the subject site. Lot area (single-detached): a minimum of 755 square metres whereas 800 square metres is required. This deficiency is for only lot 12 – the other lots would comply with the R1 Zone minimum lot area requirement. Lot 12 is the corner lot that is proposed to incorporate a portion of the John Street road allowance identified as Part 1 on Reference Plan 11R-10901. Most of those Part 1 lands are also proposed to be subject to the servicing easement identified on the drawings. Although the servicing easement area would www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 11 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. prohibit the placement of permanent structures, it could otherwise function as a side yard to be used and enjoyed for passive recreational purposes. Moreover, although this lot will be encumbered and slightly smaller than the other proposed single detached lots and will require a custom house, the developable area can still accommodate a building footprint of over 2,000 square feet (approximately 186 square metres). As the Applicant envisions two-storey houses, the overall gross floor area would be sufficient to meet the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law while meeting market demand. Lot Area (semi-detached): a minimum of 375 square metres is proposed whereas 400 square metres is required. These deficiencies affect lots 3 and 4 and result from prioritizing a consistent lot frontage and considered minor. Lot Coverage: 35% is proposed for both single-detached and semi-detached lots whereas the maximum permitted is 30%. Given the large size and depth of the proposed lots, it will likely be the case that the actual lot coverage will be smaller than 35%. However, a 35% maximum lot coverage is appropriate for contemporary infill subdivisions and the engineering drawings assume this requested coverage. Height: eight (8) metres is proposed to accommodate two-storey houses whereas seven (7) metres is the maximum for both types of houses. Although an absolute maximum height of seven (7) metres is not typical of contemporary building designs and does not reflect the permissions of other municipalities, based on communication with Municipal staff, it is understood that this zoning standard reflects safety concerns among Bayham’s emergency services fleet. It is also understood that building height has a technical definition in the Zoning By-law and unless flat-roofed houses are proposed, the seven-metre height maximum does not mean an absolute height of seven (7) metres. The Applicant has also consulted with local builders and confirmed that the Committee of Adjustment has approved building heights of at least eight metres in the Municipality – examples include 2 MacNeil Court and 12 MacNeil Court in Port Burwell. Driveway area (% of front yard) for semi-detached houses: as noted, the Applicant wishes to accommodate additional residential units in the basement of each semi-detached house, which would trigger a requirement for three vehicle parking spaces. As such, we are requesting relief of section 4.34.1 of the Zoning by-law which would permit the driveway to occupy 60% of the front yard, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted. Allowing the driveway to occupy and additional 10% of the front yard would provide adequate parking spaces, two of which would be assigned to the semi-detached dwelling, and one of which would be for the additional residential dwelling unit. The increase of 10% in driveway area, is considered minor, is in keeping with the nearby lots and will have minimal impact on adjacent properties and the development proposal. www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 12 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Overall, it is my professional opinion that the proposed zoning deficiencies are appropriate to implement the Development Proposal. 9 CLOSING Based on a review of the relevant policies and regulatory framework for the Subject Lands, the Development Proposal and proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision application required to implement it are justified for the following reasons: It is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, which promotes complete communities by accommodating an appropriate intensification of residential uses and recognizes the need for municipalities to accommodate growth in a cost-effective manner and encourage a range of housing types and densities. It conforms to the relevant policies of the in-force and Council-approved Elgin County Official Plans , as well as the Bayham Official Plan. It is an example of an infill subdivision in the Vienna settlement area on full municipal services that would revitalize a vacant lot and add up to 24 new dwelling units to the local housing supply. Based on a review of the Subject Lands, surrounding context, supporting technical studies, and applicable planning documents and policies, the proposed Development Proposal represents sound land use planning practice. Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical Olya Alchits, Planner I and Project Lead www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 13 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Appendix A: Figure Nos. 1-4 Figure 1. Aerial View of Subject Lands (Source: Elgin Mapping) Figure 2. Aerial View of Subject Lands (approximate) and Surrounding Context (Source: Google Earth) SUBJECT SUBJECT Low-density residential Institutional Future potential development zoned R1(h2) Low-density residential Low-density residential Open Space (OS1) www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 14 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Figure 3. Subject Lands land use designation - Residential (Source: Schedule ‘C’ of Bayham Official Plan) Figure 4. Subject Lands Existing Zoning (Source: Elgin Mapping/Bayham Zoning By-law) SUBJECT SUBJECT www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 15 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Appendix B: Site Visit Photos – February 20, 2024 Figure 5. View of Subject Lands at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Union Street looking northeast Figure 6.View of Subject Lands looking east www.sbmltd.ca Planning Justification Report – Vienna Subdivision Northwest of Chestnut Street, Bayham, ON SBM-21-4480 16 Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Figure 7. View of Subject Lands looking north Figure 8. View of Subject Lands looking west SERVICING & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Countryside Communities Subdivision Parts of Registered Plan 54 Vienna, Ontario 30 October 2024 1599 Adelaide Street N. Unit 301 London, Ontario, N5X 4E8 www.sbmltd.ca t: 519 471 6667 f: 519 471 0034 SBM-21-4480 LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION 1599 Adelaide St. N., Unit 301 132 Queen St. S. Unit 4 London, ON N5X 4E8 Kitchener, ON N2G 1V9 P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093 www.sbmltd.ca sbm@sbmltd.ca Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 30 October 2024 SBM-21-4480 Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Line Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Attn: Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator Re: Servicing & Stormwater Management Feasibility Study Countryside Communities Subdivision Parts of Registered Plan 54 Vienna, Ontario 1. INTRODUCTION This Servicing and Stormwater Management (SWM) Feasibility Study (Study) has been prepared by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. (SBM) to address the servicing and SWM feasibility for the proposed Low Density Residential Subdivision located at Chestnut Street, Vienna, Ontario. It is our understanding that the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is to include approximately 8 single family lots and 4 semi-detached lots (8 units). The site is approximately 1.4 ha in area and is currently zoned as residential. The subject site is located northeast of the Chestnut St. and Union St. intersection. Refer to the Draft Plan of Subdivision, provided separately. The above noted areas and lot counts do not include the two (2) existing Lots 23 and 24 East of Snow Street or the portions of Snow Street and John Street which will be opened as part of the development. The site abuts the Snow Street and John Street Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) to the east (not travelled), the Union Street R.O.W. to the west, the Chestnut Street R.O.W. to the south, and the Queen Street R.O.W. to the north. Single family residential lands are generally located on the opposite sides of these R.O.W. This study is to determine the adequacy of the existing municipal services for the proposed development. Design requirements have been based on the Design and Construction Standards of the Municipality of Bayham (D&CS) 2018, as well as the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Design Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008 (DGSW), MECP Design Guidelines for Drinking Water Systems 2008 (DGDWS) and MECP Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (SWMP&DM). Where the D&CS lacks information, the City of London Design Specifications and Requirements Manual (DS&RM), revised 2024, has been used to provide supplemental information. www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 3 2. SANITARY SERVICING As shown on the Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 16 dated May 17, 2000, provided in Appendix A, there is a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Chestnut St. R.O.W. which will provide an outlet for the semi-detached units. As shown on the Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 15 dated May 17, 2000, provided in Appendix A, there is a 200mm sanitary sewer in the Queen St. R.O.W. which will provide an outlet for the single family units. It is noted that the Municipality was not able to provide existing sanitary drainage area and sanitary design sheets for the existing sanitary sewer on Chestnut St. The proposed flows from the subject property are shown on the Sanitary Sewer Design Sheet provided in Appendix B of this Study. For the single family units, using a flow of 365 L/capita/day as per the D&CS for the total population of 30 people (10 lots at 3 people per lot) results in an anticipated peak sanitary flow of 0.51 L/s. When combined with infiltration, this results in a total peak flow of 0.64 L/s. Flows from the semi-detached units (8 upper units at 3 people per unit and 8 lower units at 2 people per unit, resulting in a total of 5 people per semi- detached unit) were also considered and will contribute 0.71 L/s flows into the existing sanitary sewer in the Chestnut St. R.O.W. Minimum 200mm diameter sanitary sewers at minimum slope of 0.5% (9 to 12 units) and 0.6% (6 to 8 units) have sufficient capacity to convey these proposed flows. The Sanitary Sewer Design sheet, provided in Appendix B, shows that the proposed sanitary sewers at the proposed slopes have sufficient capacity. It is requested that the Municipality review and advise if downstream facilities have capacity for this development, as sufficient information was not available to SBM to complete this review. Based on our preliminary discussions with the Municipality, capacity issues with the downstream facilities are not expected. 3. WATER SERVICING As shown on the Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 16 dated May 17, 2000, provided in Appendix A, there is a 150mm watermain in the Chestnut St. R.O.W. It is proposed to service the proposed development via a new 150mm watermain which will connect into the existing 150mm watermain in the Chestnut St. R.O.W. as shown on the Preliminary Master Servicing Plan provided separately. The area has a low water pressure system and further design will be taken into consideration at a later stage. As seen on the Preliminary Master Servicing Plan, provided separately, a fire hydrant is proposed, however, it is not anticipated to be the sole source of water for fire protection. It is recommended to provide residential sprinkler systems per Pre Application Consultation comments dated March 23, 2021. 4. STORM SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT As shown on the Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 9407, dated June, 1994, provided in Appendix A, there is an existing storm sewer in the Union St. R.O.W. available to service the proposed subdivision. Through preliminary discussions with the municipality, it is proposed to use NextStorm’s EZStorm to detain stormwater runoff and release it at pre-development/allowable flows for 2-year through 100-year storm return periods. 4.1. Hydrologic Model Hydrologic modelling was performed using PCSWMM (version 5.1015), a widely accepted model for urban developments, to generate runoff hydrographs and route flows through the storage structures. www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 4 Based on the Municipality of Bayham intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100- year return periods are as follows: Return Period (Years) Parameters a b c 2 724.690 5.500 0.800 5 1330.310 7.938 0.855 10 1497.19 7.188 0.850 25 1455.000 5.000 0.820 50 1499.06 4.188 0.809 100 1499.53 3.297 0.794 Table 1: Municipality of Bayham IDF Curve 12-hour Chicago Storms were created for the 2-year through 100-year storm events using the IDF parameters provided in Table 1, and an r-value of 0.38 as per the MTO Drainage Manual Chapter 8. The borehole results from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by LDS dated May 14, 2021, indicate that the on-site soils are classified as Silt to Clayey Silt with a hydraulic conductivity of 4.5 mm/hr. Therefore, the hydrologic soil group C was used to determine the SCS curve numbers for the pervious and impervious areas used in the model. 4.2 Pre-Development Conditions Pre-development conditions were obtained from the Existing Catchment Area Plan prepared by SBM, provided separately. Under pre-development conditions, the approximately 1.81 ha subject lands are comprised mostly of existing open space, storm flows from the subject site are uncontrolled and drain to surrounding existing lands. Therefore, the C-value for the entire site was taken as 0.21 under pre-development conditions. Please refer to the SWM calculations provided in Appendix C. As shown on the Union Street Storm Sewer drawings provided in Appendix A (prepared by CJDL Consulting Engineers dated 1994), there is an existing 300mm diameter storm sewer in the Union Street R.O.W. A CCTV investigation was undertaken to verify the extent and condition of the sewer. As shown on the aerial sketch provided in Appendix A (provided by the CCTV company), the storm sewer only extends to just south of the intersection of Union Street and Chestnut Street. This termination point corresponds to the limit of “Form of Tender Part 1” noted on the 1994 drawing, which leads to the conclusion that Part 2 was not constructed. 4.3 Post-Development Conditions Based on Section 2.1.2 of the D&CS, the runoff coefficient to be used for semi-detached residential sources is 0.45-0.60, and 0.40-0.45 for single family sources. A runoff coefficient of 0.53 was calculated for the entire site. Since the post-development C-value of 0.53 exceeds the pre-development C-value of 0.21, SWM quantity controls are required to attenuate post-development flows from the 2-year through 100-year storm events to pre-development levels. Please refer to the SWM calculations provided in Appendix C. www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 5 4.4 Stormwater Management – Quantity Control 4.4.1 Pre-Development PCSWMM Output Under pre-development conditions, the site was divided into two (2) uncontrolled catchment areas (A101 & A102) with one (1) external catchment area (EX1) by existing topography as shown on the Existing Catchment Area Plan, Sheet C1, provided separately. Catchment A101 releases runoff overland at the north of the site towards the existing storm sewer. Catchment A102 releases runoff to the northwest towards existing lands. As shown on the PCSWMM Outputs, provided in Appendix C, the total pre-development uncontrolled flows leaving the site were calculated to be 14.45 L/s and 155.46 L/s for the 2-year and 100-year storm events, respectively. The pre-development parameters used in the pre-development PCSWMM model are summarized in Table 2 below. Please refer to the PCSWMM Layout, provided in Appendix C. Catchment Name Area (ha) C- value Length (m) Width (m) Slope (%) Imperv (%) N- Imperv N- Perv Dstore- Imperv (mm) Dstore Perv (mm) SCS No. A101 1.436 0.20 154.69 92.68 4 0 0.06 0.15 1.5 5 80 A102 0.376 0.20 117.62 31.95 3.5 0 0.06 0.15 1.5 5 80 EX1 0.095 0.50 90.87 10.4 4.5 42.86 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 Table 2: Pre-Development Sub-Catchment Parameters 4.4.2 Post-Development PCSWMM Output Two (2) underground storage systems are proposed as the SWM strategy for this site, with an orifice at the outlet pipes discharging to the existing Union St. storm sewer. Stormwater management modelling software was used to quantify post-development runoff volumes. These flows and volumes were used to verify that post-development flow rates do not exceed pre-development values for all outlets from the site. The post-development catchment parameters used to create the post-development PCSWMM models are summarized in Table 3 below. Catchment Name Area (ha) C- value Length (m) Width (m) Slope (%) Imperv (%) N- Imperv N- Perv Dstore- Imperv (mm) Dstore Perv (mm) SCS No. A201 1.418 0.55 277.73 51.05 3 50.42 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 A202 0.151 0.50 16.41 92.00 5 42.86 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 A203 0.330 0.45 78.54 41.99 2.8 35.71 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 U201 0.008 0.20 4.32 18.83 9 0 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 Table 3: Post-Development Sub-Catchment Parameters As shown on the PCSWMM Outputs, provided in Appendix C, the total flows being released to the existing storm sewers were calculated to be 14.33 L/s (Orifice #1 + Orifice #2) and 107.92 L/s (Orifice #1 + Orifice #2 + Orifice #3 + Orifice #4) for the 2-year and 100-year storm events, respectively. Since the post development flows leaving site are less than pre-development flows, it can be concluded that there is no increase in post-development flows leaving site through all outfalls for the 2-year through 100-year storm events. During construction, erosions and sediment controls shall be put in place to contain overland runoff. www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 6 It is proposed to provide underground storage using NextStorm’s EZStorm. EZStorm system #1 has an area of 230.40 m2 consisting of three (3) 0.66m tall layers of box units which results in a total storage of 437.94 m3. EZStorm system #2 has an area of 46.08 m2 consisting of two (2) 0.66m tall layers of box units which results in a total storage of 58.39 m3. The NextStorm EZStorm design package is provided in Appendix C. The proposed downstream orifice plates (Orifices #1 and #2) were sized to ensure a controlled release rate of equal to or less than 14.45 L/s, resulting in a 62mm diameter orifice plate to be installed at the outlet of STMH4 (elevation of 187.78 m) and a 52mm diameter orifice plate to be installed at the outlet of CBMH6 (elevation of 187.35 m). Since those are less than the minimum allowed under the MECP SWMPDM, a proprietary flow restriction device (such as IPEX Tempest Inlet Control Device) will be reviewed and included in the detailed design at a later stage. To discharge flows during the major storm events, a third 200mm orifice (Orifice #3) is proposed to be installed at the outlet of STMH4 (elevation of 189.50 m) and a fourth 150mm orifice (Orifice #4) is proposed to be installed at the outlet of CBMH6 (elevation of 187.95 m). 4.4.3 PCSWMM SWMF Summary Post-development flow rates from the site flowing through the proposed 62mm diameter orifice #1 (elevation = 187.78 m), the proposed 52mm diameter orifice #2 (elevation = 187.35 m), the proposed 200mm diameter orifice #3 (elevation = 189.50 m), and the proposed 150mm diameter orifice #4 (elevation = 187.95 m) were generated for the 2-year and 100-year design storms. The results are presented in Table 4 and Table 5 below. Storm Event Existing Peak Runoff (m3/s) Proposed Peak Discharge – Orifice #1(L/s) Proposed Peak Discharge – Orifice #2(L/s) Proposed Peak Discharge – Orifice #3(L/s) Proposed Peak Discharge – Orifice #4(L/s) Post- Development Uncontrolled Peak Runoff (L/s) [U201] Proposed Combined Peak Discharge (L/s) 2-yr 14.45 9.99 4.53 - - 0.24 14.33 100-yr 155.46 13.13 6.36 63.43 33.45 3.09 107.92 Table 4: PCSWMM Model Discharge Results Summary Storm Event EZStorm #1 Peak Attenuation (m3) EZStorm #1 Peak Storage Elevation (m) EZStorm #1 Peak Storage Depth (m) EZStorm #2 Peak Attenuation (m3) EZStorm #2 Peak Storage Elevation (m) EZStorm #2 Peak Storage Depth (m) 2-yr 201.0 189.13 0.87 21.0 187.92 0.45 100-yr 434.0 190.14 1.88 46.0 188.47 1.00 Table 5: PCSWMM Model Storage Results Summary The 2-year PCSWMM Post-Development Output (provided in Appendix C) shows that EZStorm #1 achieves a maximum of 46% full (201.0 m3) and EZstorm #2 achieves a maximum of 36% full (21.0 m3) with flows contained within the underground pipe network and proposed NextStorm EZStorm systems. A peak outflow of 14.33 L/s is generated through the downstream 62mm orifice and 52mm orifice, which is less than the allowable release rate of 14.45 L/s generated under pre-development conditions. The 100-year PCSWMM Post-Development Output (provided in Appendix C) shows that the EZStorm #1 achieves a maximum of 99% full (434.0 m3) and the EZStorm #2 achieves a maximum of 79% full (46.0 m3) with flows www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 7 contained within the underground pipe network and proposed NextStorm EZStorm systems. A peak outflow of 107.92 L/s is generated through the downstream 62mm orifice, 52mm orifice, 200mm orifice, and 150mm orifice which is less than the allowable release rate of 155.46 L/s generated under pre-development conditions. 4.5 Stormwater Management – Quality Control To address water quality for the site, it is proposed to install an oil grit separator (OGS) upstream of EZStorm #1 to treat the flows prior to entering the EZStorm system. The OGS will be specified based on flow and quality parameters determined during the detailed design stage. It is proposed to provide a Normal level of treatment (70% TSS removal). 4.6 Storm Servicing It is proposed that minor runoff (2-year storm) for the majority of the subdivision be conveyed to the proposed storm structures, i.e. storm maintenance holes (STMHs), and catch-basins (CBs), where minor flows will be collected and ultimately conveyed to the proposed NextStorm EZStorm systems. The post development minor and major flows (up to and including the 100-yr) will be collected and conveyed using storm sewers and controlled for quantity and quality prior to discharging to the existing storm sewer in the Union Street R.O.W at pre-development levels. While minor runoff from area U201 of the subdivision will be conveyed uncontrolled to the adjacent existing lands, generally matching pre-development conditions. Refer to the Preliminary Master Servicing Plan, sheet MS, provided separately. The Storm Sewer Design sheet, provided in Appendix D, shows that the proposed storm sewers at the proposed slopes and the existing downstream sewers have sufficient capacity for the proposed 2-year and 100-year restricted flow rates, 14.33 L/s and 107.92 L/s, respectively. 5. LIMITATIONS This Study was prepared by SBM for the Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin, and Countryside Communities Inc. Use of this study by any third party, or any reliance upon its findings, is solely the responsibility of that party. SBM accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made or actions undertaken as a result of this study. Third party use of this study, without the express written consent of the Consultant, denies any claims, whether in contract, tort, and/or any other cause of action in law, against the Consultant. All findings and conclusions presented in this Study are based on site conditions as they appeared during the period of the investigation. This study is not intended to be exhaustive in scope, or to imply a risk-free facility. It should be recognized that the passage of time may alter the designs, opinions, conclusions, and/or recommendations provided herein. The design was limited to the documents referenced herein and on SBM’s drawings provided separately. SBM accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided by others. All designs, opinions, conclusions, and/or recommendations presented in this Study are based on the information available at the time of the review. This document is deemed to be the intellectual property of SBM in accordance with Canadian copyright law. www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 8 6. CLOSURE We trust this Study meets your satisfaction and current needs. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical Ben Hyland, P.Eng., PMP Cloe Maw, EIT Civil Team Lead, Eng. IV Civil Project Coordinator, Engineering Trainee II Associate I List of Appendices Appendix A: Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 15 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 16 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 17 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 1 dated June, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 2 dated June, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Union Street Storm Sewer Design Sheet dated June 17, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Storm Tributary Areas dated June, 1994 Vienna CCTV Sketch Topographical Sketch by Callon Dietz Inc. dated August 29, 2022 Appendix B: Sanitary Sewer Design Sheet Appendix C: SWM Calculations Pre-Development (2-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Pre-Development (100-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Post-Development (2-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Post-Development (100-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output NextStorm EZStorm Design Package Appendix D: Storm Sewer Design Sheet Oct 30, 2024 SBM-21-4480 www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. APPENDIX A Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 15 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 16 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 17 dated May 17, 2000 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 1 dated June, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing No. 2 dated June, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Union Street Storm Sewer Design Sheet dated June 17, 1994 Municipality of Bayham Storm Tributary Areas dated June, 1994 Vienna CCTV Sketch Topographical Sketch by Callon Dietz Inc. dated August 29, 2022 subject site is down here subject site SUBJECT SITE SBM: AS PER CCTV UNDERTAKEN IN 2021, TEMPORARY PLUG IS STILL PRESENT. SUBJECT SITE 9.96 m 79.00 m ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 25 . 5 0 m ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 160.00 m ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 78.00 m ST ST ST Pipe diameter changes from 300m (MH) to 200m (CB) at the bend. All other measured storm pipes are 300m PVC -All horizontal measurements are taken from centre of MH on this sketch and are approximate -All Vertical measurements are approximate and not 100% accurate. Taken from Sonde in the pipe. Pipe flows out to creek. Unable to obtain invert information due to safety risk. Outflow was visible from top of bank Storm pipe capped approximately 160m from Centre of MH. LEGEND HW - Catch Basin - Maintenance Hole - Pedestal - Flush To Grade - Transformer - Pole - Light Standard - Handwell - Valve - Fire Hydrant Filled with debris, unable to obtain measurements. 20 0 m m 30 0 m m 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm Photo Pg 2 & 3 Photo Pg 4 & 5 Photo Pg 6 Photo Pg 7 Depth = ~2.6m Depth = ~2.2m Depth = ~2.3m Pipe Outlet is Here Pipe Outlet Direction of Flow to creek Approximate MH Location www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. APPENDIX B Sanitary Sewer Design Sheet Date: Job Number: Residential Population Densities Client: Area Basis Design Critera (Litres/capita/day)365 Project: Low Density (Single Family/Semi-Detached)= 30 Units/hectare @ 3 people/unit Sewage Infiltration (Litres/hectare/day)8640 Designed By: Harmon Formula (Peaking Factor)Reviewed By: M = (1 + 14/(4+P^0.5))Project File No.: Uncertain Development Factor of 1.0 applied to sewage peak flow Area No. Street Name From MH To MH Delta Hectare Total Hectare People Per Lot No. of Lots Delta Pop. Total Pop. Harmon Peaking Factor* Infilt L/S Sewage L/S Total L/S n Pipe Slope % Calc'd Dia. mm Dia. mm Capacity L/S Velocity m/s Length m Fall in Sewer Headloss Drop in U.S. MH U.S. Invert D.S. Invert PERCENT FULL SA1 EX. SAMH EX. SAMH 0.34 0.34 5 8 40 40 4.0000 0.03 0.68 0.71 0.013 3.93%36.76 200 65.06 2.07 115.2 4.53 --195.54 191.01 1.09% SA2 SAMH1 SAMH2 0.32 0.32 3 3 9 9 4.0000 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.013 0.71%30.54 200 27.65 0.88 35.2 0.25 0.00791 -189.90 189.65 0.67% SA3 SAMH2 SAMH3 0.06 0.38 3 1 3 12 4.0000 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.013 0.70%33.86 200 27.46 0.87 54.4 0.38 0.00000 0.03 189.62 189.24 0.88% SA4 SAMH4 SAMH3 0.92 1.30 3 6 18 30 4.0000 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.013 0.60%50.20 200 25.42 0.81 31.8 0.19 0.03341 -188.82 188.63 2.51% SAMH3 SAMH5 -1.30 30 4.0000 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.013 2.23%39.25 200 49.01 1.56 58.3 1.30 0.12416 0.03 188.60 187.30 1.30% SAMH5 EX. SAMH2277 -1.30 30 4.0000 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.013 4.53%34.36 200 69.85 2.22 102.9 4.66 0.00000 0.50 186.80 182.14 0.91% *As per the Municipality of Bayham D&CS, the maximum peaking factor is 4. October 30, 2024 SBM-21-4480 Countryside Communities Sanitary Sewer Design Sheet Municipality of Bayham Countryside Communities Subdivision Location Area Sewer design CMa BH SBM-21-4480 Profile DesignSewage Flows www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. APPENDIX C SWM Calculations Pre-Development (2-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Pre-Development (100-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Post-Development (2-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output Post-Development (100-year) PCSWMM Layout & Output NextStorm EZStorm Design Package SWM Calculations DATE: October 29, 2024 JOB No.: SBM-21-4480 Client: Project: Location: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS A B C 2 724.690 5.500 0.8000 5 1330.310 7.938 0.8550 10 1497.190 7.188 0.8500 25 1455.000 5.000 0.8200 50 1499.060 4.188 0.8090 100 1499.530 3.297 0.7940 *Intensity i=A/(t+B)^C (mm/hr) Post development flows to be kept at 2-100-year pre development levels PRE-DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR ENTIRE SITE Area (m2)C A*C A101 14364.49 0.2 2872.898 A102 3756.10 0.2 751.22 EX1 945.00 0.5 472.5 Total Site Area: 19065.59 4096.618 Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) =0.21 Calculated POST-DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR ENTIRE SITE SAMPLE RUNOFF CO-EFFICIENT CALCULATIONS (SEMI-DETACHED)SAMPLE RUNOFF CO-EFFICIENT CALCULATIONS (COUNTRYSIDE PLACE) Area (m2)C A*C A201 14176.77 0.55 7839.0075 Lot 3 Sample Calculation Area (m2) C A*C C-value Calculation Area (m2) C A*C A202 1509.88 0.50 754.94 Total 757.1 Total 3796.4 A203 3297.57 0.45 1483.9065 Building (40% lot coverage), Driveway 343.77 0.9 309.393 Asphalt/Concrete 2443.37 0.9 2199.033 U201 81.37 0.20 16.274 Grass 413.33 0.2 82.666 Grass 1353.04 0.2 270.608 Total Site Area: 19065.59 10094.128 Total 757.1 392.1 Total 3796.4 2469.6 Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) = 0.53 Calculated Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) = 0.52 calculated Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) = 0.65 calculated 0.55 used for design 0.65 used for design SAMPLE RUNOFF CO-EFFICIENT CALCULATIONS (SINGLE FAMILY - A201)SAMPLE RUNOFF CO-EFFICIENT CALCULATIONS (SINGLE FAMILY - A203) Lot 5 Sample Calculation Area (m2) C A*C Lot 12 Sample Calculation Area (m2) C A*C Total 871.48 Total 560.95 Building (35% lot coverage), Driveway 368.14 0.9 331.3242 Building (35% lot coverage) 196.33 0.9 176.69925 Grass 503.34 0.2 100.6684 Grass 364.62 0.2 72.9235 Total 871.48 432.0 Total 560.95 249.6 Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) = 0.50 calculated Ceq = Σ(A*C)/Σ(A) = 0.45 calculated 0.50 used for design 0.45 used for design Total Area (m2) Total Area (ha) Land Use 1 Land Use 2 Weighted C Value(4) Flow Length (m)Width (m) % Slope % Impervious (2)N- Imperv (2) N- Perv (3) Dstore - Imperv (3) Dstore- PervRunoff Coefficient Runoff Coefficient (mm) (mm) 0.20 0.50 A101 14364.490 1.436 14364.490 0.20 155 93 4 0.00 0.060 0.15 1.5 5 80 A102 3756.100 0.376 3756.100 0.20 118 32 3.5 0.00 0.060 0.15 1.5 5 80 EX1 945.000 0.095 945.000 0.50 91 10 4.5 42.86 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 Total Area (m2) Total Area (ha) Land Use 1 Land Use 2 Land Use 3 Land Use 4 Land Use 5 Width (m) % Slope % Impervious (2)N- Imperv (2) N- Perv (3) Dstore - Imperv (3) Dstore- PervRunoff Coefficient Runoff Coefficient Runoff CoefficientRunoff Coefficient Runoff Coefficient (mm) (mm)0.20 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.65 A201 14176.770 1.418 6757.140 3623.220 3796.410 0.55 278 51 3.0 50.42 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 A202 1509.880 0.151 1509.880 0.50 16 92 5.0 42.86 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 A203 3297.570 0.330 3297.570 0.45 79 42 2.8 35.71 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 U201 81.370 0.008 81.370 0.20 4 19 9.0 0.00 0.011 0.15 1.5 5 80 Average Hydrological Soil Group of D for the site (Communication from A&A Environmental Consultants dated 2021-08-04) (1) Values from A.4 of Storm Water Management Model User's Manual Version 5.1(2) Values from A.6 of Storm Water Management Model User's Manual Version 5.1 (3) Values based on calculated depth of storage media x void ratio for 19mm clear stone (0.4) (4) Sample Calculation to Convert from C to % Impervious:% Impervious = x C = x(0.9) + (1-x)0.2 (ie. weighted C value) therefore 0.7x = C - 0.2 x = (C-0.2)/0.7 Countryside Communities Countryside Communities Subdivision Vienna, Ontario Return Period (years) Reference: Municipality of Bayham Design and Construction Standards 2018 - Section 2.1.2 A,B,C Parameters (1) SCS Curve Numbers POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Pre-Development Catchment Area Post-Development Catchment Area Flow Length (m)Weighted C Value TABLE 2: POST-DEVELOPMENT SUBCATCHMENT PARAMETERS TABLE 1: PRE-DEVELOPMENT SUBCATCHMENT PARAMETERS (1) SCS Curve Numbers Pre-Development PCSWMM Model Layout (2-Year) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 12 Number of subcatchments ... 3 Number of nodes ........... 4 Number of links ........... 1 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bayham_100yr Bayham_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_10yr Bayham_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_25yr Bayham_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_2yr Bayham_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_50yr Bayham_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_5yr Bayham_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_100yr London_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_10yr London_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_25yr London_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_2yr London_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_50yr London_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_5yr London_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. [TIMESERIES] ;Chicago design storm, a = 724.69, b = 5.5, c = 0.8, Duration = 180 minutes, r = 0.38, rain units = mm/hr. Bayham_2yr 0:00 2.568 Bayham_2yr 0:05 2.754 Bayham_2yr 0:10 2.972 Bayham_2yr 0:15 3.233 Bayham_2yr 0:20 3.55 Bayham_2yr 0:25 3.944 Bayham_2yr 0:30 4.449 Bayham_2yr 0:35 5.12 Bayham_2yr 0:40 6.057 Bayham_2yr 0:45 7.457 Bayham_2yr 0:50 9.781 Bayham_2yr 0:55 14.378 Bayham_2yr 1:00 27.451 Bayham_2yr 1:05 110.459 Bayham_2yr 1:10 51.074 Bayham_2yr 1:15 28.01 Bayham_2yr 1:20 17.995 Bayham_2yr 1:25 13.226 Bayham_2yr 1:30 10.47 Bayham_2yr 1:35 8.684 Bayham_2yr 1:40 7.434 Bayham_2yr 1:45 6.512 Bayham_2yr 1:50 5.804 Bayham_2yr 1:55 5.243 Bayham_2yr 2:00 4.787 Bayham_2yr 2:05 4.409 Bayham_2yr 2:10 4.09 Bayham_2yr 2:15 3.818 Bayham_2yr 2:20 3.582 Bayham_2yr 2:25 3.376 Bayham_2yr 2:30 3.195 Bayham_2yr 2:35 3.034 Bayham_2yr 2:40 2.889 Bayham_2yr 2:45 2.759 Bayham_2yr 2:50 2.642 Bayham_2yr 2:55 2.535 Bayham_2yr 3:00 0 ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A101 1.44 92.86 0.00 4.0000 Bayham_2yr OF1 A102 0.38 31.95 0.00 3.5000 Bayham_2yr OF2 EX1 0.09 10.40 42.86 4.5000 Bayham_2yr A102 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.0 OF1 OUTFALL 190.00 0.00 0.0 OF2 OUTFALL 192.00 0.00 0.0 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 5.00 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OR NULL_STORAGE NULL_OF ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... LPS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Surcharge Method ......... EXTRAN Starting Date ............ 05/27/2022 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 05/28/2022 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 5.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001524 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 0.064 33.312 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.051 26.991 Surface Runoff ........... 0.010 5.086 Final Storage ............ 0.002 1.249 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.046 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.010 0.097 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.010 0.097 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** None ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 4.50 sec Average Time Step : 5.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 Time Step Frequencies : 5.000 - 3.155 sec : 100.00 % 3.155 - 1.991 sec : 0.00 % 1.991 - 1.256 sec : 0.00 % 1.256 - 0.792 sec : 0.00 % 0.792 - 0.500 sec : 0.00 % *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr LPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ A101 33.31 0.00 0.00 27.59 0.00 4.47 4.47 0.06 9.47 0.134 A102 33.31 4.28 0.00 27.68 0.00 8.73 8.73 0.03 5.38 0.232 EX1 33.31 0.00 0.00 15.19 13.87 3.14 17.00 0.02 12.34 0.510 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 190.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 192.00 0 00:00 0.00 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type LPS LPS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr OF1 OUTFALL 9.47 9.47 0 02:10 0.0642 0.0642 0.000 OF2 OUTFALL 5.38 5.38 0 01:45 0.0328 0.0328 0.000 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min LPS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_STORAGE 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 00:00 0.00 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt LPS LPS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 OF1 14.83 5.01 9.47 0.064 OF2 14.65 2.59 5.38 0.033 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 9.83 7.60 14.45 0.097 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type LPS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OR ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Thu Oct 10 10:56:33 2024 Analysis ended on: Thu Oct 10 10:56:33 2024 Pre-Development Hydrographs (2-Year) Pre-Development PCSWMM Model Layout (100-Year) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 12 Number of subcatchments ... 3 Number of nodes ........... 4 Number of links ........... 1 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bayham_100yr Bayham_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_10yr Bayham_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_25yr Bayham_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_2yr Bayham_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_50yr Bayham_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_5yr Bayham_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_100yr London_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_10yr London_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_25yr London_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_2yr London_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_50yr London_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. London_5yr London_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ;Chicago design storm, a = 1499.53, b = 3.297, c = 0.794, Duration = 180 minutes, r = 0.38, rain units = mm/hr. Bayham_100yr 0:00 5.443 Bayham_100yr 0:05 5.819 Bayham_100yr 0:10 6.26 Bayham_100yr 0:15 6.783 Bayham_100yr 0:20 7.415 Bayham_100yr 0:25 8.196 Bayham_100yr 0:30 9.189 Bayham_100yr 0:35 10.496 Bayham_100yr 0:40 12.303 Bayham_100yr 0:45 14.978 Bayham_100yr 0:50 19.377 Bayham_100yr 0:55 28.048 Bayham_100yr 1:00 53.584 Bayham_100yr 1:05 279.468 Bayham_100yr 1:10 104.358 Bayham_100yr 1:15 54.547 Bayham_100yr 1:20 34.915 Bayham_100yr 1:25 25.869 Bayham_100yr 1:30 20.677 Bayham_100yr 1:35 17.306 Bayham_100yr 1:40 14.937 Bayham_100yr 1:45 13.178 Bayham_100yr 1:50 11.818 Bayham_100yr 1:55 10.734 Bayham_100yr 2:00 9.848 Bayham_100yr 2:05 9.109 Bayham_100yr 2:10 8.483 Bayham_100yr 2:15 7.946 Bayham_100yr 2:20 7.479 Bayham_100yr 2:25 7.07 Bayham_100yr 2:30 6.707 Bayham_100yr 2:35 6.383 Bayham_100yr 2:40 6.093 Bayham_100yr 2:45 5.831 Bayham_100yr 2:50 5.592 Bayham_100yr 2:55 5.375 Bayham_100yr 3:00 0 ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A101 1.44 92.86 0.00 4.0000 Bayham_100yr OF1 A102 0.38 31.95 0.00 3.5000 Bayham_100yr OF2 EX1 0.09 10.40 42.86 4.5000 Bayham_100yr A102 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.0 OF1 OUTFALL 190.00 0.00 0.0 OF2 OUTFALL 192.00 0.00 0.0 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 5.00 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OR NULL_STORAGE NULL_OF ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... LPS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Surcharge Method ......... EXTRAN Starting Date ............ 05/27/2022 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 05/28/2022 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 5.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001524 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 0.137 71.801 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.075 39.318 Surface Runoff ........... 0.060 31.507 Final Storage ............ 0.002 1.238 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.364 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.060 0.601 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.060 0.601 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** None ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 4.50 sec Average Time Step : 5.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 Time Step Frequencies : 5.000 - 3.155 sec : 100.00 % 3.155 - 1.991 sec : 0.00 % 1.991 - 1.256 sec : 0.00 % 1.256 - 0.792 sec : 0.00 % 0.792 - 0.500 sec : 0.00 % *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr LPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ A101 71.80 0.00 0.00 40.23 0.00 30.55 30.55 0.44 107.37 0.425 A102 71.80 12.30 0.00 40.13 0.00 43.10 43.10 0.16 48.08 0.512 EX1 71.80 0.00 0.00 22.20 30.38 18.52 48.91 0.05 36.92 0.681 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 190.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF2 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 192.00 0 00:00 0.00 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type LPS LPS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr OF1 OUTFALL 107.37 107.37 0 01:20 0.439 0.439 0.000 OF2 OUTFALL 48.08 48.08 0 01:20 0.162 0.162 0.000 NULL_STORAGE STORAGE 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min LPS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_STORAGE 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 00:00 0.00 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt LPS LPS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 OF1 17.43 29.14 107.37 0.439 OF2 16.49 11.36 48.08 0.162 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 11.31 40.50 155.46 0.601 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type LPS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NULL_OR ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Thu Oct 10 11:03:59 2024 Analysis ended on: Thu Oct 10 11:03:59 2024 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Pre-Development Hydrographs (100-Year) Post-Development PCSWMM Model Layout (2-Year) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 6 Number of subcatchments ... 4 Number of nodes ........... 9 Number of links ........... 6 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bayham_100yr Bayham_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_10yr Bayham_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_25yr Bayham_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_2yr Bayham_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_50yr Bayham_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_5yr Bayham_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ;Chicago design storm, a = 724.69, b = 5.5, c = 0.8, Duration = 180 minutes, r = 0.38, rain units = mm/hr. Bayham_2yr 0:00 2.568 Bayham_2yr 0:05 2.754 Bayham_2yr 0:10 2.972 Bayham_2yr 0:15 3.233 Bayham_2yr 0:20 3.55 Bayham_2yr 0:25 3.944 Bayham_2yr 0:30 4.449 Bayham_2yr 0:35 5.12 Bayham_2yr 0:40 6.057 Bayham_2yr 0:45 7.457 Bayham_2yr 0:50 9.781 Bayham_2yr 0:55 14.378 Bayham_2yr 1:00 27.451 Bayham_2yr 1:05 110.459 Bayham_2yr 1:10 51.074 Bayham_2yr 1:15 28.01 Bayham_2yr 1:20 17.995 Bayham_2yr 1:25 13.226 Bayham_2yr 1:30 10.47 Bayham_2yr 1:35 8.684 Bayham_2yr 1:40 7.434 Bayham_2yr 1:45 6.512 Bayham_2yr 1:50 5.804 Bayham_2yr 1:55 5.243 Bayham_2yr 2:00 4.787 Bayham_2yr 2:05 4.409 Bayham_2yr 2:10 4.09 Bayham_2yr 2:15 3.818 Bayham_2yr 2:20 3.582 Bayham_2yr 2:25 3.376 Bayham_2yr 2:30 3.195 Bayham_2yr 2:35 3.034 Bayham_2yr 2:40 2.889 Bayham_2yr 2:45 2.759 Bayham_2yr 2:50 2.642 Bayham_2yr 2:55 2.535 Bayham_2yr 3:00 0 ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A201 1.42 51.05 50.42 3.0000 Bayham_2yr EZStorm1 A202 0.15 92.00 42.86 5.0000 Bayham_2yr A201 A203 0.33 41.99 35.71 2.8000 Bayham_2yr EZStorm2 U201 0.01 18.83 0.00 9.0000 Bayham_2yr OF5 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 187.35 2.44 0.0 STMH_4 JUNCTION 187.78 3.75 0.0 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 187.18 0.00 0.0 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 187.00 0.00 0.0 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 187.18 0.00 0.0 OF4(A203) OUTFALL 187.00 0.00 0.0 OF5 OUTFALL 192.00 0.00 0.0 EZStorm1 STORAGE 188.26 1.98 0.0 EZStorm2 STORAGE 187.47 1.32 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 EZStorm1 STMH_4 CONDUIT 8.5 0.9412 0.0130 EZStorm2-STMH6 EZStorm2 CBMH_6 CONDUIT 8.0 0.6250 0.0130 CBMH6-STMH7 CBMH_6 OF2(A203) ORIFICE OR1 CBMH_6 OF4(A203) ORIFICE STMH4-STMH5 STMH_4 OF1(A201) ORIFICE STMH4-STMH5(2) STMH_4 OF3(A201) ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CIRCULAR 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.30 1 93.82 EZStorm2-STMH6 CIRCULAR 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.30 1 76.45 [CONDUITS] ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EZStorm1-STMH4 EZStorm1 STMH_4 8.5 0.013 188.26 188.18 0 0 EZStorm2-STMH6 EZStorm2 CBMH_6 8 0.013 187.47 187.42 0 0 [ORIFICES] ;;Name From Node To Node Type Offset Qcoeff Gated CloseTime ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- CBMH6-STMH7 CBMH_6 OF2(A203) SIDE 187.35 0.65 NO 0 OR1 CBMH_6 OF4(A203) SIDE 187.95 0.65 NO 0 STMH4-STMH5 STMH_4 OF1(A201) SIDE 187.78 0.65 NO 0 STMH4-STMH5(2) STMH_4 OF3(A201) SIDE 189.5 0.65 NO 0 [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CIRCULAR 0.3 0 0 0 1 EZStorm2-STMH6 CIRCULAR 0.3 0 0 0 1 CBMH6-STMH7 CIRCULAR 0.052 0 0 0 OR1 CIRCULAR 0.3 0 0 0 STMH4-STMH5 CIRCULAR 0.062 0 0 0 STMH4-STMH5(2) CIRCULAR 0.25 0 0 0 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... LPS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Surcharge Method ......... EXTRAN Starting Date ............ 06/28/2022 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 06/29/2022 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 5.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001524 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 0.064 33.312 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.028 14.499 Surface Runoff ........... 0.034 17.776 Final Storage ............ 0.002 1.189 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.454 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.034 0.339 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.034 0.338 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.001 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link EZStorm1-STMH4 (12.21%) Link EZStorm2-STMH6 (4.50%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.36 sec Average Time Step : 4.72 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.02 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 Time Step Frequencies : 5.000 - 3.155 sec : 92.67 % 3.155 - 1.991 sec : 5.55 % 1.991 - 1.256 sec : 1.13 % 1.256 - 0.792 sec : 0.49 % 0.792 - 0.500 sec : 0.16 % *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr LPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- A201 33.31 1.85 0.00 13.77 17.33 3.05 20.38 0.29 188.88 0.580 A202 33.31 0.00 0.00 14.83 13.82 3.55 17.37 0.03 19.86 0.521 A203 33.31 0.00 0.00 17.21 11.55 3.44 14.99 0.05 35.94 0.450 U201 33.31 0.00 0.00 25.77 0.00 6.44 6.44 0.00 0.24 0.193 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 0.07 0.57 187.92 0 01:47 0.57 STMH_4 JUNCTION 0.41 1.35 189.13 0 03:01 1.35 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.18 0 00:00 0.00 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.18 0 00:00 0.00 OF4(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF5 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 192.00 0 00:00 0.00 EZStorm1 STORAGE 0.21 0.87 189.13 0 03:01 0.87 EZStorm2 STORAGE 0.05 0.45 187.92 0 01:47 0.45 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type LPS LPS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 0.00 10.15 0 01:11 0 0.0495 0.041 STMH_4 JUNCTION 0.00 20.51 0 01:05 0 0.289 0.024 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 9.99 0 03:01 0 0.288 0.000 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 4.53 0 01:47 0 0.0494 0.000 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr OF4(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 ltr OF5 OUTFALL 0.24 0.24 0 01:20 0.000524 0.000524 0.000 EZStorm1 STORAGE 188.88 188.88 0 01:10 0.289 0.289 -0.032 EZStorm2 STORAGE 35.94 36.53 0 01:10 0.0494 0.0495 -0.032 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min LPS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1 0.048 11 0 0 0.201 44 0 03:01 20.51 EZStorm2 0.002 4 0 0 0.021 34 0 01:47 10.15 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt LPS LPS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- OF1(A201) 74.14 4.84 9.99 0.288 OF2(A203) 24.11 2.50 4.53 0.049 OF3(A201) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 OF4(A203) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 OF5 7.21 0.08 0.24 0.001 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 21.09 7.42 14.33 0.338 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type LPS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CONDUIT 20.51 0 01:05 0.79 0.22 1.00 EZStorm2-STMH6 CONDUIT 10.15 0 01:11 0.46 0.13 1.00 CBMH6-STMH7 ORIFICE 4.53 0 01:47 1.00 OR1 ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 STMH4-STMH5 ORIFICE 9.99 0 03:01 1.00 STMH4-STMH5(2) ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.01 0.00 EZStorm2-STMH6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.01 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 6.46 6.46 7.20 0.01 0.01 EZStorm2-STMH6 1.93 1.93 2.17 0.01 0.01 Analysis begun on: Tue Oct 29 11:58:54 2024 Analysis ended on: Tue Oct 29 11:58:54 2024 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Post-Development Hydrographs (2-Year) Post-Development PCSWMM Model Layout (100-Year) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 6 Number of subcatchments ... 4 Number of nodes ........... 9 Number of links ........... 6 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bayham_100yr Bayham_100yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_10yr Bayham_10yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_25yr Bayham_25yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_2yr Bayham_2yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_50yr Bayham_50yr INTENSITY 5 min. Bayham_5yr Bayham_5yr INTENSITY 5 min. [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ;Chicago design storm, a = 1499.53, b = 3.297, c = 0.794, Duration = 180 minutes, r = 0.38, rain units = mm/hr. Bayham_100yr 0:00 5.443 Bayham_100yr 0:05 5.819 Bayham_100yr 0:10 6.26 Bayham_100yr 0:15 6.783 Bayham_100yr 0:20 7.415 Bayham_100yr 0:25 8.196 Bayham_100yr 0:30 9.189 Bayham_100yr 0:35 10.496 Bayham_100yr 0:40 12.303 Bayham_100yr 0:45 14.978 Bayham_100yr 0:50 19.377 Bayham_100yr 0:55 28.048 Bayham_100yr 1:00 53.584 Bayham_100yr 1:05 279.468 Bayham_100yr 1:10 104.358 Bayham_100yr 1:15 54.547 Bayham_100yr 1:20 34.915 Bayham_100yr 1:25 25.869 Bayham_100yr 1:30 20.677 Bayham_100yr 1:35 17.306 Bayham_100yr 1:40 14.937 Bayham_100yr 1:45 13.178 Bayham_100yr 1:50 11.818 Bayham_100yr 1:55 10.734 Bayham_100yr 2:00 9.848 Bayham_100yr 2:05 9.109 Bayham_100yr 2:10 8.483 Bayham_100yr 2:15 7.946 Bayham_100yr 2:20 7.479 Bayham_100yr 2:25 7.07 Bayham_100yr 2:30 6.707 Bayham_100yr 2:35 6.383 Bayham_100yr 2:40 6.093 Bayham_100yr 2:45 5.831 Bayham_100yr 2:50 5.592 Bayham_100yr 2:55 5.375 Bayham_100yr 3:00 0 ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A201 1.42 51.05 50.42 3.0000 Bayham_100yr EZStorm1 A202 0.15 92.00 42.86 5.0000 Bayham_100yr A201 A203 0.33 41.99 35.71 2.8000 Bayham_100yr EZStorm2 U201 0.01 18.83 0.00 9.0000 Bayham_100yr OF5 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 187.35 2.44 0.0 STMH_4 JUNCTION 187.78 3.75 0.0 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 187.18 0.00 0.0 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 187.00 0.00 0.0 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 187.18 0.00 0.0 OF4(A203) OUTFALL 187.00 0.00 0.0 OF5 OUTFALL 192.00 0.00 0.0 EZStorm1 STORAGE 188.26 1.98 0.0 EZStorm2 STORAGE 187.47 1.32 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 EZStorm1 STMH_4 CONDUIT 8.5 0.9412 0.0130 EZStorm2-STMH6 EZStorm2 CBMH_6 CONDUIT 8.0 0.6250 0.0130 CBMH6-STMH7 CBMH_6 OF2(A203) ORIFICE OR1 CBMH_6 OF4(A203) ORIFICE STMH4-STMH5 STMH_4 OF1(A201) ORIFICE STMH4-STMH5(2) STMH_4 OF3(A201) ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CIRCULAR 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.30 1 93.82 EZStorm2-STMH6 CIRCULAR 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.30 1 76.45 [CONDUITS] ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EZStorm1-STMH4 EZStorm1 STMH_4 8.5 0.013 188.26 188.18 0 0 EZStorm2-STMH6 EZStorm2 CBMH_6 8 0.013 187.47 187.42 0 0 [ORIFICES] ;;Name From Node To Node Type Offset Qcoeff Gated CloseTime ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- CBMH6-STMH7 CBMH_6 OF2(A203) SIDE 187.35 0.65 NO 0 OR1 CBMH_6 OF4(A203) SIDE 187.95 0.65 NO 0 STMH4-STMH5 STMH_4 OF1(A201) SIDE 187.78 0.65 NO 0 STMH4-STMH5(2) STMH_4 OF3(A201) SIDE 189.5 0.65 NO 0 [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CIRCULAR 0.3 0 0 0 1 EZStorm2-STMH6 CIRCULAR 0.3 0 0 0 1 CBMH6-STMH7 CIRCULAR 0.052 0 0 0 OR1 CIRCULAR 0.15 0 0 0 STMH4-STMH5 CIRCULAR 0.062 0 0 0 STMH4-STMH5(2) CIRCULAR 0.2 0 0 0 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... LPS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Surcharge Method ......... EXTRAN Starting Date ............ 06/28/2022 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 06/29/2022 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 5.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001524 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 0.137 71.801 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.040 21.114 Surface Runoff ........... 0.096 50.132 Final Storage ............ 0.002 1.166 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.850 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.096 0.957 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.096 0.956 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.001 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.038 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link EZStorm1-STMH4 (13.11%) Link EZStorm2-STMH6 (4.05%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.60 sec Average Time Step : 4.72 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : -0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.03 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 Time Step Frequencies : 5.000 - 3.155 sec : 92.87 % 3.155 - 1.991 sec : 5.43 % 1.991 - 1.256 sec : 1.03 % 1.256 - 0.792 sec : 0.49 % 0.792 - 0.500 sec : 0.17 % *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr LPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- A201 71.80 5.34 0.00 20.04 38.79 17.74 56.53 0.80 551.69 0.733 A202 71.80 0.00 0.00 21.69 30.32 19.85 50.17 0.08 76.61 0.699 A203 71.80 0.00 0.00 25.04 25.31 20.65 45.96 0.15 109.49 0.640 U201 71.80 0.00 0.00 37.76 0.00 35.25 35.25 0.00 3.09 0.491 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 0.10 1.11 188.46 0 01:21 1.11 STMH_4 JUNCTION 0.68 2.31 190.09 0 01:46 2.31 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.18 0 00:00 0.00 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.18 0 00:00 0.00 OF4(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 187.00 0 00:00 0.00 OF5 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 192.00 0 00:00 0.00 EZStorm1 STORAGE 0.42 1.88 190.14 0 01:46 1.88 EZStorm2 STORAGE 0.08 1.00 188.47 0 01:21 1.00 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type LPS LPS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 0.00 39.83 0 01:21 0 0.152 -0.163 STMH_4 JUNCTION 0.00 76.56 0 01:46 0 0.802 -0.005 OF1(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 13.13 0 01:46 0 0.435 0.000 OF2(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 6.36 0 01:21 0 0.0691 0.000 OF3(A201) OUTFALL 0.00 63.43 0 01:46 0 0.366 0.000 OF4(A203) OUTFALL 0.00 33.45 0 01:21 0 0.0828 0.000 OF5 OUTFALL 3.09 3.09 0 01:10 0.00287 0.00287 0.000 EZStorm1 STORAGE 551.69 551.69 0 01:10 0.802 0.803 -0.010 EZStorm2 STORAGE 109.49 109.49 0 01:10 0.152 0.152 0.005 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Meters Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------- CBMH_6 JUNCTION 0.69 0.357 1.333 STMH_4 JUNCTION 1.80 0.392 1.438 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min LPS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1 0.097 21 0 0 0.434 95 0 01:46 76.56 EZStorm2 0.004 6 0 0 0.046 76 0 01:21 39.83 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt LPS LPS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- OF1(A201) 86.40 6.03 13.13 0.435 OF2(A203) 27.20 3.00 6.36 0.069 OF3(A201) 12.08 33.21 63.43 0.366 OF4(A203) 7.81 11.59 33.45 0.083 OF5 8.00 0.41 3.09 0.003 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 28.30 54.24 107.92 0.956 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type LPS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 CONDUIT 76.56 0 01:46 1.08 0.82 1.00 EZStorm2-STMH6 CONDUIT 39.83 0 01:21 0.56 0.52 1.00 CBMH6-STMH7 ORIFICE 6.36 0 01:21 1.00 OR1 ORIFICE 33.45 0 01:21 1.00 STMH4-STMH5 ORIFICE 13.13 0 01:46 1.00 STMH4-STMH5(2) ORIFICE 63.43 0 01:46 1.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.01 0.00 EZStorm2-STMH6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.01 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZStorm1-STMH4 9.54 9.54 10.30 0.01 0.01 EZStorm2-STMH6 2.72 2.72 2.91 0.01 0.01 Analysis begun on: Tue Oct 29 13:08:26 2024 Analysis ended on: Tue Oct 29 13:08:26 2024 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Post-Development PCSWMM Model Layout (100-Year) 647 278-7339 ppushkarna@brunet.cc 647 278-7339 CONTACTS SITE CONTACT TECNICAL SUPPORT PARTH PUSHKARNA PARTH PUSHKARNA SALES REPRESENTATIVE ppushkarna@brunet.cc 450 322-6260 info@nextstorm.caNEXTSTORM COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON · · · ™ · SCALE IMPLANTATION1 01 1:300 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E COVER BASIN-EZSTORM™ SCALE 1/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON INDEX PAGE COVER PAGE AND SYSTEM OVERLAY .......1 of 9 SYSTEM LAYOUT - PLAN AND PROFILE B1 ....... 2 of 9 VOLUME CALCULATION SHEET B1 ....... 3 of 9 STANDARD BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS B1 ........4 of 9 SYSTEM LAYOUT - PLAN AND PROFILE B2 ....... 5 of 9 VOLUME CALCULATION SHEET B2 ....... 6 of 9 STANDARD BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS B2 ........7 of 9 LIST OF MATERIALS .......8 of 9 ACCESSORIES .......9 of 9 A A A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E BASIN'S PLAN AND SECTION VIEW BASIN1-EZSTORM™-437.94M³ SCALE 2/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON SCALE SECTION A-A2 02 1:50 SCALE 3 LAYER PLAN VIEW1 02 1:300 LEGEND A B C EZSTORM™ SYSTEM ³ ™³ ³ Min. 191.240 - Max. 191.350 Finished ground pavement level. 190.240 Top of EZStorm blocks. 188.260 Top of bedding. 188.320 Bottom of excavation min. 189.660 Invert inlet. A ³ A EZStorm™ 188.26 Invert outlet. A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E VOLUME CALCULATION BASIN1-EZSTORM™-437.94M³ SCALE 3/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON Number of blocks (unit) Dimensions / blocks (m)Dimensions EZStorm (m) 3.0 0.66 1.98 24 0.80 19.20 15 0.80 12.00 230.4 0.0 437.9 188.30 191.24 437.9 Clear stone volume (m3)0.0 96%Void in Clear stone (%)40% System height (m)Storage volume (m3)Elevation (m)Notes 1.98 437.94 190.240 Top EZSTORM 1.88 416.49 190.143 1.79 395.03 190.046 1.69 373.58 189.949 1.59 352.12 189.852 1.50 330.67 189.755 1.40 309.66 189.660 Invert 1.30 287.76 189.561 1.20 266.31 189.464 1.11 244.85 189.367 1.01 223.40 189.270 0.91 201.94 189.173 0.82 180.49 189.076 0.72 159.03 188.979 0.62 137.58 188.882 0.53 116.12 188.785 0.43 94.67 188.688 0.33 73.21 188.591 0.23 51.76 188.494 0.14 30.30 188.397 0.04 8.85 188.300 0.00 0.00 188.260 Bottom EZSTORM Void in EZSTORM (%) Min finished ground level (m) EZSTORM volume (m3) Total storage volume (m3) Invert (m) EZSTORM area (m2) EZSTORM + Clear stone area (m2) Length Width Height SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Model EZSTORM system B1 188 189 189 190 190 191 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 EL E V A T I O N ( M ) STORAGE VOLUME (M3) Storage Volume vs Elevation SCALE TYPICAL SECTION1 04 1:30 ™ ™ ™ A B C SCALE DETAIL3 04 NOT AT SCALE A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E STANDARD BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS BASIN1-EZSTORM™-437.94M³ SCALE 4/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON LEGEND A B C EZStorm Load-bearing capacity 150 kPa «To be validated by design engineer» B A C A SCALE SECTION A-A2 05 1:50 SCALE 2 LAYER PLAN VIEW1 05 1:200 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E BASIN'S PLAN AND SECTION VIEW BASIN2-EZSTORM™-58.39M³ SCALE 5/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON LEGEND A B C EZSTORM™ SYSTEM ³ ™³ ³ Min. 189.790 - Max. 190.580 Finished ground level. 188.790 Top of EZStorm blocks. 187.470 Top of bedding. 187.370 Bottom of excavation min. 187.470 Invert inlet. A ™ ³ A EZStorm™ 187.470 Invert outlet. A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E VOLUME CALCULATION BASIN2-EZSTORM™-58.39M³ SCALE 6/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON Number of blocks (unit) Dimensions / blocks (m)Dimensions EZStorm (m) 2.0 0.66 1.32 24 0.80 19.20 3 0.80 2.40 46.1 0.0 58.4 187.51 189.79 58.4 Clear stone volume (m3)0.0 96%Void in Clear stone (%)40% System height (m)Storage volume (m3)Elevation (m)Notes 1.32 58.39 188.790 Top EZSTORM 1.26 55.56 188.726 1.19 52.73 188.662 1.13 49.90 188.598 1.06 47.07 188.534 1.00 44.24 188.470 0.94 41.41 188.406 0.87 38.57 188.342 0.81 35.74 188.278 0.74 32.91 188.214 0.68 30.08 188.150 0.62 27.25 188.086 0.55 24.42 188.022 0.49 21.59 187.958 0.42 18.76 187.894 0.36 15.93 187.830 0.30 13.09 187.766 0.23 10.26 187.702 0.17 7.43 187.638 0.10 4.60 187.574 0.04 1.77 187.510 0.00 0.00 187.470 Bottom EZSTORM Void in EZSTORM (%) Min finished ground level (m) EZSTORM volume (m3) Total storage volume (m3) Invert (m) EZSTORM area (m2) EZSTORM + Clear stone area (m2) Length Width Height SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Model EZSTORM system B2 187 188 188 188 188 188 189 189 189 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 EL E V A T I O N ( M ) STORAGE VOLUME (M3) Storage Volume vs Elevation SCALE TYPICAL SECTION1 07 1:30 ™ ™ ™ A B C SCALE DETAIL3 07 NOT AT SCALE A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E STANDARD BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS BASIN2-EZSTORM™-58.39M³ SCALE 7/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON LEGEND A B C A EZStorm B A C Load-bearing capacity 150 kPa «To be validated by design engineer» LEGEND ·ACCESSORIES not included in all projects ·Drawings for guidance only. For more details please refer to the DETAILS project plans A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E LIST OF MATERIALS BASIN-EZSTORM™ SCALE 8/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON CODE DE L'ARTICLE DESCRIPTION B1 B2 Total EZ-SHD EZStorm - half block 2 units/block (units)2160 288 2448 FL-EZSHD EZSTORM Sidewall grid (units)234 108 342 FL-EZSHD 1/2 EZSTORM Sidewall grid for half block (units)0 0 PR-EZSHD EZSTORM Cover plate 0 0 0 CONNECTEUR EZS-1 EZSTORM Single layer-connector (units)0 0 0 CONNECTEUR EZS-2 EZSTORM Multi layer-connector (units)1500 200 1700 R-P EZSTORM Pre-treatment row (0.8m / unit)0 EZSTORM adapters FC-200mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 200 mm PVC (units)0 0 0 FC-250mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 250 mm PVC (units)0 0 0 FC-300mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 300 mm PVC (units)8 1 9 FC-375mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 375 mm PVC (units)0 0 0 FC-450mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 450 mm PVC (units)0 0 0 FC-450mm-TBA EZSTORM Adapter 450 mm PCP (units)0 0 0 FC-525mm-PVC EZSTORM Adapter 525 mm PVC (units)0 0 0 FC-600mm-PEHD EZSTORM Adapter 600 mm HDPE (units)0 0 0 Inspection Chimney EZSTORM-ACCES EZSTORM half-elements with opening (units)0 0 0 PP-EZSTORM EZSTORM half-elements with positioning plate (units)0 0 0 PP-EZSTORM 1/2 EZSTORM Cover plate with positioning plate (units)0 0 0 REHAUSSE-PEHD-600 EZSTORM Extension Pipe - Chimney (units) - Ø 600mm - 1.5 m /unit 0 0 0 Dalle-répartition EZSTORM Support concrete ring (units)0 0 0 OPSD401.01ST Cast iron frame and cover (unit)0 0 0 OPSD401.01ST Catch bassin Frame and grates (units)0 0 0 Rectangulare concrete inspection manhole 1200mm x 1200mm R1212 EZSTORM regtangular inspection concrete manhole 0 0 0 EZ-225 EZSTORM Protection geotextile (226g/m2) - Rolls of 6 m x 100 m 2 1 3 EZ-450 EZSTORM Protection geotextile (450g/m2) -Rolls of 6 m x 100 m 0 0 0 EZ-LLDPE30 LLDPE 30 mils liner (m2)0 0 0 Clear Stone (by others) Quantity of 20 mm (3/4') clear stone required (m3) (by others)0 0 0 List of materials 0 0 0 LEGEND ·ACCESSORIES not included in all projects ·Drawings for guidance only. For more details please refer to the DETAILS project plans ™ ™ 1. EZSTORM™ Components and Accessories (According on each project) 4. EZSTORM™ Block and Inspection Chimney ™ 2. EZSTORM™ Block Standard Dimensions 5. sidewall Grid with Connection Opening 3.Connection Accessories Configuration 6. Concrete Manhole for Access and Connection (if required) 8. Pretreatment Row (if required)7. Infiltration Basin Typical 3D Section View EZSTORM™ Block EZSTORM™ Half-Block A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 N°.DATE BY A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL NOT FOR PRODUCTION REVISION B C D E ACCESSORIES BASIN-EZSTORM™ SCALE 9/09 240318-20 COUNTRY SIDES COMMUNITIES INC, LONDON, ON www.sbmltd.ca SBM-21-4480 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. APPENDIX D Storm Sewer Design Sheet STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FLOW Q = 2.78 x A x I x C PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, OPEN SPACE 0.15-0.35 PROJECT NAME: COUNTRYSIDE COMMUNITIES SUBDIVISION WHERE Q=PEAK FLOW IN LITRES PER SECOND (L / s)Date: SINGLE FAMILY 0.40-0.45 A=AREA IN HECTARES (Ha)Job Number: SEMI-DETACHED 0.45-0.60 C=RUNOFF COEFFICIENT Client: ROW HOUSING, TOWNHOUSES 0.50-0.70 I=RAINFALL INTENSITY (mm / hr)Project: RETURN PERIOD = 2 YEARS Designed By: Reviewed By: Project File No. Q AREA No. STREET FROM MANHOLE TO MANHOLE DELTA HECTARE TOTAL HECTARES C AxC TOTAL SECTION TOTAL LATERAL TOTAL SEWER TOTAL 2.78AxC SECTION ACCUM. INTENSITY mm/hr L / s PIPE SIZE mm n SLOPE % Q CAP l/s VELOCITY m / s LENGTH m TIME OF FLOW FALL IN SEWER HEADLOSS IN D.S. MH DROP IN MANHOLE U.S. D.S. A201 COUNTRYSIDE PLACE 1.42 1.42 0.55 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.78 2.17 0.0 15.0 64.7 140.2 A202 CHESTNUT STREET 0.15 1.57 0.50 0.08 0.78 0.00 0.86 2.38 0.0 15.0 64.7 153.8 STMH4 STMH5 1.57 0.86 0.00 0.86 2.38 0.0 15.0 64.7 10.0 375 0.013 0.89 165.4 1.50 67.8 0.75 0.603 0.084 0.00 187.78 187.18 6.0 - 1.000 STMH5 STMH7 1.57 0.86 0.00 0.86 2.38 0.8 15.8 62.8 10.0 375 0.013 0.65 141.4 1.28 53.3 0.69 0.346 0.000 0.03 187.15 186.80 7.1 - 0.000 A203 QUEEN STREET CBMH6 STMH7 0.33 0.33 0.45 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.41 0.0 15.0 64.7 4.5 300 0.013 2.29 146.3 2.07 15.3 0.12 0.350 0.000 0.00 187.35 187.00 3.1 - 0.000 EXT QUEEN STREET EX. CB1 TEE 0.57 0.57 0.40 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.64 0.0 20.0 54.3 34.7 300 0.013 0.43 63.4 0.90 2.4 0.04 0.010 0.000 0.000 188.26 186.73 54.7 - 0.000 UNION STREET STMH7 EX. MHB 2.47 0.23 1.00 1.23 3.43 0.7 20.7 53.2 48.5 450 0.013 0.42 184.8 1.16 38.3 0.55 0.161 0.000 0.250 186.75 186.59 26.2 136.3 0.000 EXT UNION STREET EX. MHC EX. MHB 2.18 2.18 0.40 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.87 2.43 0.0 20.7 53.2 129.0 300 0.013 4.00 193.4 2.74 162.3 0.99 6.492 0.000 - 193.21 186.72 66.7 - 0.000 UNION STREET EX. MHB EX. DIMHA 0.00 4.66 1.23 0.87 2.11 5.86 1.0 21.7 51.6 172.7 300 0.013 10.00 305.8 4.33 80.4 0.31 8.040 0.000 0.010 186.72 178.68 56.5 133.1 0.000 UNION STREET EX. DIMHA OTTER CREEK 0.32 4.98 0.40 0.13 2.11 0.00 2.24 6.22 0.3 22.0 51.1 189.7 300 0.013 10.00 305.8 4.33 24.0 0.09 2.400 0.000 0.000 178.68 176.28 62.0 116.1 0.000 REMAINING CAPACITY L/s October 30, 2024 SBM-21-4480 Countryside Communities Countryside Communities Subdivision CMa BH SBM-21-4480 *Maximum 2-year flow from orifice in PCSWMM Post-Development modelling taken as 9.99 L/s PERCENT FULL KL TIME ENTRY mm INVERT ELEVATION Municipality of Bayham Record Drawing Union Street Storm Sewer from Chestnut St. to Otter Creek dated June 1994 (Note: post-development areas removed from existing drainage areas where applicable) LOCATION AREA TOTAL (A x C) **Maximum 2-year flow from orifice in PCSWMM Post-Development modelling taken as 4.53 L/s RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 'C' VALUES THE FOLLOWING 'C' VALUES WILL APPLY WHEN DESIGNING STORM SEWERS: RAINFALL INTENSITY SEWER DESIGN PROFILE * ** * GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CHESTNUT STREET SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CHESTNUT STEET, VIENNA Submitted to: COUNTRYSIDE COMMUNITIES INC. LDS PROJECT NO. GE-00494 MAY 14, 2021 Distribution (via email): Mr. Cale Barnes, Countryside Communities Inc. – calebarns@gmail.com Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Qualifications of Assessor ............................................................................................................. 4 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 Site Description, Topography and Surface Drainage ................................................................... 6 2.2 LPRCA Generic Regulation .......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Source Water Protection Mapping ................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Review of Geological Mapping ...................................................................................................... 7 2.5 MECP Well Record Review .......................................................................................................... 8 3. SUMMARIZED CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 9 3.1 Field Program and Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Soil Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Soil Permeability.................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.3 Shallow Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................ 12 4. GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................13 4.1 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.1 Site Grading Activities ......................................................................................................... 13 4.1.2 Excess Soils Management Considerations ......................................................................... 14 4.2 Methane Abatement .................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control ....................................................................................... 16 4.3.1 Excavation Support ............................................................................................................ 17 4.3.2 Groundwater Control ........................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Building Design and Construction ............................................................................................... 18 4.4.1 Foundation Design .............................................................................................................. 18 4.4.2 Basement Construction ....................................................................................................... 19 4.4.3 Foundation Wall Backfill ...................................................................................................... 20 4.4.4 Concrete Recommendations ............................................................................................... 20 4.5 Site Services ............................................................................................................................... 20 4.6 Pavement Design ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.7 Curbs and Sidewalks .................................................................................................................. 22 4.8 Geotechnical Inspection and Testing .......................................................................................... 23 5. HYDROGEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION .............................................................................24 5.1 Hydrogeologic Setting ................................................................................................................. 24 5.2 Water Level and Groundwater Quantity Considerations ............................................................ 24 5.2.1 Construction Dewatering ..................................................................................................... 24 5.2.2 Local Water Supply Wells ................................................................................................... 25 5.3 Water Quality Considerations ..................................................................................................... 25 5.3.1 Potential Impact from Construction Equipment ................................................................... 25 5.3.2 Potential Impact from Uncontrolled Erosion / Sediment Discharge .................................... 26 5.3.3 Managing Stormwater Run-Off ........................................................................................... 27 5.3.4 Imported Fill Materials ......................................................................................................... 27 5.4 Low Impact Development Considerations .................................................................................. 28 6. CLOSING ........................................................................................................................29 Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 2 Appendices Appendix A – Drawings and Notes Drawing 1 – Concept Plan Drawing 2 – LPRCA Regulated Lands Drawing 3 – Source Water Protection Mapping Drawing 4 – Geological Mapping Drawing 5 – MECP Well Locations – All Wells Drawing 6 – Borehole Location Plan Drawing 7 – Engineered Fill Notes Appendix B – Borehole Logs & Laboratory Test Results Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 3 1. INTRODUCTION LDS Consultants Inc. (LDS) has been retained by Countryside Communities Inc. to conduct a Geotechnical Assessment for a proposed residential development. The subject lands are located on the north side of Chestnut Street, west of Oak Street, in the community of Vienna. A Key Plan showing the site location is provided on Figure 1, below. Figure 1: Key Plan It is understood that the proposed development may include the construction of two-storey town homes, as well as single family lots, with a local roadway accessing Chestnut Street to the south. The lots are expected to have full municipal servicing. A preliminary concept Plan is provided on Drawing 1, appended. The scope of work for the Geotechnical Investigation was outlined in LDS’ proposal (reference GE-00494, dated April 13, 2021). This report contains the findings of the Geotechnical Investigation. Authorization to complete this Investigation was received from Cale Barnes, on behalf of Countryside Communities Inc., on April 16, 2021. SITE Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 4 1.1 Terms of Reference This document has been prepared for the purposes of providing geotechnical comments and recommendations for the design and construction of a proposed residential development located north of Chestnut Street, west of Oak Street, in the community of Vienna. This report provides a summary of the borehole findings (documenting soil and groundwater conditions at the site). The report provides geotechnical comments and recommendations for the proposed residential development, including: site preparation (including the re-use of excavated materials as engineered fill, structural fill, and guidance for engineered fill placement), temporary excavations (including maximum slope inclinations to provide stable excavation side slopes in accordance with OHSA requirements), excavation support (shoring methods, (if required) and lateral earth pressures, groundwater control (including the need for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) or Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) submission for construction dewatering, foundation design (including soil bearing capacity, subgrade preparation, and potential settlements), basement construction (including lateral earth pressures, and provisions for shallow groundwater conditions, if encountered), site servicing (including the re-use of onsite soils in service trenches, pipe bedding, and trench backfill,) and pavement design (including pavement component thicknesses for local roads and reinstating service connections which extend into the municipal right-of-way). The report also provides preliminary information about the characterization of the hydrogeological setting for the site, including: characterization of the hydrologic and hydrogeological setting, a summary of MECP well records within 500 m of the site, a discussion of the potential effects on shallow groundwater at the site, as it relates to the proposed construction, and stormwater management considerations (including factored soil infiltration rates and a discussion of limitations which result from soil and/or shallow groundwater conditions) This report is provided on the basis of the terms noted above, and on the assumption that the design will follow applicable codes and standards. The site investigation and recommendations provided in this report follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario. The format and content of this report has been guided to address specific client needs. LDS has provided engineering guidelines for the geotechnical design and construction at the site. Laboratory testing, where applicable, follows ASTM or CSA Standards. 1.2 Qualifications of Assessor This assessment was prepared by Mrs. Rebecca Walker, P. Eng., QP, who has been thoroughly trained in conducting geotechnical and hydrogeological assessments. Mrs. Walker is a licensed professional engineer in the Province of Ontario. She obtained a Bachelor of Applied Science in Geological Engineering from Queen’s University in 1998 and is a Qualified Person (QP) registered with MECP. She has been practicing geoscience services under the Guideline of Professional Engineers Providing Geotechnical Engineering Services under the Professional Engineers Act in Ontario. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 5 Mrs. Walker has over 20 years of direct experience in the geotechnical and hydrogeological consulting industry. Over 3,600 projects have been completed under her supervision. Mrs. Walker is also a recognized expert in the industry and has testified as an expert witness in Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly Ontario Municipal Board) hearings and Municipal Councils related to groundwater hydrogeology and geotechnical matters for land development and construction. She has been retained for many projects, both directly and indirectly (as a subconsultant) by local municipalities as a hydrogeological and geotechnical consultant. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 6 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 Site Description, Topography and Surface Drainage A review of aerial photographs dating from 2006 to current indicates that the site has remained vacant, with a mixture of trees and vegetation. The site is irregular in shape, and comprises an area of approximately 1.9 hectares. From a topographical perspective, the ground surface exhibits a gradual relief of 4 meters from south to north. Any minor surface flows which occur at the site under existing conditions, are generally expected to follow the topography of the site. The grade of Chestnut Street along the south side of the site is set slightly above the ground surface at the site, and it appears that stormwater run-off from the boulevard area sheet flows towards the site. The site is bordered by residential lands to the south and east, a woodlot to the west, and a vacant field to the north. No surface water features were observed onsite. Big Otter Creek is located 120 m north of the site, and conveys flows from north to south, towards Lake Erie. 2.2 LPRCA Generic Regulation In May 2006, Ontario Regulation 178/06 came into effect in the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) watershed, which locally implements the Generic Regulation (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses). This regulation replaces the former Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways regulations, and is intended to ensure public safety, prevent property damage and social disruption, due to natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Ontario Regulation 178/06 is implemented by the local Conservation Authority, by means of permit issuance for works in or near watercourses, valleys, wetlands, or shorelines, when required. Big Otter Creek is identified as being within the LPRCA Regulated area, and transects the community of Vienna to the north and east of the site. However, as shown on Drawing 2, the regulated area remains outside of the property limits, therefore no action from the property owner is required at this time. 2.3 Source Water Protection Mapping Where proposed developments are being planned, it is important to determine the presence of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and High Vulnerability Aquifers in the area. These areas are protected under the Clean Water Act (2006). In general, Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas are defined as areas where water seeps into an aquifer from rain and melting snow, supplying water to the underlying aquifer. A highly vulnerable aquifer occurs where the subsurface material offers limited protection from contamination resulting from surface activities. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 7 LDS has reviewed the MECP Source Water Protection Information to determine whether the site is located in any identified areas of source water concern, as they relate to local groundwater quality (current to January 10 2020). The property is located within the Long Point Source Protection Area, and the following observations are noted for the site: The Property is not located in any of the following designated areas listed in the MECP Source Protection mapping: o Wellhead Protection Area, Wellhead Protection Area E (GUDI), Wellhead Protection Area Q1 or Wellhead Protection Area Q2; o Intake Protection Zone or Intake Protection Zone Q; o Significant Groundwater Recharge Area; o Issue Contributing Area; and, o Event Based Area. The Property is located within a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer with a rating/score of 6, indicative of a high vulnerability rating. In general terms, a highly vulnerable aquifer occurs where the subsurface material offers limited protection from contamination resulting from surface activities. The susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination is a function of the susceptibility of its recharge area to the infiltration of contaminants. The pink overlay in Drawing 3 shows the subject property being within the identified Highly Vulnerable Aquifer zone. 2.4 Review of Geological Mapping Select geological mapping and publications were reviewed for the purposes of reviewing regional characteristics for soil conditions in the area of Vienna, Ontario. Findings are summarized below, for reference. Physiography & Quaternary Geology Physiographic mapping for Southwestern Ontario (Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 2007. Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 228), identifies that Vienna is located within the southerly extent of the Physiographic Region known as the Norfolk Sand Plain, and is contained within a broad sand plain, with soils expected to be predominantly comprised of sand and silty sand soils, which overlie silt and clay soils. Quaternary geology mapping for the Vienna area (Quaternary Geology, Ontario Geological Survey Map 1998, Port Burwell Area, Scale 1:50,000) indicates that the study area consists of glaciolacustrine clay deposits comprised of clay to silt and clay, transitioning to Port Stanley till deposits, comprised of clayey silt to silty clay, along the north boundary of the site. An excerpt from the aforementioned mapping is provided on Drawing 4, in Appendix A. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 8 Bedrock Geology Bedrock geology mapping for Southwestern Ontario (Ontario Geological Survey. 1:250 000 scale, Bedrock Geology of Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release Data 126, Revised 2006) indicates that bedrock in the general area consists of limestone, dolostone and shale from the Dundee Formation, from the Middle Devonian Period. Geological publications and well records in the area indicate that the bedrock surface is below 69-73 m of overburden soils in the vicinity of the site. Bedrock was not encountered during the fieldwork for this investigation. 2.5 MECP Well Record Review A review of local well records available through the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) for this area was carried out to review the water levels recorded in the nearby wells. Drawing 5 in Appendix A shows the location of the wells (with corresponding Well Registration No.) which are in close proximity (within 500 m) of the site. The well records are summarized below, for reference. Table 1 - MECP Well Record Summary MECP Well ID Registration Year Well Type Depth of Well (m) Depth Water Found (m) Static Water Level (m) Pump Rate (L/min) Water Supply Wells 2000959 10/31/1953 Public 74.7 74.7 24.4 NR 2000961 07/12/1956 Commercial 61.0 61.0 1.8 NR 2000962 03/19/1962 Domestic 6.1 4.0 2.4 11.4 2001590 05/22/1970 Domestic 13.7 3.7 3.7 11.4 Test Holes and Abandonment Records 7130784 08/27/2009 Test Hole 4.6 NR NR NR 7130785 08/27/2009 Test Hole 4.6 NR NR NR 7130786 08/25/2009 Test Hole 4.6 NR NR NR NR: Not recorded Two water supply wells noted in the records (located ~200 m west and ~300 m southeast of the site) are set in the shallow (<15 m depth) overburden aquifers, with reported static water levels of 2.4 and 3.7 m. The remaining water supply wells are set in the deep (>30 m depth) bedrock aquifer, with reported static water levels ranging between 1.8 and 24.4 m. The remaining well records are recorded as test holes, located ~500 m southeast of the site, proximal to Big Otter Creek. Test holes are recorded at relatively shallow depths within the well records, with described subgrade soils consisting of sand/sand and gravel overlying silt. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 9 3. SUMMARIZED CONDITIONS 3.1 Field Program and Laboratory Testing LDS field staff and the drilling contractor carried out a Safety Meeting prior to drilling at the site, which included a review of the underground utility locates were completed through Ontario-One-Call in preparation for the drilling program LDS carried out a field program consisting of a series of boreholes, drilled on April 22, 2021. The boreholes were advanced at the site by a local drilling-contractor, using a track-mounted drill-rig. Four boreholes (denoted as BH101 through BH104) were advanced to depths ranging from 5.0 m (16.5 feet) to 6.6 m (21.5 feet) below existing grade. The fieldwork was supervised by members of LDS’ technical staff. Ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed by LDS using a Trimble R10 GPS rover. The location of the boreholes is summarized below, and illustrated on Drawing 6, in Appendix A. Table 2 – Borehole Locations Location Northing, m N Easting, m E Ground Surface Elevation (m asl) BH101 4725826.80 516919.23 191.23 BH102 4725754.56 516937.73 192.93 BH103 4725746.15 516851.45 194.58 BH104 4725720.23 517025.94 191.46 The depth to groundwater seepage and short-term water level measurements were obtained prior to backfilling the boreholes. Boreholes were backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and cuttings, to restore holes back to level conditions with the ground surface. All samples recovered from the site were returned to LDS for detailed examination and selective testing. A grain size analysis was carried out on a sample of the predominant subgrade soils. Routine moisture content determinations were carried out on select samples and results are presented on the borehole logs provided in Appendix B. Collected soil samples will be disposed of, following the issuance of the Geotechnical Report, unless prior arrangements have been made for longer term storage. 3.1.1 Soil Conditions A series of four boreholes were advanced at the site to examine soil and shallow groundwater conditions. The borehole locations are shown on Drawing 6, appended. In general, soils observed in the boreholes consisted of topsoil overlying silt and clayey silt till. General descriptions of subsurface conditions are summarized in the following sections. Borehole logs are provided in Appendix B, for reference. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 10 It should be noted that boundaries of soil indicated in the borehole logs are inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations during drilling. These boundaries reflect transition zones for the purposes of geotechnical design and should not be interpreted as exact planes of geological change. Topsoil Each borehole was surfaced with a layer of topsoil. The topsoil consisted of brown silty loam, and the thickness generally ranging from 100 to 150 mm across the site. The topsoil was in a damp to moist state at the time of the fieldwork, based on visual and tactile examination. It should be noted that topsoil quantities noted above are based on information provided at the borehole locations only, and may vary in areas with existing vegetation and tree cover, and where tilling has occurred and mixed the topsoil with the underlying soil strata. If required, a more detailed analysis (involving additional shallow test pits) is recommended to accurately quantify the amount of topsoil to be removed for construction purposes. Silt A layer of silt was encountered underlying the topsoil in each borehole. The silt encountered near surface was described as mottled brown/grey and weathered, becoming grey with depth. The silt is described as containing trace to some sand, with a noted increase in the sand content with depth observed in Borehole BH101. A sample of the silt was submitted for gradation analyses, and the following table shows the grain size distribution. The results are also shown graphically in Appendix B. Table 3 - Gradation Summary, Silt The silt is in a variable very loose to compact state, based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values in the range of 3 to 23 blows per 0.3 m of split-spoon sampler penetration. Moisture content determinations conducted on recovered samples of the till generally range between 20.7 to 28.5 percent within the near surface weathered zone, and on the order of 17.0 to 22.6 percent below the weathered soils. Clayey Silt Till The deepest soil strata encountered underlying the silt in each borehole was a clayey silt till. Each borehole terminated within this layer. The till was described as grey in colour, and containing trace sand and trace fine gravel. The till is in a stiff state, based om SPT N-values in the range of 10 to 13 blows per 0.3 m of split-spoon sampler penetration. Moisture content determinations conducted on recovered samples of the till generally range between 18.3 to 24.3 percent, generally indicative of very moist soil conditions above the stabilized groundwater elevation. Sample ID Unified Soil Classification % Clay % Silt % Sand % Gravel BH104, Sample 3 – 2.1 m depth 18.0% 75.0% 7.0% 0.0% Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 11 3.1.2 Soil Permeability The hydraulic conductivity of a soil depends on a number of factors, including particle size distribution, degree of saturation, compactness, adsorbed water (which depends on clay content). The heterogeneous nature of glacial deposits can also contribute to variations in soil permeability where the soil composition may include localized areas with increased fine material or sandy material which can influence soil permeability at different points within the soil strata. Grain Size Analyses Based on the gradation results presented in Section 3.1.1, the following value for saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined using the Puckett method. Table 4 - Hydraulic Conductivity and Factored Infiltration Rates from Grain Size Analyses Sample ID Sample Composition Parameter %Clay % Silt % Sand % Gravel Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec) Factored Infiltration Rate mm/hr BH104, Sample 3 – 2.1 m depth 18.0% 75.0% 7.0% 0.0% 1.25 x10-6 20 The predominant silty soils encountered in the boreholes are expected to have a saturated hydraulic conductivity in the range of 10-6 m/s, based on the above results. This is consistent with published values for silt and clayey silt till soils. The above infiltration rates have been calculated using correlation from TRCA/CVC Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide protocol which references Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH). 1997. Supplementary Guidelines to the Ontario Building Code 1997. SG-6 Percolation Time and Soil Descriptions. Toronto, Ontario. A Factor of Safety of 2.5 has been applied, in accordance with TRCA/CVC Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide protocol. Onsite Verification During Construction A number of factors can influence the actual soil permeability and infiltration rate onsite during the site grading activities, including cut-fill activities, and the use of onsite or imported materials to achieve design grades. It is recommended that geotechnical inspection of materials which are used onsite and field testing during the construction phase of the project be carried out to confirm that infiltration rates which have been used for design purposes are appropriate to the actual site conditions. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 12 3.1.3 Shallow Groundwater Conditions Shallow groundwater was not encountered within the open boreholes during drilling. However, wet seams were documented in the collected soil sample. A review of moisture content determinations carried out on select samples from the boreholes correspond with infiltrated surface water contained within the near-surface highly weathered silt soils, or within intermittent and discontinuous wet seams. Shallow groundwater will vary in response to climatic or seasonal conditions, and, as such, may differ at the time of construction, with higher levels possible during mild weather conditions which create melting conditions, and during wet periods. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 13 4. GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION The proposed development may include the construction of two-storey townhouses, as well as single family lots, with a local roadway accessing Chestnut Street to the south. The lots are expected to have full municipal servicing. A concept plan (taken from the Concept Plan prepared by LDS Consultants) is provided on Drawing 1, appended. The boreholes generally revealed a layer of surficial topsoil which is underlain by silt and clayey silt till. Stabilized shallow groundwater was not encountered within the boreholes drilled across the site. The following sections of this report provide geotechnical comments and recommendations to assist with design and construction of the proposed residential development, including: site preparation (including the re-use of excavated materials as engineered fill, structural fill, and guidance for engineered fill placement), temporary excavations (including maximum slope inclinations to provide stable excavation side slopes in accordance with OHSA requirements), excavation support (shoring methods, (if required) and lateral earth pressures, groundwater control (including the need for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) or Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) submission for construction dewatering, foundation design (including soil bearing capacity, subgrade preparation, and potential settlements), basement construction (including lateral earth pressures, and provisions for shallow groundwater conditions, if encountered), site servicing (including the re-use of onsite soils in service trenches, pipe bedding, and trench backfill,) and pavement design (including pavement component thicknesses for local roads and reinstating service connections which extend into the municipal right-of-way). 4.1 Site Preparation 4.1.1 Site Grading Activities Based on existing site conditions, it is expected that some site grading activities will be required. Vegetation removal and topsoil stripping is anticipated throughout the area to be developed. In general, this is expected to require the removal of about 100 to 150 mm of surficial topsoil. Thicker topsoil areas may be present in proximity to existing wooded areas, and where local depressions are present at the site. Surficial topsoil may be stockpiled on site for possible re-use as landscaping fill. In the event that material is disposed of offsite, testing of the material for transport should conform to MECP Guidelines and requirements. Prior to placement of engineered fill or new building foundations, existing fill and topsoil, vegetation and otherwise deleterious materials should be removed. Once complete, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proof- rolled and inspected by geotechnical field staff from LDS. Any loose or soft zones noted during the inspection should be over excavated and replaced with approved fill. In areas which engineered fill is to be placed to raise grades, the exposed subgrade soils should be approved by the geotechnical consultant following topsoil stripping. In accordance with the Ontario Building Code (Section 4.2.4.15), foundations may be set on fill material provided that it can be demonstrated that the fill is capable of Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 14 safely supporting the building and that detrimental movement of the building will not occur. In this regard, it is recommended that any fill material placed in future building footprints be engineered and verified through an inspection and testing program. Engineered fill should consist of suitable, compactable, inorganic soils, which are free of topsoil, organics and miscellaneous debris. For best compaction results, the fill material should have a moisture content within about 3 percent of optimum, as determined by Standard Proctor testing. The placement of the engineered fill should be monitored by the geotechnical consultant to verify that suitable materials are used, and to confirm that suitable levels of compaction are achieved. The engineered fill material should be placed in maximum 300 mm (12 inch) thick lifts and uniformly compacted to 100 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Additional notes regarding engineered fill placement are provided in Appendix A. The existing natural subgrade soils, comprised of silt and clayey silt till, that are not mixed with obviously unsuitable material may be suitable for re-use as engineered fill. The possible re-use of onsite soils should be subject to review and approval by the geotechnical consultants. Fill material containing building debris and / or topsoil and organic inclusions is generally not expected to be suitable for re-use onsite, except where landscaping (non-structural) fill may be needed. Offsite disposal of these soils will require analytical testing, in accordance with MECP Guidelines and classification requirements for transport and disposal. The testing requirements for disposal will depend on the requirements outlined by the receiver. In the event that a water supply well is encountered, it should be decommissioned in accordance with the Regulations outlined in O.Reg. 903. This same regulation applies to the decommissioning of monitoring wells, when they are no longer required. 4.1.2 Excess Soils Management Considerations In December of 2019, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) released a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act, titled On-Site and Excess Soil Management to support improved management of excess construction soil. Due to Covid-19, the implementation of this regulation was delayed, however, as of January 1, 2021, the new Excess Soil Regulation (O. Reg. 406/19) is being phased in across Ontario. Excess soil is defined as material that was generated during construction activities at a Site but will not be needed onsite for grading, fill, or other purposes and therefore needs to be excavated and removed from the Site. The regulation requires a project leader (which in this case, would be the owner of the property) to comply with specific requirements before their contractor can remove excess soil from a project area. Generally, these requirements include: Preparation of an assessment of past uses; Preparation and implementation of a sampling and analysis plan Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 15 Preparation of a soil characterization report Preparation of an excess soil destination assessment report; and Development and implementation of a tracking system. Soil testing should reflect the highest concentration of contaminants of potential concern (as determined by the QP) on site. In order to adequately characterize the excess soil, the regulation prescribes a minimum number of samples to be collected, depending on soil volume excavated, as well as a minimum list of parameters to be analyzed for. The new requirements on number of samples and minimum sample parameters are summarized in the following tables. Table 5 - Minimum Number of Samples Volume Threshold Minimum number of samples for Bulk Soil Analysis Minimum number of samples of Leachate Analysis Small Volume Projects Volume Independent Projects ≤350 m3 ≥ 3 samples - - ≤350 m3 to <600 m3 - ≥ 3 samples ≥ 3 samples >600 m3 to <10,000 m3 ≥1 sample for each additional 200 m3 within threshold limits 3 samples + 10% of Bulk Soil samples collected >10,000 m3 to <40,000 m3 ≥1 sample for each additional 450 m3 within threshold limits >40,000 m3 ≥1 sample for each additional 2,000 m3 beyond threshold limit Table 6 - Minimum Analytical Requirements Minimum Parameters to be Analyzed Surface and Subsurface Soils Metals (including Hydrides) Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) F1 – F4 pH, EC, SAR Leachate Analysis See Note 1 Notes 1. Leachate analysis is conditional on contaminant of potential concern being identified by the QP, the volume of excess soil exceeding 350m3 and applicable standards It should also be pointed out that for Volume Independent Projects (<350 m3) additional Excess Soils Standards (which somewhat differ from the currently used O. Reg. 153/04 SCSs) were developed and need to be considered when moving materials from one Site to another. The above notes the minimum sampling requirements; based on past site uses the QP may require additional sample parameters to be added to the above listed. Furthermore, O. Reg. 406/19 may have other implications on proposed soil management activities (such as guidelines of receiving site and temporary soil storage sites) that are not noted above. The onus is on the Excess Soil Source Site to carry out environmental soil quality testing for the removal and transport of their excess soils. The Source Site is required to have a Qualified Person (QP) complete a Soil Characterization Report (SCR) summarizing the soil testing results, which can be provided to the Beneficial Re- Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 16 Use (receiver) Site for review to confirm the quality of materials which is being proposed to be imported to the site. There are significant efforts and costs associated with analytical testing of soils and preparation of the required documents, for which the Source Site may look to Beneficial Re-use Sites to share some of the cost. For sites which require imported fill (identified as Beneficial Re-Use Sites), a Qualified Person (QP) will need to be retained to prepare an Excess Soil Destination Assessment Report (ESDAR), which outlines the geotechnical requirements for beneficial reuse of imported materials onsite along with the environmental soil quality criteria (including the applicable O.Reg. 153/04 Site Condition Standards) for material which is appropriate to be accepted at the Site. In this case, material meeting the O.Reg. 153/04 Table 2 Site Condition Standards, Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use (or better) is recommended for this site. 4.2 Methane Abatement As presented in MECP Guideline D-4-1, the LEL (lower explosive level) of methane is generally considered to be 5% methane by volume. That means the mixture is too lean to burn if there is less than 5% methane present. But at 5%, it can burn or explode if there is an ignition source. The total combustible vapours are presented as an equivalent % LEL value in the above table. A threshold limit of 500 ppm is used for monitoring purposes, to identify if a potential hazard exists (equivalent to 0.05% methane). For additional reference, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) maximum recommended safe methane concentration during an 8-hour period is 1,000 ppm. No discernable methane concentrations were recorded in the open boreholes. As noted in Section 9.13.4.2 (b) of the Ontario Building Code, where detected soil gas levels remain below the threshold limit identified above, no special methane abatement measures are required. 4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control Excavations for the proposed buildings and site services are generally expected to extend into the natural silt and silt till soils, or possible engineered fill material, depending on final site grades. Site servicing depths are generally expected to be in the range of 4 m maximum depth. All work associated with design and construction relative to excavations must be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation and in accordance with Section 226 of Ontario Regulation 213/91, the compact silt/silt till encountered near ground surface is generally classified as Type 2 soil. For excavations which extend through or terminate in Type 2 soil, temporary excavation side slopes must be cut near vertical in the bottom 1.2 m, and sloped back at an inclination of 1H:1V above that level. It should be noted that, if wet seams or zones are encountered, some sloughing to flatter slopes may be expected. If the construction excavation side slopes recommended above cannot be maintained due to lack of space or close proximity of other structures, an engineered excavation support system must be used. Minimum support system requirements for steeper excavations are stipulated in Sections 234 through 242 of the Occupational Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 17 Health and Safety Act. The engineered shoring system, if required, must be in place prior to commencement of the installation operations. 4.3.1 Excavation Support If space restrictions at the site do not allow for conventional open cut without risk of undermining, or where excavation sizes are to be limited, the use of adequate bracing or shoring may be required. In the natural subgrade soils, bracing will not normally be required if the structures are behind a 45-degree line drawn up from the near edge of the excavation. If the construction excavation side slopes recommended above cannot be maintained due to lack of space or close proximity of other structures, an engineered excavation support system must be used. Minimum support system requirements for steeper excavations are stipulated in Sections 234 through 242 of the Act and Regulations. The shoring system must be designed to be internally (overturning, and sliding) and externally stable (slope stability/base heave). A prefabricated trench box may be used provided that it is designed (by a professional engineer) to withstand the soil and hydrostatic loading (if applicable). Based on the field and laboratory testing during the present geotechnical investigation and our experience with similar soils, the following soil parameters are recommended for the design of the engineered shoring system. Table 7 - Soil Parameters for Excavation Support Soil φ γ (kN/m3) Ka Ko Kp Compact Silt/Silt Till 28 19.0 0.36 0.53 2.78 Compact Granular ‘B’ (OPSS 1010) 32 22.0 0.31 0.47 3.25 In the event that imported fill material is present near the excavation which vary materially from the above soils, the geotechnical consultant should review the soil conditions to confirm the design parameters. 4.3.2 Groundwater Control Shallow groundwater was not encountered within the boreholes drilled across the site. Conventional groundwater control methods are generally expected to be suitable for shallow excavations at the site, to address surface water infiltration and minor shallow groundwater seepage for excavations which do not extend below the stabilized groundwater table. Where excavations extend below the stabilized groundwater table, or where groundwater levels are elevated, positive groundwater control methods may need to be utilized for construction dewatering. Groundwater control measures at the site should be sufficient to maintain stable excavated slopes; and provide a dry and stable base for excavations and construction operations. The contractor should use a reasonable effort to direct surface run- off away from open excavations. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 18 While not anticipated, it should be noted that for projects requiring positive groundwater control with a removal rate in excess of 50,000 litres per day, a submission to the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) will be required, and a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required for volumes in excess of 400,000 litres per day. PTTW applications are submitted to and approved by MECP according to Sections 34 and 98 of the Ontario Water Resources Act R.S.O. 1990 and Water Taking and Transfer Regulation O. Reg. 387/04. The need for an EASR submission or PTTW should be reviewed when design depths for the building foundations and site servicing have been verified. 4.4 Building Design and Construction 4.4.1 Foundation Design For design of footings on the natural subgrade soils below 1.2 m below existing grades or supported on engineered fill, the following allowable bearing pressures (net stress increase) can be used for design of footings: Serviceability Limit States (SLS) 145 kPa (~3000 psf) Ultimate Limit States (ULS) 215 kPa (~4500 psf) All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions should be protected from frost action by at least 1.2 m (4 ft.) of soil cover or equivalent insulation. The natural subgrade soils may be susceptible to disturbance by construction activities, especially during adverse weather conditions or when water seepage from excavation sidewalls are present. Consequently, after the founding surfaces have been exposed, the soils should be thoroughly recompacted to provide a uniform base, suitable to provide the bearing capacity noted above. Consideration should be given to placing concrete foundations as soon as possible following excavation and subgrade inspection. Excessive differential settlements can occur where the subgrade support material types differ below the underside of continuous strip footings, (i.e., natural sand soils to engineered fill). As such, where strip footings transition from one material to another the transition between the materials should be suitably sloped or benched to mitigate differential settlements. It is recommended that the following transition precautions to mitigate/accommodate potential differential settlements be considered, and incorporated into the design, subject to review by the structural engineer: For strip footings, the transition zones should be adequately reinforced with additional reinforced steel lap lengths or widened footings; Steel reinforced poured concrete foundation walls; and Control joints throughout the transition zone(s). Individual spread footings should generally be spaced a minimum distance of 1.5 times the largest footing width apart from each other to avoid stress bulb interaction between footings. This assumes the footings are at the same elevation. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 19 Footings at different elevations should be located such that the higher footings are set below a line drawn up at 10 horizontal to 7 vertical from the closest edge of the lower footing. It is important that servicing excavations which encroach on the building foundations are checked to ensure that they do not undermine the building foundations. Verification of the footing base conditions should be undertaken by the geotechnical engineer at the time of excavation. Provided that the stability of the soils exposed at the founding level is not compromised as a result of construction activity, precipitation, cold weather conditions, etc., and the design bearing pressures are not exceeded, the total and differential settlements of footings are expected to be less than 25 mm and 19 mm, respectively. It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by based on the observations of the soil and groundwater conditions within the borehole program at the site. Where variations occur between the borehole locations, and during construction of the new buildings, site verification by the LDS’ geotechnical engineer is recommended to confirm soil conditions and verify soil bearing capacity. 4.4.2 Basement Construction The single-family lots throughout the site may be constructed with full depth foundations with basements. The basement floors can be constructed using cast slab-on-grade techniques provided that the subgrade is stripped of unsuitable material. It is recommended that a minimum 200 mm (8 inch) thick compacted layer of 19 mm (¾ inch) clear stone be placed between the prepared subgrade and the floor slab to serve as a moisture barrier. The portion of exterior basement walls below finished groundwater level should be damp-proofed and designed to resist a horizontal earth pressure ‘P’ at any depth ‘h’ below the surface as given by the following expression: P = K ( h+q) where, P = lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h; = natural unit weight, a value of 20.0 kN/m3 may be assumed; h = depth of point of interest in m; q = equivalent value of any surcharge on the ground surface in kPa. K = earth pressure coefficient, assumed to be 0.4 The above expression assumes that the perimeter drainage system prevents build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Foundations should be provided with damp-proofing and foundation drainage tiles, in accordance with standard Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 20 4.4.3 Foundation Wall Backfill In general, the existing soils excavated from the building footprints (from above the stabilized water level) are generally expected to be suitable for re-use as foundation wall backfill. The materials to be re-used as foundation wall backfill should be within three percent of optimum moisture content for best compaction results. If the weather conditions are very wet during construction, site review by the geotechnical consultant may be advised to confirm the suitability of onsite soils for reuse. In the event that excavated materials contain topsoil, organics or otherwise unsuitable material, such materials should be stockpiled separately, and limited to re-use where settlements can be tolerated. It is recommended that heavy compaction equipment be restricted within 0.5 m of the wall. Backfill should be brought up evenly on both sides of the foundation walls which have not been designed to resist lateral earth pressures. 4.4.4 Concrete Recommendations CSA A.23-1.04 provides minimum requirements for concrete, including Exposure Class, maximum water to cement ratios, allowable air entrainment, slump, temperature requirements, etc. The design of the building foundations should have regard to the above referenced standard, and should be reviewed by the designer for conformance to CSA standards. Concrete sampling and testing for foundations and concrete slabs (in accordance with CSA A23.1-04) is recommended. 4.5 Site Services Subgrade soils beneath new services are generally expected to consist of silt/silt till soils. Although no bearing problems are anticipated for flexible or rigid pipes founded on natural deposits, localized base improvement along the trench bottom may be required for excavations which terminate in wet subgrade soils. The extent of base improvement or stabilization is best determined in the field during construction, with consultation from LDS’ geotechnical engineer. For services supported on native deposits, the bedding should conform to Municipal and OPS Standards. Bedding aggregate should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent SPMDD. Water and sewer lines installed outside of heated areas should be provided with a minimum 1.2 m of soil cover for frost protection. A well graded stone layer may be used in service trenches as bedding below the spring line of the pipe if necessary, to provide stabilization to the excavation base in wet subgrade soils, where encountered. Geotextile may be considered for wrapping the pipe and to limit movement of fines from surrounding soils into the bedding material. Potential locations for use of stone bedding can be identified through site inspection during construction and will vary across the site due to seasonal conditions and variations in perched groundwater conditions. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 21 Requirements for backfill in service trenches, etc. should also conform to Municipal and OPS Standards. A program of in situ density testing should be set up to ensure that satisfactory levels of compaction are achieved. Based on the results of this investigation, excavated material for trenches will generally consist of silt and silt till. Select portions of this inorganic material may be used for construction backfill provided that reasonable care is exercised in handling the material. In this regard, material should be within 3 percent of the optimum moisture as determined by the Standard Proctor density test. Stockpiling of material for prolonged periods of time should be avoided. This is particularly important if construction is carried out in wet, adverse weather. Soils excavated from below the stabilized groundwater table may be too wet for re-use as backfill, unless adequate time is allowed for drying, or if material is blended with approved dry fill; otherwise, it may be stockpiled onsite for re-use as landscape fill, or disposed of off-site, testing of the material for transport should conform to MECP Guidelines and requirements. Backfill above bedding aggregate can consist of excavated (inorganic) soils, compacted in maximum 300 mm thick lifts to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD. A program of in situ density testing should be set up to ensure that satisfactory levels of compaction are achieved. 4.6 Pavement Design The development will be accessed with an internal road network, accessing Chestnut Street on the south end of the site. The exposed subgrade soils within the roadways are expected to be comprised of re-compacted soils comprised of silt/silt till. The road subgrade should be thoroughly proof-rolled and reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. In the event that loose or soft areas are noted, additional work may be required to sub excavate and replace unstable soils with suitable compactable material. In general terms, subgrade soils supporting site pavements should be compacted to a minimum level of 98 percent SPMDD. The recommended pavement structure provided in this report is based on the natural subgrade soils encountered in the boreholes or suitably re-compacted soils, as described previously. Provided that the preceding recommendations are followed, the pavement thickness design requirements given in the following table are recommended for the anticipated subgrade conditions and traffic loading on the internal network of local roads. Table 8 – Pavement Design Recommendations Pavement Component for Local Roads Pavement Component Thicknesses for Local Roads Compaction Requirements Asphaltic Concrete 40 mm HL 3 / 50 mm HL 8 97% Bulk Relative Density (BRD) Granular A Base 150 mm 100% SPMDD Granular B Subbase 350 mm 100% SPMDD Other granular configurations may be possible provided the granular base equivalency (GBE) thickness is maintained. These recommendations on thickness design are not intended to support heavy and concentrated construction traffic, particularly where only a portion of the pavement section is installed. If frequent construction traffic is anticipated while only a portion of the site pavements are in place, or if construction is undertaken in Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 22 poor weather conditions, thickening of the granular subbase may be appropriate and can be reviewed during construction, by the geotechnical consultant. Where local roads connect to existing pavements, subgrade levels and pavement components should be tapered to match / tie-into existing pavement structures to minimize differential settlements at the transition from existing to new pavement. It is recommended that a program of inspection and materials testing (including laboratory analyses and compaction testing) be carried out during construction to confirm that geotechnical requirements are satisfied. Samples of both the Granular 'A' and Granular 'B' aggregates should be checked for conformance to OPSS 1010 prior to use on site, and during construction. The asphaltic concrete paving materials should conform to the requirements of OPSS 1150. The asphalt should be placed in accordance with OPSS 310. Specified compaction levels are identified in the table, above. Alternatively, to the specified compaction range noted in the above table for asphalt compaction, a compaction level of 92.0 to 96.5 percent of the Marshall relative density (MRD) is also an appropriate measure for asphalt compaction. Good drainage provisions will optimize pavement performance. The finished pavement surface should be free of depressions and should be sloped (preferably at a minimum grade of two percent) to provide effective surface drainage. Short (3.0 m long) subdrains are recommended at each catchbasin location to intercept excess subsurface moisture and prevent subgrade softening. The subdrains should be comprised of 150 mm perforated pipe set in stone and wrapped in geotextile (Terrafix 270 R or equivalent). 4.7 Curbs and Sidewalks Concrete for any new exterior curbs and sidewalks should be proportioned, mixed placed and cured in accordance with the requirements of OPSS 353, and OPSS 1350. During cold weather (when the air temperature is at or is likely to fall below 5°C within 96 hours of concrete placement) the freshly placed concrete must be covered with insulating blankets to protect against freezing, as per OPSS 904. Ice and snow must be removed from the area where concrete is to be placed and the concrete must not be placed against frozen ground. All cold weather protection material shall be on site prior to each concrete placement. Subgrade for sidewalks should consist of undisturbed natural soil or well compacted fill. A minimum 100 mm thick layer of compacted (minimum 100 percent SPMDD) Granular 'A’ should be placed below sidewalk slabs. It is recommended that Granular ‘A’ material extend at least 150 mm beyond the edges of the proposed sidewalk. The subgrade and granular base should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of OPSS 315. Field sampling and testing of concrete should be in accordance with OPSS 904. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 23 4.8 Geotechnical Inspection and Testing An effective inspection and testing program is an essential part of construction monitoring. The Inspection and Testing Program may include the following items: Subgrade examination prior to engineered fill placement; Inspection and materials testing during engineered fill placement (full-time monitoring is recommended) and site servicing works, including soil sampling, laboratory testing, and compaction testing; Footing base confirmations for any foundations constructed on engineered fill; Inspection and testing during construction of site pavements including compaction testing and laboratory testing; Concrete sampling and testing for curbs and sidewalks; and, Inspection and materials testing for base and surface asphalt. The Municipality may require inspection and testing records for servicing tie-ins to verify that project specifications have been satisfied for site servicing connections and road repairs, if required. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 24 5. HYDROGEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 5.1 Hydrogeologic Setting As discussed in Section 3.1.3, shallow groundwater was not encountered within the boreholes drilled across the site. A review of moisture content determinations carried out on select samples from the boreholes correspond with infiltrated surface water contained within the near-surface highly weathered silt soils, or within intermittent and discontinuous wet seams. This is not considered to be representative of a sustained shallow groundwater aquifer, particularly since the boreholes were observed to be open and dry at completion of drilling. Where encountered, it is anticipated that the groundwater flow direction will follow site topography, towards Big Otter Creek to the north/east. A shallow overburden aquifer occurs in the general area, contained within water-bearing sand, or sand and gravel deposits. Two of the local wells recorded in the MECP well records are sourced from the shallow overburden aquifer; however, these wells are generally located proximal to Big Otter Creek. As the site is located ~120 m south of Big Otter Creek, and the predominant soils encountered within the site limits being comprised of silt and clayey silt till, the potential impact to the shallow overburden aquifer is not anticipated to be significant. As shown on Drawing 4, bedrock is estimated at more than 69 to 72 m below ground surface in the vicinity of the site. As such, the potential impact to the bedrock aquifer from the proposed residential development at the site is not anticipated to be significant, and no further discussion is provided regarding the bedrock aquifer. 5.2 Water Level and Groundwater Quantity Considerations 5.2.1 Construction Dewatering Conventional groundwater control methods are generally expected to be suitable for shallow excavations at the site, to address surface water infiltration and minor shallow groundwater seepage for excavations which do not extend below the stabilized groundwater table. Where excavations extend below the stabilized groundwater table, or where groundwater levels are elevated, positive groundwater control methods may need to be utilized for construction dewatering. Groundwater control measures at the site should be sufficient to maintain stable excavated slopes; and provide a dry and stable base for excavations and construction operations. The contractor should use a reasonable effort to direct surface run- off away from open excavations. In the event that groundwater control requires water takings in excess of 50,000 litres per day, an EASR submission or PTTW will be required. The extent of dewatering, estimates for water-taking volumes and zone of influence calculations can be carried out when servicing depths and design grades are available. Under both the EASR and PTTW approval process, a dewatering and discharge plan would need to be prepared, with consideration for potential impacts to nearby water supply wells, and natural features. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 25 Once design depths for site servicing are available for review, LDS can provide additional comments to confirm if an EASR or PTTW is required for construction dewatering efforts at the site. 5.2.2 Local Water Supply Wells Due to the prominent low permeability soils documented in the borehole logs, there is a low likelihood for shallow wells to be present in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, a door to door well survey was not completed as part of this assessment. Municipal water service is available along Chestnut Street and Oak Street. In the unlikely event that long-term or permanent water supply interference occurs and can be attributed to the development activities at the site, consideration could be given to providing a suitable replacement well, either by deepening the existing well, or installation of a new well. 5.3 Water Quality Considerations Baseline groundwater conditions (including general chemistry parameters) have not been established under the current scope of work for this investigation. Prior to construction, consideration may be given to carrying out baseline water quality sampling to establish the general chemistry and characteristics of the shallow groundwater, if encountered. LDS is not aware of any contaminant plumes or existing environmental contamination in the vicinity of the site. Construction activities at the site are generally not expected to impact the chemistry or bacteriological properties of the intermediate depth aquifer. However, the possibility exists that a spill or uncontrolled release of fuel or associated material could occur during construction, which could have a direct impact to the unconfined shallow groundwater aquifer, or that sediment discharge could impact the effectiveness of stormwater infrastructure in the area. Additional comments are provided below, in this regard. Given the naturally low permeability of the silt/silt till soils which underlie the site, the intermediate and deep overburden aquifers are not considered to be vulnerable to contamination from surface sources. However, shallow groundwater contained within sandy soils (such as those noted within the well records) may be more susceptible to water quality impacts as a result of surface activities during construction, since it does not have the benefit of a low-permeability protective soil layer above it. 5.3.1 Potential Impact from Construction Equipment The possibility exists that a spill or uncontrolled release of fuel or associated material could occur during construction, which could have a direct impact to surface water and shallow groundwater conditions. A Best Management Practice (BMP) and spill contingency plan (including a spill action response plan) should be in place for fuel handling, storage and onsite equipment maintenance activities. It is recommended that there be a designated equipment fuelling areas, and implementing a spill contingency plan (including a spill action Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 26 response plan) for fuel handling, storage and onsite equipment maintenance activities to minimize the risk of contaminant releases as a result of the proposed construction activities. It is important to note that if a spill (possible incident) is related to the contractor’s activities, the contractor is responsible to report the incident to the Spills Action Centre, and/or notify the local MECP office. Depending on the type of incident, water sampling and quality testing may be warranted to document the extent of the impact. Scoping for the required testing will depend on the incident report. 5.3.2 Potential Impact from Uncontrolled Erosion / Sediment Discharge Sediment and erosion control measures will be required during construction, particularly around the perimeter of the site, to contain sediment and prevent discharge towards the neighbouring properties and natural features which extend into and adjacent to the site. A multi-barrier approach is recommended. The design of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the site will need to incorporate suitable erosion control practices and strategies which are suitable to site conditions, and have regard for contingency measures planned in the event that the integrity of the system is compromised. The following table summarizes general mitigation measures are suggested as best management practices to limit foreseeable events where contamination or negative impacts to hydrologic features at the site may be possible. Table 9: Sediment Control BMPs Practice / Task Du r i n g S i t e Gr a d i n g Du r i n g S i t e Se r v i c i n g Du r i n g H o m e Co n s t r u c t i o n & Pa r t i a l P a v e m e n t s Fo l l o w i n g Co n s t r u c t i o n Delineate work areas to limit construction activities encroaching into the natural heritage features and setback areas, to prevent unnecessary vegetation removal. Monitoring of discharge water (for water quality – turbidity) from stormwater run-off and construction dewatering activities. Installing perimeter ESC measures such as silt fence and/or silt sock around temporary soil stockpiles, with dedicated points of access clearly marked onsite. Use of mud-mats at construction entrance/exit points to help control the amount of loose soil being carried offsite. Re-establishing vegetative cover in disturbed areas. Maintain perimeter silt fence (and other perimeter ESC measures) in place until vegetative cover has become established. Build-up boulevard areas to help limit sediment-laden stormwater run-off from discharging into catchbasins and stormwater infrastructure, and regular inspection and maintenance of silt bags/geotextile filters installed in catchbasins. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 27 To help maintain the cohesiveness of underlying soils and reduce runoff velocities, vegetation cover should be maintained in the undisturbed area which buffers natural or undisturbed parts of the site. Staging and scheduling of construction activities and restoration efforts are important in this regard. Topsoil stripping should be conducted in a logical sequence in order to minimize the areas where soil is exposed. Topsoil removal should be organized and timed according to the schedule for grading and development works within the overall property. An inspection and reporting schedule should be incorporated into the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Contractors working at the site will be required to adhere to the approved Plan. Regularly scheduled inspections of the sediment and erosion measures are recommended. Adjustments to the plan may be required to adapt to site conditions and seasonal conditions to ensure that the system and erosion control strategy remains effective through the various stages of construction. Consultation with the municipality and Conservation Authority is recommended to confirm inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements, required for approval. 5.3.3 Managing Stormwater Run-Off The process of development generally results in the introduction of increased non-permeable surfaces, which limit the amount of infiltration which can occur for stormwater run-off which is generated at the site during rain and snow-melt events. It is important to ensure that suitable measures are in place to separate clean stormwater run-off (typically characterized as that run-off from rear-yards and roof tops) from stormwater run-off which has the potential to contain contaminants (such as run-offs from roads and parking lots). Clean run-off may be directed to areas of the site where low impact development (LID) features are present which promote infiltration and recharge into the subsurface soils, and may have benefit of filtering through landscaped areas, such as grassed swales. Additional discussion is provided in Section 5.4 regarding LID measures. Stormwater run-off generated from roadways which have the potential to contain contaminants, should be directed to areas where suitable measures are in place to screen and filter the run-off material. In this regard, the use of oil-grit separators (OGS) structures are typically considered an appropriate means to screen the stormwater run-off and provide some quality control. Similar measures that prevent or minimize releases of contaminants that may be carried to downstream outlets should be considered in the design. Detailed design and the stormwater management strategy for the site should have regard to water quality considerations. 5.3.4 Imported Fill Materials It is important to note that Ontario Regulation 153 provides applicable standards for any fill material which will be brought to site. For the purpose of importing and stockpiling materials at the site, consideration should be given to accepting material which has concentrations consistent with, or less than the standard concentrations identified in O. Reg. 153 (last amended April 15, 2011) for Table 2 (residential land-use) Standard Site Conditions. Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 28 5.4 Low Impact Development Considerations Consideration may be given to incorporate additional low impact development (LID) features which allow secondary infiltration and reduced run-off under post-development conditions for the stormwater management design. LID strategies help to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and stormwater pollution by managing runoff as close to its source as possible, by incorporating site features which enhance post-development infiltration, evapotranspiration, filtration and detention of stormwater. These practices can help to reduce contaminants in runoff, and can reduce the volume and intensity of stormwater flows. The infiltration capacity of a soil depends on a number of factors, including particle size distribution, degree of saturation, compactness, adsorbed water (which depends on clay content). The heterogeneous nature of glacial deposits can also contribute to variations in soil permeability where the soil composition may include localized areas with increased fine material or sandy material which can influence soil permeability at different points within the soil strata. Based on the permeability results presented in Section 3.1.2, the natural subgrade soils have a saturated hydraulic conductivity in the range of 10-6 m/s, with factored infiltration rates expected to be in the range of 20 mm/hr. The use of infiltration trenches, reduced lot grading, soak-away pits, rear-yard ponding areas and pervious pipes require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 15 mm/hr. This restriction is similarly identified in the Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Guidance Manual prepared by MECP. There may also be the opportunity to utilize strategies which may help attenuate run-off volumes and surge flows following rain events. The use of grassed swales and vegetated filter strips do not have a restriction on the minimum soil infiltration rate, and as such, there may be some benefit to incorporating landscaping features and features which provide additional storage capacity and help to moderate run-off flow volumes into the stormwater management plan and design for the site. In addition, a number of factors can influence the actual soil permeability and infiltration rate onsite during the site grading activities, including cut-fill activities, and the use of onsite or imported materials to achieve design grades. It is recommended that geotechnical inspection of materials which are used onsite and field testing during the construction phase of the project be carried out to confirm if improved infiltration rates are possible Geotechnical Investigation – Chestnut Street Subdivision Development, Vienna GE-00494 Countryside Communities Inc. May 2021 29 6. CLOSING The geotechnical recommendations provided in this report are applicable to the project described in the text. LDS would be pleased to provide a review of design drawings and specifications to ensure that the geotechnical comments and recommendations provided in this report have been accurately and appropriately interpreted. It is important to note that the geotechnical investigation involves a limited sampling of the subsurface conditions at specific borehole locations. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report reflect site conditions existing at the time of the investigation and a review of available information which has been presented in the report. Should subsurface conditions be encountered which vary materially from those observed in the boreholes, we recommend that LDS be consulted to review the additional information and verify if there are any changes to the geotechnical recommendations. The comments given in this report are intended to provide guidance for design engineers. Contractors making use of this report are responsible for their construction methods and practices, and should seek confirmation or additional information if required, to ensure that they understand how subsurface soil and groundwater conditions may affect their work. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity. It is intended to be read in its entirety. We trust this satisfies your present requirements. If you have any questions or require anything further, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, LDS CONSULTANTS INC. Shaun M. Hadden, EIT. Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-537-0039 shaun.hadden@LDSconsultants.ca Rebecca A. Walker, P. Eng., QPESA Principal, Geotechnical Services Office: 226-289-2952 Cell: 519-200-3742 rebecca.walker@LDSconsultants.ca APPENDIX A DRAWINGS AND NOTES SOURCE: Produced from Concept Plan, prepared by LDS Consultants Inc, London, Ontario, May 10, 2021 PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME Concept Plan SCALE NTS PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 1 LEGEND LPRCA Regulated Land Site Boundary SOURCE Long Point Region Conservation Authority Online Interactive Mapping, May 2021 PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME LPRCA Regulated Lands SCALE As Shown PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 2 LEGEND Highly Vulnerable Aquifer Site Boundary SOURCE: Source Protection Information Atlas, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Current to February 4, 2021. PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME Long Point Source Water Protection Mapping- MECP Information Atlas SCALE As Shown PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 3 SOURCE Quaternary Geology, Port Burwell Area, Ontario Geological Survey Map 2601, Scale 1:50,00, © 1998 SOURCE Bedrock Topography, Port Burwell Area, Ontario Geological Survey Map P2583 Scale 1:50,000, © 1983 PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME Geological Mapping SCALE 1:50,000 PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 4 SOURCE: MECP Well Records: www.ontario.ca/environment-and- energy/map-well-records, updated January 24, 2020 PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME MECP Well Locations – All Wells SCALE As Shown PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 5 Note: BH Locations surveyed by LDS SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, Version 7.3.2.5776, Coordinates 17T, 516981 m E, 4725811 m N, Imagery date 7/7/2018 PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NAME Borehole Location Plan SCALE As Shown PROJECT NO. GE-00494 DATE May 2021 DRAWING NO. 6 Woodlot Existing Residential Vacant Field Existing Residential ENGINEERED FILL PLACEMENT SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM NOTES: 1. The area must be stripped of all topsoil contaminated fill material, and other unsuitable soils, and proof rolled. Soft spots must be dug out. The stripped natural subgrade must be examined and approved by the geotechnical consultant. 2. In areas where engineered fill is placed on a slope, the fill should be benched into the approved subgrade soils. 3. Material used for engineered fill must be free of topsoil, organics, frost and frozen material, and otherwise unsuitable or compressible soils, as determined by a Geotechnical Engineer. Any material proposed for use as engineered fill must be examined and approved prior to use onsite. 4. Engineered fill should be placed in maximum 300 mm thick lifts, and uniformly compacted to 100% Standard Proctor dry density. For best compaction results, engineered fill should be within 3 percent of its optimum moisture content, as determined by the Standard Proctor density test. 5. Full time geotechnical monitoring, inspection and in-situ density (compaction) is required during placement of the engineered fill. 6. Site grades should be maintained during area grading activities to promote drainage, and to minimize ponding of surface water on the engineered fill mat. Rutting by construction equipment should be kept to a minimum, where possible. Additional work to ensure suitability of engineered fill may be required if fill is placed in inclement weather conditions. 7. The fill must be placed such that the specified geometry is achieved. Refer to schematic diagram for minimum requirements. Environmental protection may be required, such as frost protection during construction, and after the completion of the engineered fill mat. 8. An allowable bearing pressure of 145 kPa (3000 psf) may be used provided that all conditions outlined above, and in the Geotechnical Report are adhered to. 9. These guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report prepared by LDS. 10. For foundations set on engineered fill, footing enhancement and/or concrete reinforcing steel placement may be recommended. The footing geometry and extent of concrete reinforcing steel will depend on site specific conditions. In general, consideration may be given to having a minimum strip footing width of 500 mm (20 inches), containing nominal steel reinforcement. PROJECT NAME Chestnut Street Subdivision Development PROJECT NO. GE-00494 PROJECT LOCATION Chestnut Street, Vienna DRAWING NO. 7 Engineered Fill Mat Min. 1.2 m frost cover, or approved equivalent Foundation Walls Min. 0.6 m APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 1. All descriptions included in this report follow the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual soil classification system, based on visual and tactile examination which are consistent with the field identification procedures. Soil descriptions and classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), based on visual and tactile observations. Where grain size analyses have been specified, mechanical grain size distribution has been used to confirm the soil classification. Soil Classification (based on particle diameter) Terminology & Proportion Clay: < 0.002 mm Trace: < 10% Silt: 0.002 – 0.075 mm Some: 10-20% Sand: 0.075 – 4.75 mm Adjective, sandy, gravelly, etc.: 20-35% Gravel: 4.75 mm – 75 mm And, and gravel, and silt, etc.: > 35% Cobbles: 75 – 200 mm Noun, Sand, Gravel, Silt, etc.: > 35% and main fraction Boulders: > 200 mm 2. The compactness condition of cohesionless soils is based on excavator / drilling resistance, and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values where available. The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual provides the following summary for reference. Compactness of Cohesionless Soils SPT N-Value (# blows per 0.3 m penetration of split-spoon sampler) Very Loose 0 – 4 Loose 4 – 10 Compact 10 – 30 Dense 30 – 50 Very Dense 50+ 3. Topsoil Thickness - It should be noted that topsoil quantities should not be established from information provided at the test hole locations only. If required, a more detailed analysis with additional test holes may be recommended to accurately quantify the amount of topsoil to be removed for construction purposes. 4. Fill material is heterogeneous in nature, and may vary significantly in composition, density and overall condition. Where uncontrolled fill is contacted, it is possible that large obstructions or pockets of otherwise unsuitable or unstable soils may be present beyond the test hole locations. 5. Where glacial till is referenced, this is indicative of material which originates from a geological process associated with glaciation. Because of this geological process, till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and as such, may contain pockets and / or seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles or boulders and therefore, contractors may encounter them during excavation, even if they are not indicated on the test hole logs. Where soil samples have been collected using borehole sampling equipment, it should be understood that normal sampling equipment can not differentiate the size or type of obstruction. Because of horizontal and vertical variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited area; therefore, caution is essential when dealing with excavations in till material. 6. Consistency of cohesive soils is based on tactile examination and undrained shear strength where available. The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual provides the following summary for field identification methods and classification by corresponding undrained shear strength. Consistency of Cohesive Soils Field Identification Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) Very Soft Easily penetrated several cm by the fist 0 – 12 Soft Easily penetrated several cm by the thumb 12 – 25 Firm Can be penetrated several cm by the thumb with moderate effort 25 – 50 Stiff Readily indented by the thumb, but penetrated only with great effort 50 – 100 Very Stiff Readily indented by the thumb nail 100 – 200 Hard Indented with difficulty by the thumbnail 200+ Borehole ID Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled Ground Surface Elevation Drill Rig Groundwater Level at Completion Drilling Method Technician Rob Walker Drilling Contractor Checked By Legend Well Construction Details Additional Notes SPT Sample Pipe Diameter no well installed MC - denotes moisture content Bulk Sample Installation Depth Shelby Tube Screen Length Stabilized Groundwater Depth of Bentonite Seal Inferred Groundwater Project Chestnut Street Subdivision Development Project Location Vienna, ON 101Project Number GE-00494 April 22, 2021 191.23 m asl GeoProbe Dry Hollow Stem Auger S. Hadden, EITLondon Soil Test De p t h ( m ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Re c o v e r y ( % ) SP T N - v a l u e (b l o w s / 0 . 3 m ) Gr a p h i c L o g Material Description Re m a r k s a n d Ot h e r T e s t s 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 1 1170 2 1670 5 1270 MC - 26.7% MC - 19.8% MC - 19.7% 4 1670 3 2370 6 1270 6.55 m TOPSOIL - brown, silty loam, 152 mm BH Terminated at 6.55 m Borehole observed open and dry at completion CLAYEY SILT TILL - grey, trace gravel, very moist, stiff - some sand observed below 1.4 m depth 3.35 m SILT - brown, trace sand, very moist, compact MC - 18.8% MC - 18.4% MC - 20.0% Borehole ID Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled Ground Surface Elevation Drill Rig Groundwater Level at Completion Drilling Method Technician Rob Walker Drilling Contractor Checked By Legend Well Construction Details Additional Notes SPT Sample Pipe Diameter no well installed MC - denotes moisture content Bulk Sample Installation Depth Shelby Tube Screen Length Stabilized Groundwater Depth of Bentonite Seal Inferred Groundwater Material Description Re m a r k s a n d Ot h e r T e s t s De p t h ( m ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Re c o v e r y ( % ) SP T N - v a l u e (b l o w s / 0 . 3 m ) Gr a p h i c L o g April 22, 2021 192.93 m asl GeoProbe Dry Hollow Stem Auger London Soil Test S. Hadden, EIT Project Chestnut Street Subdivision Development Project Location Vienna, ON 102Project Number GE-00494 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 1 370 2 1160 5 1270 MC - 28.5% MC - 23.2% MC - 20.5% 4 1380 3 1170 5.03 m TOPSOIL - brown, silty loam, 152 mm BH Terminated at 5.03 m Borehole observed open and dry at completion CLAYEY SILT TILL - grey, trace gravel, very moist, stiff - becoming less weathered and compact below 1.4 m depth 2.90 m SANDY SILT - brown/grey, mottled, weathered, very moist, very loose MC - 21.8% MC - 20.9% Borehole ID Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled Ground Surface Elevation Drill Rig Groundwater Level at Completion Drilling Method Technician Rob Walker Drilling Contractor Checked By Legend Well Construction Details Additional Notes SPT Sample Pipe Diameter no well installed MC - denotes moisture content Bulk Sample Installation Depth Shelby Tube Screen Length Stabilized Groundwater Depth of Bentonite Seal Inferred Groundwater Material Description Re m a r k s a n d Ot h e r T e s t s De p t h ( m ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Re c o v e r y ( % ) SP T N - v a l u e (b l o w s / 0 . 3 m ) Gr a p h i c L o g April 22, 2021 194.58 m asl GeoProbe Dry Hollow Stem Auger London Soil Test S. Hadden, EIT Project Chestnut Street Subdivision Development Project Location Vienna, ON 103Project Number GE-00494 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 1 870 2 870 5 1070 MC - 24.7% MC - 20.8% MC - 22.6% 4 1170 3 1370 5.03 m TOPSOIL - brown, silty loam, 102 mm BH Terminated at 5.03 m Borehole observed open and dry at completion CLAYEY SILT TILL - grey, trace gravel, very moist, stiff - becoming brown, less weathered and compact below 2.1 m depth 2.90 m SILT - brown/grey, mottled, weathered, some sand, very moist, loose MC - 20.7% MC - 20.4% Borehole ID Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled Ground Surface Elevation Drill Rig Groundwater Level at Completion Drilling Method Technician Rob Walker Drilling Contractor Checked By Gradation: 18% Clay, 75% Silt, 7% Sand, 0% Gravel Legend Well Construction Details Additional Notes SPT Sample Pipe Diameter no well installed MC - denotes moisture content Bulk Sample Installation Depth Shelby Tube Screen Length Stabilized Groundwater Depth of Bentonite Seal Inferred Groundwater Material Description Re m a r k s a n d Ot h e r T e s t s De p t h ( m ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e N u m b e r Re c o v e r y ( % ) SP T N - v a l u e (b l o w s / 0 . 3 m ) Gr a p h i c L o g April 22, 2021 191.46 m asl GeoProbe Dry Hollow Stem Auger London Soil Test S. Hadden, EIT Project Chestnut Street Subdivision Development Project Location Vienna, ON 104Project Number GE-00494 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 1 1270 2 2160 5 1170 MC - 21.6% MC - 18.9% MC - 18.4% 4 1370 3 1570 6 1070 6.55 m TOPSOIL - brown, silty loam, 152 mm BH Terminated at 6.55 m Borehole observed open and dry at completion CLAYEY SILT TILL - grey, trace gravel, very moist, stiff - becoming grey and less weathered below 1.4 m depth 2.59 m SANDY SILT - brown/grey, mottled, weathered, very moist, compact MC - 17.0% MC - 24.3% MC - 18.3% Project Name:Date:28-Apr-21 Project Location:Project No.:GE-00494 % Clay % Silt % Sand % Gravel Particle Size Distribution Results of Sieve Analysis Borehole 4, Sample 3 - 2.1 m depth 18.0 75.0 7.0 0.0 18.4% Sample ID Unified Soil Classification Moisture Content (%) Chestnut Street Subdivision Development Chestnut Street, Vienna 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 % Passing GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm) PE R C E N T PA S S I N G Clay Sand GravelUSCSFineMedium Coarse CoarseFine 0.075 mm 4.75mm 75.0 mm Silt LDS CONSULTANTS INC. 15875 Robins Hill Road, Unit 1 London, Ontario N5V 0A5 420 Wes Graham Way, Suite 106 Waterloo, ON, N2L 0J6 www.arcadis.com Memorandum To/Attention Municipality of Bayham Date October 9th, 2025 From Jeff Henry, RPP, MCIP Project No 30260140 - 982 Cc Subject Countryside Communities Inc. - Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501, Lots 22-30 East of Union Street, Lots 25-29 West of John Street, Lots 22-24 West of Snow Street, Lot 20 North of Chestnut Street, Registered Plan 54, Village of Vienna Background 1. We have completed our review of an application for Draft Plan of Subdivision application and Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Paul Hinde of Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. (herein referred to as “SBM”) on behalf of Countryside Communities Inc. (the “Owner” and/or “Developer”), for a property located northwest of Chestnut Street, east of Union Street and south of Otter Creek, in the Village of Vienna, and known as Lots 22-30 East of Union Street, Lots 25-29 West of John Street, Lots 22-24 West of Snow Street, Lot 20 North of Chestnut Street, Registered Plan 54, Village of Vienna. 2. The Subject Lands are designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘C’ Vienna: Land Use and Constraints in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan and are zoned Holding - Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) in the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456- 2003. Subject Lands and Surrounding Area 3. The Subject Lands can be described as an irregular shaped lot with an approximate lot area of 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) and an estimated lot depth of 184.0 metres. The Subject Lands have approximately 94.0 metres of lot frontage along Chestnut Street. The Subject Lands are currently vacant with a generally flat topography. Natural vegetation and trees are located along parts of the eastern, southern and western property lines. 4. The Subject Lands are predominantly surrounded by low density residential uses to the north, east and south. Naturalized lands are located directly adjacent along the western property line. The Subject Lands and the portion of the naturalized lands located directly adjacent to the Subject Lands are not regulated by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA). ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 2 5. John Street and Snow Street are directly east of the Subject Lands, identified as an ‘Untravelled Road’ based on land survey records. In addition, a portion of Queen Street runs along the northern property line and a portion of Union Street runs along the western property line of the Subject Lands, which are also identified as ‘Untravelled Road’ based on land survey records. Regarding existing servicing, there is an existing 200-millimetre sanitary sewer and a 150-millimetre watermain located in the Chestnut Street Right of Way (R.O.W). A 200-millimetre sanitary sewer is also located in the Queen Street R.O.W, which is located northeast of the Subject Lands. An existing and available storm sewer is located in the Union Street R.O.W. 6. The applicant is requesting a Draft Plan of Subdivision approval register in two (2) phases and a Zoning By-law Amendment with site-specific exceptions to subdivide into a total of 12 new residential lots, consisting of eight (8) single-detached dwellings and four (4) semi-detached dwellings. The proposed semi-detached dwellings will front and have direct access onto Chestnut Street. The proposed single-detached lots would front and have direct access onto a cul-de-sac, a newly created public R.O.W (herein referred to as ‘Street A’) on the untravelled John Street and Snow Street combined with a portion of the Subject Lands. The new public R.O.W would connect to the existing Chestnut Street. The four (4) semi-detached dwellings fronting onto Chestnut Street would be registered in Phase One (1), while the eight (8) single- detached dwellings and Street A would be registered in the second phase. 7. The proposed subdivision would utilize a combination of existing and proposed servicing infrastructure. An existing watermain and a sanitary sewer are located in the Chestnut Street R.O.W. The semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1 to 4 will have two individual connections to the existing watermain and two (2) individual connections to the existing sanitary sewer system in anticipation of a future part-lot control exemption application to divide each semi-detached dwelling along the future common wall. The single-detached dwellings on Lots 5 to 12 will have individual connection to the newly constructed watermain and sanitary sewer system in Street A. In the Queen Street R.O.W there is an existing sanitary sewer which will provide an outlet for the single- detached dwellings. The new watermain in Street A will connect to the existing watermain in the Chestnut Street R.O.W. The existing storm sewer in the Union Street R.O.W will connect to a newly constructed storm sewer in the Queen Street R.O.W which will extend to Street A via a servicing easement located along the northern property line on Lots 10 to 12 and the eastern lot line of Lot 12. A servicing easement is also located along the northern property line of Lot 24, an existing residential lot owned by the Owner/Developer, for an underground storm sewer and catch basin. 8. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone the Subject Lands from Holding –Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) to Holding – Site-Specific Village Residential ‘R1-XX(h2)’ to permit: ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 3 a. A lot area of 758.87 square metres on Lot 12, whereas Section 10.3 of the by- law requires 800 square metres. b. A lot area of 375.0 square metres on Lot 3 (Parcel A & B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A), whereas Section 10.3 of the bylaw requires 400.0 square metres. c. A building height of 8.0 metres, whereas Section 10.5 of the bylaw requires 7.0 metres. d. A building coverage of 35%, whereas Section 10.6 of the bylaw requires a maximum building coverage of 30%. e. The driveway area to occupy 60% of the front yard for Lots 1 to 4, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted as per Section 4.34.1 of the By-law. 9. A Zoning By-law Amendment will be required to remove the Holding Provision (h2) requirements to enter into an agreement with the Municipality which addresses impacts of new development to the municipality related to financial and servicing impacts. The removal of the holding symbol over the entirety of the Subject lands will be required as a Condition of Draft Plan Approval. Public Comments 10. A statutory Public Meeting was held on July 17th, 2025 for the Zoning By-law Amendment. No public comments were received. On March 3rd, 2025, a Notice of an Application for the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment application was posted on the Municipal website to inform the public of the nature of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. Two (2) written comments were received from the public and agencies in response to the proposed development as summarized below: • Southwestern Public Health Comment: There is no parkland dedication proposed as part of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision to require adequate green space and/or parkland in the proposed development. Response: As a condition of Draft Plan of Approval, the owner shall provide cash- in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham Cash in Lieu of Parkland By-law 2025-007. The cash-in-lieu of parkland will contribute to the provision of greenspace and/or parkland within the community. In addition, the proposed development is in proximity to adequate existing green space and parkland, including Vienna memorial park located approximately 700.0 metres from the proposed development, while Vienna Community Park is located approximately 500.0 metres from the proposed development. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 4 Comment: Provision and inclusion of trails, sidewalks and other supportive infrastructure to support active transportation in the neighbourhood. Response: As a condition of approval, sidewalks and streetlighting to Municipal standards will be required. There are also newly constructed sidewalks on Union Street (Ann Street to Fulton Street), Ann Street (Union Street to Oak Street), Oak Street (Ann Street to Fulton Street) and Elm Street (Ann Street to Plank Road) to support active transportation trips to the Community Centre and the amenities and services located along Plank Road. • Rick Holley Comment: Concern is with surface water runoff from the proposed subdivision property to Mr. Holley’s lands adjacent to the East and North. There are two pairs of 4 in. dia. “Big O” weeping tile pipes that run North of his lands on either side of the back driveway to the open culvert running East-West along the unopened Queen Street R.O.W, which he is concerned may become obstructed during the installation of the sanitary sewer from the project to Oak St. Response: Proposed servicing infrastructure in the Queen Street R.O.W will be further reviewed at the detailed design stage. Prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site a final servicing plan. Comment: On the grading plan at the interface between the new cul-de-sac (John St. segment) and the West boundary of Mr. Holley’s lands, a “toe wall” is identified. Mr. Holley questions what it is and its purpose? There is a 5 to 8% downward gradient to Mr. Holley’s lands. He is concerned with how rainwater and snowmelt will be prevented from flooding his lands and if the Municipality is prepared to accept the difficulty and added costs associated with cul-de-sac snow removal each winter? Response: On the revised Servicing Plan resubmitted by SBM, dated June 27th, 2025, the toe wall between the new cul-de-sac (John St. segment) and the West boundary of Mr. Holley’s lands has been removed. Preliminary grading plans direct stormwater away from adjacent properties. Detailed design will confirm that post development flows will not exceed pre-development flows as per standard practice. Comment: Concern with Plans examined not showing how storm water from the vacant West half of lot 24 will be controlled and prevented from crossing northward to Mr. Holley’s lands. Mr. Holley understands that a swale along the North side of Lot 24 was planned to guide water westward to a catchment basin ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 5 located near the junction of Snow St and John St at lot 24. This does not yet appear on any plan. Response: The preliminary grading plan demonstrates that Lot 24 will be split drained, directing stormwater to both the Rear Yard Catch Basin One (RYCB1) and to Catch Basin One (CB1) located at the front yard property line, to be confirmed through detailed design. As a Condition of Approval, prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to the registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site a final grading and drainage plan. Planning Act Section 51(24) Criteria 11. Section 51(24) sets out criteria for draft plan of subdivision approval in Ontario. In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. The following clauses provide comment on how the proposed subdivision meets the criteria of the Planning Act under Section 51 (24): a. the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2; Comment: The plan has regard to all matters of Provincial Interest referenced in Section 2 of the Planning Act as it contributes to a full range of housing provision within an established settlement area designated for residential development. b. whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest; Comment: The proposed development will contribute to a range and mix of housing in a settlement area, on lands that are underutilized and have access to existing municipal servicing. The four (4) semi-detached dwellings proposed represent a much-needed form of ‘missing-middle’ housing, providing a more affordable housing option than a single-detached home in the Village of Vienna. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is in the public interest and is not premature. c. whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; Comment: The plan conforms to the Elgin County and Municipality of Bayham Official Plan policies as reviewed further below. There are no adjacent plans of subdivision. However, Street A provides access and service connections to Lot 23 and 24, facilitating their future development. d. the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 6 Comment: The Subject Lands are currently vacant with a generally flat topography in the Village of Vienna. The proposed subdivision on the Subject Lands focuses development within an existing settlement area, protecting the long-term viability of rural areas and agricultural lands. Further, no natural heritage areas or features are located on the Subject Lands and, therefore, will not be impacted by development or other activities. Therefore, the Subject Lands are suitable for the proposed residential development. d.1 if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing; Comment: No affordable housing units are being proposed on the Subject Lands. e. the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them; Comment: The proposed semi-detached dwellings will front and have direct access onto Chestnut Street, identified as a local road. A new public road connecting to Chestnut Street is proposed on the untravelled John Street and Snow Street combined with a portion of the Subject Lands. As a condition of approval, prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site a final grading and drainage plan and a final servicing plan. Further, and as condition of approval, the Owner/Developer shall construct the new Street in accordance with Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards and dedicate the Street to the Municipality. f. the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; Comment: Lots 1 to 4 are rectangular shaped lots with appropriate lot frontage onto Chestnut Street. Lot 3 (Parcel A and B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A) will require a site-specific exception to permit a lot area of 375.0 square metres, whereas Section 10.3 of the Zoning Bylaw requires 400.0 square metres. The lots fronting onto the new cul-de- sac are irregular shaped lots with sufficient lot area and frontage to support single- detached dwellings except for Lot 12 where a site-specific exception is required to permit a lot area of 758.87 square metres whereas Section 10.3 of the by-law requires 800 square metres. A Zoning By-law Amendment and site-specific exceptions are being processed along with the Draft Plan of Subdivision to address the proposed lot configuration and lot size deficiencies. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 7 g. the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land; Comment: As a condition of approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a draft Plan of Subdivision to be registered showing the final lot layout for all lots, blocks, and easements to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County. Easements are currently identified to provide for drainage over Lots 7 and 8 while easements to connect sanitary and storm water mains to outlets are identified over Lots 10, 11, and 12. Additional easements for drainage may be required at detailed design prior to final approval and registration, particularly with respect to Lots 1 to 4. h. conservation of natural resources and flood control; Comment: The Subject Lands are not regulated by the LPRCA, and no natural heritage areas and features are located on the Subject Lands. On July 15th, 2025, the LPRCA notified the County of Elgin that they have no comments or conditions for the proposed subdivision, as the entire property is outside the regulated area under Ontario Regulation 41/24. As a condition of approval, prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each Phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality a final storm water management report for review and approval. i. the adequacy of utilities and municipal services; Comment: A Servicing & Stormwater Management Feasibility Study was submitted as part of the application, prepared by SBM, dated October 30th, 2024. According to the Feasibility Study, existing municipal water, sanitary and storm sewers are adequate to service the proposed development, subject to some limitations and requirements to service the new cul-de-sac. Prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site: a. A final grading and drainage plan b. A final Stormwater Management Report c. A final Servicing Plan d. A final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan In addition, and as a condition of approval, an interim Stormwater Management Plan is required to the satisfaction of the Municipality prior to the registration of Phase 1 to demonstrate appropriate drainage prior to construction of permanent stormwater management infrastructure in Phase 2. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 8 j. the adequacy of school sites; Comment: The nearest school is Port Burwell Public School, which is approximately 6.0 kilometres from the Subject Lands. Children residing in the Village of Vienna are eligible for transportation services offered by Port Burwell Public School in partnership with Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services. Given the locational context and bus services provided, local school sites are adequate for the plan. k. the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; Comment: An Easement is located along the northern property line of Lots 10 to 12 and along the eastern property line of Lot 12 to connect the storm sewer in the Union Street R.O.W to the proposed storm sewer in Street A. The Civil Engineering Plans dated June 27th show additional servicing easements located along the northern property line of Lot 24, an existing and undeveloped residential lot owned by the Owner/Developer, for an underground storm sewer and catch basin, as well as a servicing easement along the southern property line between Lots 6 and 7 for a proposed catch basin. Additional easements for drainage may be required based on peer review comments from Spriet Associates. Prior to registration of each Phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit a draft Plan of Subdivision to be registered showing the final lot layout for all lots, blocks, and easements to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County as a condition of approval. Regarding parkland dedication, the owner shall provide cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham Cash in Lieu of Parkland By-law 2025- 007 as a condition of approval. l. the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and Comment: The proposed development is located on vacant and underutilized lands within a settlement area with existing municipal services and utility infrastructure. The provision and expansion of municipal services utility infrastructure to service the single-detached dwellings on Street A represent a logical and economical extension of existing services at the cost of the Owner/Developer. Thus, the proposed development would avoid less desirable locations where consumption of resources and energy would potentially be increased. m. the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 9 subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2). Comment: Under Section 41 (1) of the Planning Act, none of the lots within the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision are subject to site plan control. Based on a review of the applicable criteria and the form of the draft plan the criteria are considered adequately fulfilled for Draft Plan Approval subject to applicable conditions. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 12. The new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) took effect on October 20, 2024, and consolidates both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, for a streamlined province-wide land use planning policy framework that builds upon housing-supportive policies. The Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development and the proposed Plan of Subdivision shall be consistent with the PPS. Notwithstanding the balance of other PPS policies, the following policy excerpts are the most relevant sections relating to the proposed development. PPS Section 2.5.2 directs growth and development in rural areas to rural settlement areas; and Section 2.3.3 states that: “When directing development in rural settlement areas in accordance with policy 2.3, planning authorities shall give consideration to locally appropriate rural characteristics, the scale of development and the provision of appropriate service levels…" Comment: The proposed development is within the Village of Vienna settlement area and is designated for residential growth in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan. The proposed development will provide a range and mix of housing options in the form of single-detached and semi-detached dwellings in an existing built-up area, optimizing existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities. 13. The PPS Section 3.6.2 Sewage, Water and Stormwater states that “Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety…” Comment: The application included a Servicing & Stormwater Management Feasibility Study, dated October 30, 2024. Existing and planned municipal servicing will serve the proposed subdivision. An existing watermain and a sanitary sewer are located in the Chestnut Street R.O.W. The semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4 will have two individual connections to the existing watermain and two individual connections to the existing sanitary sewer system to facilitate future division along ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 10 the common walls through the part-lot control exemption process. The single- detached dwellings on lots five (5) to twelve (12) will have individual connection to the newly constructed watermain and sanitary sewer system in Street A. In the Queen Street R.O.W there is an existing sanitary sewer which will provide an outlet for the single-detached dwellings. The new watermain in Street A will connect to the existing watermain in the Chestnut Street R.O.W. The existing storm sewer in the Union Street R.O.W will connect to a newly constructed storm sewer in the Queen Street R.O.W which will connect to Street A through a servicing easement located along the northern property line for the single-detached dwellings located on Lots 10-12 and the eastern lot line of Lot 12. Spriet Associates conducted a peer review of the design information for the proposed sanitary, water and stormwater servicing system and provided three (3) rounds of submission comments in a Letter, with the latest peer reviewed submission comments dated August 18, 2025. Conditions in the subdivision agreement for sanitary sewer, water and stormwater management shall include that prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site, a final Grading and Drainage Plan, Stormwater Management Report and Servicing Plan. The proposed form of servicing is consistent to the PPS servicing policies subject to appropriate Draft Plan conditions ensuring the protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety 14. PPS Section 4.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology indicates that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. Comment: The applicant provided a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Report, prepared by Lincoln Environmental Consulting Corp. dated November 2021, which concluded that no archaeological resources were found and that no further assessment is warranted. The Planning Justification Report submitted by SBM Ltd. Indicates that the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism advised in a memo dated February 22, 2024, that the report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports without technical review. As this letter of acknowledgement was not included in the submissions, and as a condition of approval, prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1 the Owner shall provide an acknowledgement letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport confirming the ministry is satisfied the Stage 1-2 Archeological Assessment of the lands prepared by Lincoln Environmental ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 11 Consulting Group and dated November 2021 is consistent with the ministry’s standards and guidelines and no further archaeological assessment is recommended. 15. PPS Section 3.2.1 indicates that transportation systems should be provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and goods, and are appropriate to address projected needs. Comment: The applicant provided a TIB, prepared by SBM, dated October 31, 2024. The proposed semi-detached lots will have direct access onto the existing Chestnut Street, while a new cul-de-sac will need to be constructed to provide access to the proposed single-detached dwellings. The TIB concludes the following: • There are no concerns with the new cul-de-sac off Chestnut Street in regard to intersection/driveway spacing and visibility; • The proposed subdivision will have a negligible impact on the overall volumes and operations of the surrounding road network; • No improvements to the external network are required to accommodate the proposed development. 16. As per Section 2.9.1 of the PPS, Planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate through approaches that promote green infrastructure. Comment: The applicant provided a Tree Preservation Plan and tree inventory, prepared by Dan Weagant, OALA, CSLA, dated September 2022. The Planning Justification Report informs that until the detailed building design and engineering drawings are prepared, it is not currently known which trees will be removed or retained on the Subject Lands. Therefore, as a Condition of Draft Plan the applicant shall submit an updated Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan prior to any disturbance or grading of the site and prior to the registration of the Final Plan. Said plan shall identify all existing trees on-site proposed to be removed, impacted or retained as a result of the development of the Subject Lands to the satisfaction of the Municipality/County. Elgin County Official Plan 17. As the upper-tier municipality, the policies of the County of Elgin Official Plan are applicable to the proposed development. Schedule A of the Official Plan identifies Vienna as a Tier 1 settlement area, which is recognized as having full municipal services and the highest levels of amenities and employment opportunities as per Section 2.5. Section 2.5 of the Official Plan directs most new growth and development to Tier 1 settlement area given the level of infrastructure provided in these settlement ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 12 areas to accommodate growth, as is proposed. As previously mentioned, existing and planned municipal infrastructure will be used to service the proposed development on the Subject Lands. 18. Section 6.8 Development in Tier I Settlement Areas provides general policies for which consideration has been given for new development proposed within a Tier I Settlement Area: a) comprehensively develop the land in question, serve as a logical extension to the existing built-up area, be compact, and minimize the consumption of land and infrastructure; Comment: The proposed development is located on underutilized and vacant lands within an existing neighbourhood consisting of low density residential density uses primarily in the form of single-detached dwellings. Based on a review of surrounding lot areas and lot frontages, the proposed lot configuration and land use is similar in nature and compatible with the existing surrounding development, serving as a logical extension of the existing built-up area. Existing and planned municipal servicing will service the proposed subdivision, while Street A will be constructed to access and service the proposed single detached dwellings. Therefore, the proposed development will be appropriately integrated and respect the surrounding neighbourhood and development in the area, while minimizing the consumption of land and infrastructure. b) confirm that there is sufficient reserve capacity in both the municipal water and sanitary sewage systems to accommodate the development, and be connected to those systems, except in cases of minor infilling in existing developed areas where other servicing options may be considered; Comment: As a Condition of Approval, the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal water main and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. c) where feasible, retain and integrate, mature trees into the development through the preparation of tree preservation plan and/or landscape plan, regardless of whether the trees form part of the designated Natural System; Comment: A tree preservation plan, and tree inventory and assessment was submitted by the applicant as part of a complete Draft Plan of Subdivision application. Until detailed building design and engineering drawings are prepared, ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 13 which trees will be retained or removed is inconclusive. Therefore, the Owner/Developer shall submit an updated Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan prior to any disturbance or grading of the site and prior to the registration of the Final Plan. Said plan shall identify all existing trees on-site proposed to be removed, impacted or retained as a result of the development of the Subject Lands to the satisfaction of the Municipality/County as a Condition of Approval. d) achieve a minimum net density of 20 units/net hectare where residential development is proposed however, should the County or a local municipality be satisfied that this is not appropriate in certain circumstances due to geography, topography, or other similar factors, this requirement may be waived; Comment: The total lot area of Lots one (1) to twelve (12) are 1.289 hectares (3.185 acres). Eight (8) single-detached dwellings and four (4) semi-detached dwellings are proposed to be developed on the Subject Lands for a total of 16 units proposed on the Subject Lands. Therefore, a net residential density of 12.4 units/net hectare is proposed on the Subject Lands. The proposed net residential density of 12.4 units/net hectare is appropriate as the proposed urban form and development is consistent in nature with the lot fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood and will therefore, appropriately integrate and respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. As of right, two (2) additional residential units may be permitted within each single and semi-detached dwelling, subject to the regulations of the Zoning By-law. e) front onto, and be directly accessed, by a public road that is maintained year- round by a public authority; Comment: The four (4) proposed semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1 to 4 will front and have direct vehicular access onto Chestnut Street, while the proposed eight (8) single-detached dwellings on Lot 5 to 12 will front and have direct access onto Street A. As a condition of approval, Street A will be dedicated to the Municipality as a public highway, providing public road access to the proposed single- detached dwellings. f) conform to the access policies of the relevant road authority; and, Comment: As detailed in Paragraph 32 of this Memo, the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct “Street A” in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards and construct a maintenance access road within the Queen Street road allowance in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards as a condition of approval. The applicant is advised that access permits will be required onto Chestnut Street for Lots 1-4. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 14 g) make any required improvements to public roads, including any required road dedications, needed to facilitate safe ingress and egress and to meet the standards and requirements of the appropriate road authority. Comment: As conditions of approval, the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct “Street A” in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards and will dedicate “Street A” to the Municipality as public highway and name “Street A” to the satisfaction of the Municipality as well as to construct a maintenance access road within the Queen Street road allowance in accordance with Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality. These roads shall further be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality as a condition of approval. 19. Section 12.2 Land Division Applications provides criteria for all applications for land division, including: a) Compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act, and any other applicable piece of legislation; Comment: As addressed in Paragraphs 10 of this of the Memorandum, the proposal has regard to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. b) Demonstrated consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, as amended; Comment: The proposed development is consistent with Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as addressed in Paragraphs 13 to 17 of this Memorandum. c) Demonstrated conformity with the policies and land use designations of this Plan and of the applicable local official plan; Comment: Paragraphs 23 to 27 of this Memorandum demonstrates that the proposed development conforms to the Municipality of Bayham’s Official Plan. d) Demonstrated conformity with a local zoning by-law, or a demonstration that conformity will be achieved, prior to final approval; 20. Comment: The Subject Lands are Zoned Holding ‘Village Residential (R1(h2))’ in the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. The proposed development on the Subject Lands conforms with the intended use of the ‘R1(h2)’ Zone for low- density residential uses in the form of single-detached and semi-detached dwellings. A Zoning By-law Amendment and site-specific exceptions are being processed along with the Draft Plan of Subdivision to address deficiencies with the Zoning By-law, as reviewed below. As a Condition of Draft Plan Approval, prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall enter into a Subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of the proposed development to the Municipality, and which is registered on title. Further, the ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 15 Owner/Developer shall apply to remove the “h2” holding symbol on the Subject Lands by way of Zoning By-law Amendment, with such amendment being adopted and in effect prior to registration of Phase 1. e) The ability of the application to address and satisfy the comments and input received by commenting agencies and bodies. Comment: A statutory Public Meeting was held on July 17th, 2025 for the Zoning By-law Amendment. No public comments were received. On March 3rd, 2025, a Notice of an Application for the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment application was posted on the Municipal website to inform the public of the nature of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. Two (2) written comments were received from the public and agencies in response to the proposed development, which are addressed in Paragraph 10 of this Memorandum. f) Demonstration that any input from the public has been reviewed and considered; and Comment: Please refer to the comment above. g) Demonstration that the application is in the public interest. Comment: The proposed development is in the public interest as it will contribute to a range and mix of housing in a settlement area, on lands that are underutilized and have access to existing municipal servicing. The four (4) semi-detached dwellings proposed represent a much-needed form of ‘missing-middle’ housing, providing a more affordable housing option than a single-detached home in the Village of Vienna. 22. Based on the above policy review, it is our opinion that the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision application and Zoning By-law Amendment is in conformity to the Elgin County Official Plan Municipality of Bayham Official Plan 23. Under Section 8.6 of the Municipality of Bayham, a Plan of Subdivision is required for the proposed development, in which the owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality. Section 8.6.2.1 requires that the public be provided reasonable notice of the application, which was provided on March 3rd, 2025. There were two (2) written comments received. Paragraph 10 of this Memorandum addresses the two (2) written comments that were received. 24. The Subject Lands are designated as ‘Residential’ in the Village of Vienna, as per Schedule C of the Official Plan. Section 4.2.2.1 indicates that the Municipality of Bayham encourages new residential development to consolidate within the existing ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 16 settlement areas by filling in vacant areas and locating new residential development adjacent to existing built-up areas in a compact and contiguous fashion. Section 4.2.4.1 indicates that the Municipality shall encourage intensification and redevelopment within settlement area boundaries on vacant or underutilized sites to efficiently utilize designated settlement area land and available municipal services. Comment: The proposed development will contribute to a range and mix of housing in a settlement area, on lands that are underutilized and have access to existing municipal servicing. Therefore, the proposed development is in conformity to the above policies for development. 25. As per Section 4.5.2.1 lands designated as ‘Residential’ in Villages indicates that the primary use of land shall be for single-detached dwelling and that single, seasonal residential and semi-detached dwellings and duplexes should target a gross density of twenty (20) units per hectare and shall be serviced with municipal water and sewer services where one or both services are available. Comment: The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes a total of 16 dwelling units on 1.4 hectares of land. Therefore, the proposed subdivision would have a gross density of 11.4 units per hectare of land. The proposed development has a residential density below the gross density target required in the Official Plan; however, based on the existing zoning regulations for the R1 Zone, the proposed development requests relief for a reduced lot area on Lots 3, 4, and 12 for the proposed development. In addition, the proposed urban form and development is consistent in nature with the lot fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood and will therefore, appropriately integrate and respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. As of right, two (2) Additional Dwelling Units may be permitted within each single and semi-detached dwelling, potentially increasing the number of dwelling units on the Subject Lands, subject to compliance with the Zoning By-law. 26. Section 4.5.2.8 further provides criteria for new single-unit and two-unit dwellings proposed in the ‘Residential’ designation, consisting of the following: a. Lot frontage, depth and size: The lot frontage, lot depth, and lot size of any lots proposed to be used or created for residential purposes shall be appropriate to the development being proposed and consistent, wherever desirable and feasible, to adjacent and surrounding lots. In no case shall lots be created or dwelling units constructed which do not conform to the provisions of the Zoning By-law unless the By-law is otherwise amended or a variance granted. Comment: The majority of the proposed lots in the Plan of Subdivision provide lot frontage, depth and lot area that conform to the Zoning By-law. To accommodate the Servicing Easement along the northern and eastern boundary of the Subject Lands, the proposed lot area of Lot 12 is 758.87 square metres, whereas Section 10.3 of the ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 17 Zoning By-law requires 800 square metres. The lot area for the proposed semi- detached dwellings on Lot 3 (Parcel A and B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A) will be 375.0 square metres, whereas Section 10.3 of the Zoning By-law requires 400.0 square metres. A Zoning By-law Amendment with site-specific exceptions to address the requested lot area deficiencies is being processed along with the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. b. Natural Site Features: Natural site features including vegetation, tree cover, and topography shall be protected, enhanced, and incorporated into the design of the proposed development to the greatest extent possible. Comment: The Subject Lands are not regulated by the LPRCA, and no natural heritage areas and features are located on the Subject Lands. On July 15th, 2025, the LPRCA notified the County of Elgin that they have no comments or conditions for the proposed subdivision, as the entire property is outside the regulated area under Ontario Regulation 41/24. As previously addressed in this Memorandum, the applicant provided a Tree Preservation Plan and tree inventory; however, until the detailed building design and engineering drawings are prepared, it is not currently known which trees will be removed or retained on the Subject Lands. The owner shall submit to the Municipality a final tree preservation plan and tree inventory for review and approval, as a condition of approval. c. Design: Innovative housing design and site layout including energy-saving measures will be encouraged. To achieve energy savings, particular regard shall be had to building form and size, density, lot and building orientation, and on-site landscaping. Comment: Lots 1-4 and 6, 11, and 12 have a north-south orientation, maximizing the potential for solar gain. The overall subdivision layout reflects the shape and orientation of the parcel. At the building permit stage, innovative housing design including energy-saving measures will be encouraged. To achieve energy savings, particular regard shall be had to building form, size, and orientation. d. Open space: Open space including parkland shall be provided in accordance with the policies of Section 4.5.8. Comment: As a condition of approval, the owner shall provide cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham Cash in Lieu of Parkland By- law 2025-007. e. Adjacent and surrounding land use: The proposed development shall be compatible with existing (or proposed) neighbouring land uses. Where necessary or desirable, the proposed development shall be adequately screened from adjacent land uses by the provision of landscaping and/or buffering. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 18 Comment: The proposed development is compatible with the existing neighbouring land uses in the form of low-density residential uses. Therefore, no screening from surrounding residential uses is required or considered necessary. f. Facilities and services: Existing or proposed municipal services (including potable water supply, sanitary sewage treatment and disposal, solid waste disposal, storm and surface drainage, roads, sidewalks, and street lighting) shall be adequate to serve the proposed development. If these services or facilities are deemed inadequate, the Municipality may require that an agreement be entered into with the developer as to the design and cost apportionment of any public works required to bring these services or facilities up to the appropriate standard. Comment: Existing and proposed Municipal services are currently available and adequate to serve the proposed development. As a condition of approval, the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal water main and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. g. Storm drainage: Adequate provision for stormwater management/drainage and surface runoff subject to the requirements of the Municipality, and the statutory approval authority having jurisdiction, shall be provided. Where in the opinion of the Municipality it is deemed necessary or desirable, the Municipality may require the submission of a grading plan and/or stormwater management plan to ensure surface water runoff does not adversely affect neighbouring properties or receiving watercourses. Comment: Adequate provision for stormwater management/drainage and surface runoff is demonstrated in the Feasibility Study. The Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct stormwater management infrastructure, including storm sewers, catch basins, and underground storage with outlet to the existing municipal storm system in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality as a condition of approval. h. Vehicular access: Vehicular access shall be available or made available from a public highway or public street of reasonable construction and maintenance to permit year round access and shall be subject to the approval of the authority(ies) having jurisdiction. In no case shall access be permitted where traffic hazards could result due to poor sight lines or proximity to a traffic intersection. In new residential ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 19 subdivisions, the use of a curvilinear street pattern, cul-de-sacs, and other similar design features to minimize through traffic movements shall be encouraged. Comment: The semi-detached dwellings will have adequate frontage onto Chestnut Street, an existing municipal road that is maintained year-round. To access the single- detached dwellings, Street A will be constructed as a cul-de-sac to minimize through traffic movements. The Transportation Impact Brief confirmed no traffic hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to a traffic intersection. i. The Planning Act: In the case of a residential subdivision, all matters contained within Section 50 and 51 of the Planning Act as amended or revised from time to time shall be complied with. Comment: Refer to Paragraph 11 above. 27. In our opinion, the proposed development is in conformity to the above Municipality of Bayham Official Plan policies, subject to appropriate design and mitigation aspects of the development provided that the Draft Plan Approval Conditions outlined in Paragraph 32 of this Memorandum are completed by the Owner/Developer. Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law 28. The Subject Lands are Zoned Holding ‘Village Residential (R1(h2))’ in the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. As per Section 3.3 in the Zoning By-law, the purpose of the ‘h2’ zone symbol is to ensure orderly development. A subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of new development to the Municipality, will be required prior to the removal of the “h2” zone symbol. Therefore, the removal of the ‘h2’ zone symbol from the Subject Lands as a condition of approval will be required and require a future Zoning By-law Amendment application. 29. Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBA-14/25 was submitted alongside the Draft Plan of Subdivision, requesting the following site-specific exceptions to the Zoning By-law: • A minimum lot area of 758.87 square metres on Lot 12, whereas Section 10.3 of the by-law requires 800 square metres. Comment: The purpose of the minimum lot area requirement for lots with full municipal services in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that future residents have adequate outdoor amenity space and drainage for the proposed density. The servicing easement on Lot 12 will still allow future residents to utilize the space for passive recreational purposes, while the servicing study demonstrates adequate drainage can be provided. It is our opinion that the requested site- ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 20 specific exception to decrease the lot area on Lot 12 meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. • A minimum lot area of 375.0 square metres on Lot 3 (Parcel A & B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A), whereas Section 10.3 of the bylaw requires 400.0 square metres. Comment: As the applicant intends to sever Lots 3 and 4 to provide for each semi-detached dwelling to be on its own lot after final approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, it is appropriate to review the intended lot fabric after severance through this Zoning By-law Amendment application. As reviewed above, the intent of the minimum lot area requirements in the Zoning By-law is to ensure there is adequate space for the proposed density including sufficient outdoor amenity area and drainage. Lot 3 (Parcel A and B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A) will maintain adequate lot frontage and overall space to accommodate the new semi-detached dwellings, green space and drainage, subject to Draft Plan of Approval Conditions outlined in Paragraph 32 of this Memorandum. In addition, the gross residential density of the entire subdivision is 11.4 units per hectare of land, remaining below the target gross density of twenty (20) units per hectare for lands designated “Residential’ in Villages. Therefore, it is our opinion that the reduced lot area of Lot 3 (Parcel A and B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A) is appropriate for the proposed development and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. • A building height of 8.0 metres, whereas Section 10.5 of the bylaw requires 7.0 metres. Comment: The overall intent of regulating building height is to ensure that the mass and scale of the proposed development is appropriately integrated and respects the character of the surrounding neighbourhood while maintaining adequate protection for health and safety in the context of fire protection in the Municipality. It is our opinion that the requested site-specific exception to permit a building height of 8.0 m is appropriate as the proposed single-detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings maintain the character of the neighbourhood and are consistent with recent Council direction to bring forward amendments to the Zoning By-law to increase the maximum building height to 8.0 m after receiving input from Municipal staff in building and fire services. • A building coverage of 35%, whereas Section 10.6 of the bylaw requires a maximum building coverage of 30%. Comment: The purpose of the maximum lot coverage requirement in the Zoning By-law is to maintain a reasonable balance between the amount of green space and building footprint and provide adequate space on lots for infiltration. It is our opinion that the proposed lot coverage of 35% for each lot will continue to provide ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 21 an appropriate balance between land occupied by the proposed buildings versus green space. The proposed subdivision is located approximately 500.0 metres from the Vienna Lions Community Centre providing residents with additional access to green space. Based on the Servicing and Stormwater Management Feasibility Study, the design of the lots and subdivision will adequately address stormwater management and runoff subject to Draft Plan Approval Conditions outlined below. Therefore, it is our opinion that the proposed maximum lot coverage of 35% meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. • The driveway area to occupy 60% of the front yard on Lots 1 to 4, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted as per Section 4.34.1 of the By-law. Comment: The intent of the Zoning By-law in regulating the maximum permitted driveway area is to ensure that the driveway does not dominate the front yard to ensure there is sufficient green space for drainage. It is our opinion that the proposed maximum driveway area of 60% on Lots 1 to 4 are not anticipated to impact drainage or adjacent properties based on the Servicing and Stormwater Management Feasibility Study submitted as part of a complete application requirement, subject to applicable conditions of approval regarding final servicing plans and interim and final stormwater management reports. The preliminary grading plans show that driveways between the semi-detached units are to be paired, which will mitigate the impact of the increased driveway area. 30. Based on the analysis provided above, it is our opinion that the proposed Zoning By- law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision application are appropriate for the development of the lands and are consistent with or conform to the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement, County of Elgin Official Plan, and Municipality of Bayham Official Plan, while meeting the regulations of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law except to the extent of the required amendments. As a condition of approval, prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall enter into a Subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of the proposed development to the Municipality, and which is registered on title. Further, the Owner/Developer shall apply to remove the “h2” holding symbol from the Subject Lands by way of Zoning By-law Amendment, with such amendment being adopted and in effect prior to registration of Phase 1. Recommendations 31. Based on our review of the application, we have no objection to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-14/25) to rezone the Subject Lands from Holding –Village Residential 1 (R1(h2)) to Holding – Site-Specific Village Residential ‘R1-XX(h2)’ with the following site-specific provisions: ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 22 • A minimum lot area of 758.87 square metres on Lot 12, whereas Section 10.3 of the by-law requires 800 square metres. • A minimum lot area of 375.0 square metres on Lot 3 (Parcel A & B) and Lot 4 (Parcel A), whereas Section 10.3 of the bylaw requires 400.0 square metres. • A maximum building height of 8.0 metres, whereas Section 10.5 of the bylaw requires 7.0 metres. • A maximum building coverage of 35%, whereas Section 10.6 of the bylaw requires a maximum building coverage of 30%. • The maximum driveway area to occupy 60% of the front yard for Lots 1 to 4, whereas 50% is the maximum permitted as per Section 4.34.1 of the By-law 32. Based on our review of the application, and subject to the approval of the Zoning By- law Amendment ZBA-14/25, we have no objection to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision to divide the subject parcel of land into eight (8) single detached residential lots and four (4) semi-detached residential lots, provided the following conditions are included, and fulfilled by the applicant, in the Draft Plan of Subdivision agreement between the applicant/owner and the Municipality of Bayham: 1. That this Draft Plan approval applies to the Countryside Communities Inc. (the “Subdivider”) Subdivision Application 34T-BA2501,referred to as Concession 3, Lot 14 in the Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin as modified and shown in Appendix X (hereinafter also referred to as the “Draft Plan”) of Report XX, and further that the final plan(s) to be registered in two (2) phases and includes the following: • Phase 1: Lots 1-4- each consisting of 1 semi-detached dwelling for a total of 8 dwelling units • Phase 2: Lots 5-12- consisting of 1 single-detached dwelling on each lot; • Block 13 for a road widening • Street A 2. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions listed below shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Municipality and at no cost to the Municipality of Bayham, sometimes referred to by these Conditions as the "Municipality". 3. That prior to registration of each Phase, that the Owner/Developer shall submit a draft Plan of Subdivision to be registered showing the final lot layout for all lots, blocks, and easements to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 23 4. That prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall enter into a Subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of the proposed development to the Municipality and registered on title. 5. Further, the Owner/Developer shall apply to remove the “h2” holding symbol for the entirety of the lands by way of Zoning By-law Amendment, with such amendment being adopted and in effect prior to registration of Phase 1. Roads 6. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct “Street A” in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards and will dedicate “Street A” to the Municipality as public highway to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 7. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct a maintenance access road within the Queen Street road allowance in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 8. That the streets on the Draft Plan of Subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 9. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to construct sidewalks and streetlights in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards at no cost to the Municipality, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 10. That prior to registration of Phase 2, the Owner/Developer shall dedicate Block 13 as shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision to the Municipality. Servicing, Infrastructure, Grading, and Stormwater Management 11. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of each phase, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality for review and approval for the entirety of the site: • A final Grading and Drainage Plan. • A final Stormwater Management Report • A final Servicing Plan. • A final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 24 12. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner/Developer shall submit to the Municipality an interim storm water management report for review and approval. 13. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal sanitary sewer and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available downstream capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 14. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct the extension of the municipal water main and provide individual connections to each proposed lot or, in the case of the semi-detached dwellings on Lots 1-4, two connections, subject to written confirmation of available capacity by the Municipality, in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 15. That the Owner/Developer shall agree through the Subdivision Agreement to design and construct stormwater management infrastructure, including storm sewers, catch basins, and underground storage with outlet to the existing municipal storm system in accordance with the Municipality’s Design and Construction Standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 16. That prior to registration of each Phase, that the Owner/Developer shall provide easements as may be required for utility, access or drainage purposes in a form satisfactory to the Municipality or utility. Other 17. That the Owner/Developer shall agree to pay Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham By-law No. 2025-007. 18. That the Owner/Developer shall submit an updated Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan prior to any disturbance or grading of the site and prior to the registration of the Final Plan. Said plan shall identify all existing trees on-site proposed to be removed, impacted or retained as a result of the development of the Subject Lands to the satisfaction of the Municipality and County. 19. That prior to any grading or construction of the site and prior to registration of Phase 1, the Owner shall provide an acknowledgement letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport confirming the Ministry is satisfied the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the lands prepared by Lincoln Environmental Consulting Group and dated November 2021 is consistent with the Ministry’s ARCADIS MEMORANDUM Municipality of Bayham – October 9th, 2025 25 standards and guidelines and no further archaeological assessment is recommended/required. Jeff Henry Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc. Jeff Henry, RPP, MCIP Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z817-2025 COUNTRYSIDE COMMUNITIES INC. 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 “H” by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from ‘Village Residential 1 (R1(h2))’ Zone to a ‘Site-Specific Village Residential 1 (R1-24(h2))’ Zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked “R1-24(h2)” on Schedule “H” 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 Exceptions – Village Residential 1 (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses: 10.12.24.1 Defined Area R1-24(h2) as shown on Schedule “H” to this By-law. 10.12.24.2 Minimum Lot Area – Lot 12, Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 755m² for a single detached dwelling 10.12.24.3 Minimum Lot Area – Lots 3 & 4, Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 375m² for a semi-detached dwelling 10.12.24.4 Maximum Building Coverage 35% 10.12.24.5 Maximum Building Height 8.0m 10.12.24.6 Maximum Driveway Coverage – Semi-detached dwellings Notwithstanding Section 4.34.1, 60% is permitted 3) THIS By-law comes into force: a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal. READ A FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME THIS 16th Day of October 2025. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 16th Day of October 2025. _____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK AMANDA FUSCO Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk Corporate Services Department Kitchener City Hall, 2nd Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Phone: 519.904.1402 Fax: 519.741.2705 amanda.fusco@kitchener.ca TTY: 519-741-2385 SENT VIA EMAIL September 26, 2025 Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Legislative Building Queen’s Park Toronto ON M7A 1A1 Dear Premier Ford: This is to advise that City Council, at a meeting held on August 25, 2025, passed the following resolution regarding postage: "WHEREAS Postage costs have seen significant increases, including 25% in 2025 alone; WHEREAS paper billing has a further environmental cost in both materials (trees) and transportation; WHEREAS paper billing is increasingly being displaced by environmentally friendly and cost-efficient e-billing; WHEREAS the Municipal Act indicates the right to a paper bill, and cost- recovery fees for paper billing for tax, and utility bills are unclear; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Kitchener City Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Municipal Act to permit municipalities the ability to grandfather-out paper billing as the default option, and to permit municipalities to establish fees for paper billing for new accounts that opt for this method of delivery; THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY BE RESOLVED that a copy of this motion be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Premier of Ontario, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and housing, all other municipalities within Ontario for their consideration and possible endorsement." -2- Yours truly, A. Fusco Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk Cc: Hon. Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) Sloane Sweazey, Senior Policy Advisor, City of Kitchener Ontario Municipalities Legislative Services Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive clerks@newmarket.ca P.O. Box 328 Station Main tel.: 905-953-5300 Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7 fax: 905-953-5100 Page 1 of 3 October 7, 2025 Sent via email The Honourable Doug Ford, M.P.P., Premier of Ontario, Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, ON, M7A 1A1, premier@ontario.ca The Honourable Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria, M.P.P., Minister of Transportation, 5th Flr, 777 Bay St. Toronto, ON, M7A 1Z8, minister.mto@ontario.ca The Honourable Michael S. Kerzner, Solicitor General, M.P.P., Solicitor General, George Drew Bldg., 25 Grosvenor St. Toronto, ON, M7A 1Y6, Minister.SOLGEN@ontario.ca Ms. Dawn Gallagher Murphy, M.P.P., Unit 22, 16635 Yonge St., Newmarket, ON, L3X 1V6, dawn.gallaghermurphy@pc.ola.org The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), 155 University Ave., Suite 800, Toronto, ON, M5H 3B7, resolutions@amo.on.ca All Ontario Municipalities RE: Automated Speed Enforcement Resolution – Town of Newmarket I am writing to advise you that at the Council meeting held on October 6, 2025, the Town of Newmarket Council adopted the following recommendations regarding the above referenced matter: Whereas Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) is by far the most effective speed mitigation and safety tool that municipalities have had access to; and, Whereas The Ontario Safety Legue has expressed that ASE is effective and that it supports the use of ASE; and, Whereas The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has expressed that ASE is effective and that it supports the use of ASE; and, Whereas The Hospital for Sick Children and Toronto Metropolitan University have studied ASE and found that speed is the single most important factor in pedestrian injury risk and ASE can be an effective way to reduce that risk, especially in areas where children are most vulnerable; and, Whereas The Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) found that 73 percent of Ontario drivers slow down when nearing an ASE camera and 52 percent shared that they are unlikely to speed up after they pass through an ASE zone; and, Legislative Services Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive clerks@newmarket.ca P.O. Box 328 Station Main tel.: 905-953-5300 Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7 fax: 905-953-5100 Page 2 of 3 Whereas ASE frees up more time for police officers to attend to serious crimes, such as home invasions and auto theft; and, Whereas One of the top complaints that Council has received from residents for decades is speeding on residential streets; and, Whereas Since implementing ASE, Newmarket has observed between 58 percent and 90 percent reductions in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit in the community safety zones with automated speed enforcement; and, Whereas the Town’s ASE program has recorded speeds of 125 km/hr, 113 km/h, and 96 km/h in school zones with speed limits of 40 km/h. Therefore, be it resolved: 1. That the Council of the Town of Newmarket opposes the Ontario Government’s proposal to cancel municipal ASE programs; and, 2. That the Council of the Town of Newmarket requests the Premier of Ontario or Minister of Transportation meet with municipal leaders to develop provincial legislation, regulations and standards to ensure municipal ASE programs are fair, transparent and consistent throughout Ontario as opposed to eliminating the programs; and, 3. That the Council of the Town of Newmarket requests that the Ontario Government consider the following amendments to address Provincial concerns: • Only implement ASE in school zones; and, • Establish a province-wide minimum threshold over the speed limit at which tickets are issued; and, • Require extensive communication campaigns warning drivers that ASE cameras will be implemented, including warning tickets, well ahead of activating the cameras, and install permanent flashing signs at the camera locations; and, • Establish a maximum fine amount for ASE, and, • Establish a maximum number of cameras per municipality, and, 4. That copies of this motion be distributed to the following: • Premier Doug Ford; and, • Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation; and, • Hon. Michael S. Kerzner, Solicitor General; and, • Dawn Gallagher Murphy, MPP, Newmarket -- Aurora; and, • All Ontario Municipalities; and, • The Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Legislative Services Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive clerks@newmarket.ca P.O. Box 328 Station Main tel.: 905-953-5300 Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7 fax: 905-953-5100 Page 3 of 3 Yours sincerely, Simon Granat Legislative Coordinator Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca September 30, 2025 CL 14-2025, September 25, 2025 DISTRIBUTION LIST SENT ELECTRONICALLY Motion Respecting State of Emergency on Mental Health, Homelessness and Addictions Regional Council, at its meeting held on September 25, 2025, passed the following motion: WHEREAS Niagara Region issued three separate declarations of emergency in the areas of homelessness, mental health and opioid addiction on February 23, 2023, recognizing that the scope and scale of the crisis surpasses the Region’s capacity to respond effectively; and WHEREAS following the submission of the three declarations of emergency, the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) has engaged with the Region’s Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC); and WHEREAS these issues have continued to intensify and add further strain to the social support system in Niagara over the past two years; and WHEREAS municipalities across Ontario are continuing to experience similar challenges; and WHEREAS a coordinated, province-wide approach and associated funding support is required to address the growing emergency of mental health, homelessness and opioid addiction, the scale of which falls well beyond the scope of what a municipality can address. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That Niagara Region ADVOCATES that the Province support a coordinated approach between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services to address ongoing challenges related to mental health, homelessness and opioid addiction; 2. That Niagara Region FORMALLY ADVOCATES for Provincial funding to address identified gaps in programs and services contributing to the state of emergency including affordable housing, supportive housing, addictions treatment, and mental health supports for vulnerable populations; and Page 2 3. That this motion BE SENT to the Provincial and Federal Governments, FCM, AMO and all municipalities in Ontario. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :kl CLK-C 2025-109 Distribution List Premier of Ontario Prime Minister of Canada Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) All Ontario Municipalities Resolution Page County Council Meeting Agenda Number:10.3. Resolution Number Title:Resolution from the Municipality of Bayham regarding speeding concerns on county roads. Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 Moved by:Deputy Warden Ketchabaw Seconded by:Councillor Sloan RESOLVED THAT the County of Elgin support the requests from the Municipality of Bayham to: 1) Review and analyze the data collected from the traffic counters placed on Plank Road in Eden; 2) Forward the data to the Elgin OPP Detachment Board for enforcement action; 3) Initiate discussions with all Local Municipal Partners on traffic concerns on County roads; and 4) Explore mitigation strategies including automated enforcement options, possibly as a pilot program across the County of Elgin; and THAT a report on these discussions and explorations be brought back to County Council at a future date. Motion Carried. FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Shelley Ann Bentley, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Tom Masschaele, Debera McKeen, Jim Palmer, Chris Van Paassen, Rainey Weisler, Peter Ypma - 1 - LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2025 Approved October 1, 2025 Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Chair Town of Tillsonburg Doug Brunton, Vice-Chair Norfolk County Robert Chambers County of Brant Michael Columbus Norfolk County Tom Masschaele Norfolk County Debera McKeen Haldimand County Jim Palmer Township of Norwich Chris Van Paassen Norfolk County Rainey Weisler Municipality of Bayham/Township of Malahide Peter Ypma Township of South-West Oxford Regrets: Shelley Ann Bentley Haldimand County Staff in attendance: Judy Maxwell, General Manager Aaron LeDuc, Manager of Corporate Services Leigh-Anne Mauthe, Manager of Watershed Services Saifur Rahman, Manager of Engineering and Infrastructure Jessica King, Social Media and Marketing Associate Nicole Sullivan, HR Coordinator/Executive Assistant 1. Welcome and Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2025. 2. Additional Agenda Items None. 3. Approval of the Agenda A-97/25 Moved by R. Weisler Seconded by T. Masschaele THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the agenda as circulated. Carried FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Shelley Ann Bentley, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Tom Masschaele, Debera McKeen, Jim Palmer, Chris Van Paassen, Rainey Weisler, Peter Ypma - 2 - 4. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None. 5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting a) Board of Directors Meeting July 2, 2025 A-98/25 Moved by J. Palmer Seconded by R. Weisler THAT the minutes of the LPRCA Board of Directors meeting held July 2, 2025 be adopted as circulated. Carried 6. Business Arising There was no business arising from the previous minutes. 7. Review of Committee Minutes a) Audit and Finance Committee Meeting – August 8, 2025 A-99/25 Moved by C. Van Paassen Seconded by D. McKeen THAT the minutes of the Audit and Finance Committee meeting held August 8, 2025 be adopted as circulated Carried b) Lee Brown Marsh Management Committee – May 15, 2025 A-100/25 Moved by P. Ypma Seconded by J. Palmer THAT the minutes of the Lee Brown Marsh Management Committee meeting held May 15, 2025 be received as information Carried 8. Correspondence None 9. Development Applications FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Shelley Ann Bentley, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Tom Masschaele, Debera McKeen, Jim Palmer, Chris Van Paassen, Rainey Weisler, Peter Ypma - 3 - a) Section 28 Regulations Approved Permits (L. Mauthe) Leigh-Anne Mauthe presented the approved permits report. Peter Ypma mentioned that application 118/25 is fully located in the Township of South-West Oxford not Tillsonburg. Leigh-Anne Mauthe noted the change. Doug Brunton asked about the development on Hunt street in Simcoe. Leigh-Anne Mauthe let the Board know that a development of 44 townhouses was going in and the company would be drilling and digging for the services needed for the development. Jim Palmer asked about Application 11/25 and the meaning of “frac-out”. Staff let the Board know that “frac-out” is a digging methodology. Staff also informed the Board that it is a contingency plan put in place in case drill fluid is released while the developer was digging. Dave Beres asked staff of there being any danger to the watershed with the drilling. Staff let the Board know that the contingency plan is there to mitigate against this type of danger. *M. Columbus arrived at 6:37pm* A - 101/25 Moved by P. Ypma Seconded by M. Columbus THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the staff approved Section 28 Regulation Approved Permits report dated September 3, 2025 as information. Carried 10. New Business a) General Manager’s Report (J. Maxwell) Judy Maxwell provided a report summarizing operations in July and August and provided a few recent updates on the invasive species spraying, the success of the Deer Creek Derby and the upcoming events at Backus, as well as the issuing of a Level 1 Low Water Advisory. Jim Palmer inquired about having more adequate directional signage at Backus for the upcoming War of 1812 event. Judy Maxwell informed the Board that staff have been working on ample signage for the event and will look into more updated permanent signage. A-102/25 Moved by R. Chambers Seconded by D. McKeen THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for July and August 2025 as information. Carried FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Shelley Ann Bentley, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Tom Masschaele, Debera McKeen, Jim Palmer, Chris Van Paassen, Rainey Weisler, Peter Ypma - 4 - b) Q2 Financial Report – June 30, 2025 (A. LeDuc) Aaron LeDuc delivered the report. Mike Columbus asked why there was a reduction of seasonal camping this year over the past year. Aaron LeDuc believes there were two reasons, the majority of the drop comes from Haldimand CA and that could be due to less seasonal work contracts in the Haldimand area as well as the general economy decrease. A-103/25 Moved by T. Masschaele Seconded by R. Weisler THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Q2 Financial Report – June 30, 2025 for the period up to and including June 30, 2025 as information. Carried c) Regulation Mapping Consultation (L. Mauthe) Leigh-Anne Mauthe presented the report. Doug Brunton asked staff about the change from 120 meter to 30 meters for the wetlands boundary. Staff noted that last April there was a change to the area of regulation around provincially significant wetlands which reduced it to 30 meters of regulation for the conservation authorities. A-104/25 Moved by T. Masschaele Seconded by P. Ypma THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives this report as information; AND THAT staff be directed to complete public consultation for the draft regulation mapping in accordance with Ontario Regulation 41/24; AND THAT staff be directed to bring the final draft regulation mapping for approval by the Board of Directors after the public consultation is complete. Carried d) Timber Tender Anderson-Lee Becker & Ringland Tract (J. Maxwell) Judy Maxwell presented the timber tenders for the Ringland & Anderson Lee Becker tracts. FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Shelley Ann Bentley, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Tom Masschaele, Debera McKeen, Jim Palmer, Chris Van Paassen, Rainey Weisler, Peter Ypma - 5 - Mike Columbus asked about the Little Otter Tree Farm company, as they were only ever known to him as a tree farm, not a harvester. Judy Maxwell informed the Board that Little Otter Tree Farm have worked with LPRCA in that capacity in the past. A-105/25 Moved by C. Van Paassen Seconded by J. Palmer THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors accepts the tender bid submitted by Bamberg Sawmill Ltd. for marked standing conifer timber at the Anderson-Lee-Becker Tract – LP-364-25 for a total tendered price of $43,600.00; AND, THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors accepts the tender bid submitted by Little Otter Tree Farm for marked standing conifer timber at the Ringland Tract – LP-365-25 for a total tendered price of $35,626.50. Carried Dave Beres brought up the recently announced Government of Ontario $9.6 million in wetland funding and asked staff if this could be of any benefit to LPRCA. Judy Maxwell informed the Board that staff is aware of it, and the funding is focused on wetland improvement and invasive species control, which could be beneficial funding for the Lee Brown Marsh complex. Robert Chambers asked staff for more detailed information on the Memorial Forest service happening at Backus Heritage CA in September. Staff informed the Board that the details for memorial forest will be sent to the Board via email. 11. Closed Meeting None Next meeting: October 1, 2025, Board of Directors at 6:30 p.m. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Dave Beres Judy Maxwell Chair General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer /ns 1 Elgin OPP Detachment Board Meeting Minutes June 25, 2025, 1:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Members Present: Dave Jenkins, Chair Dominique Giguère, Vice Chair Andrew Sloan, Board Member Ida McCallum, Board Member Trudy Kanellis, Board Member Staff Present: Tyler Holmes, Interim Elgin County OPP Detachment Commander Jennifer Ford, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with Dave Jenkins in the Chair. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by: Trudy Kanellis Seconded by: Dominique Giguère RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the June 25, 2025 Elgin OPP Detachment Board meeting be approved as presented. Motion Carried. 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by: Ida McCallum Seconded by: Trudy Kanellis RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting held on May 5, 2025 be adopted. Motion Carried. 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 5. Delegations 2 6. Reports 6.1 Elgin O.P.P Detachment Board Quarterly Report - Detachment Commander, Tyler Holmes Elgin OPP Detachment Commander Tyler Holmes presented the Quarterly Report for the period of March to May 2025. The report covered a range of key updates and statistics, including: Collision data and traffic-related charges under the Highway Traffic Act Criminal Code charges, including violent crimes such as sexual offenses, assault charges, and robberies Property crime, including break and enters Mental health-related occurrences Commander Holmes also announced the appointment of a new Community Engagement Officer, who will be assuming responsibility for the detachment’s media portfolio. Additionally, the detachment is currently awaiting news on a grant application to fund a second mental health professional to better support ongoing demands in this area. Moved by: Andrew Sloan Seconded by: Dominique Giguère RESOLVED THAT the Quarterly Report (March-May 2025) from the Elgin OPP Detachment Commander be received and filed. Motion Carried. 6.2 Chair's Report - Elgin OPP Detachment Board Chair, Dave Jenkins (Verbal) The Chair provided a verbal update, highlighting his recent involvement in the recruitment process for the new Elgin OPP Detachment Commander. He attended an onboarding session held one day prior to the interviews and had the opportunity to ask one question to each of the two candidates. On behalf of the Board, the Chair extended congratulations to Tyler Holmes on his successful appointment as Detachment Commander. The Chair also noted that, in fulfillment of the Board’s obligations to join the OAPSB Group Insurance Plan, a draft Abuse Prevention Policy was reviewed by independent legal counsel. Additionally, both Vice Chair Giguere and the Chair submitted comments regarding the recruitment process, emphasizing the Board’s position that it should play a more active role in future recruitments. A response to their concerns has been received and will be circulated to the Board by the Chair. 3 Moved by: Trudy Kanellis Seconded by: Ida McCallum RESOLVED THAT the verbal report from OPP Detachment Board Chairperson Dave Jenkins be received for information. Motion Carried. 6.3 OAPSB Conference and AGM Update - Elgin OPP Detachment Board Vice Chair, Dominique Giguere (Verbal) Vice Chair Dominique Giguère attended parts of the OAPSB Conference and AGM from June 3-5, 2025. She provide an update about her learnings including her main takeaway that there are many boards across the province that are still adjusting to the transition under the new Community Safety and Policing Act. Messaging from the conference emphasized that roles have changed under the new legislation and Detachment Boards are fundamentally different than the Police Services Boards that came before them. The Vice Chair found that the conference content is more pertinent to municipal boards as opposed to detachment boards; however, it was a good opportunity to have discussions with peers and provincial advisors. Vice Chair Giguère requested that staff develop a work plan for the Board that will provide guidance as to which policies the Board would like developed as it continues its transition. Moved by: Dominique Giguère Seconded by: Andrew Sloan RESOLVED THAT the verbal update regarding the OAPSB Conference and AGM from the Board Vice Chair, Dominique Giguère, be received for information; and THAT Staff be directed to develop a workplan for the Board to be presented at a future meeting. Motion Carried. 6.4 Draft Abuse Prevention Policy - Manager of Administrative Services, Katherine Thompson The Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk provided a draft Abuse Prevention Policy for review by the Board. This policy is required to enter into the OAPSB Group Insurance Plan. Moved by: Trudy Kanellis Seconded by: Dominique Giguère THAT the Elgin OPP Detachment Board approve and adopt the Abuse Prevention Policy and direct the County of Elgin to submit it as part of the 4 application to the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Group Plan Insurance. Motion Carried. 6.5 Financial Set Up Update - Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Jennifer Ford The Director of Financial Services/Treasurer provided the Board with an update outlining the steps taken to establish a bank account and obtain a business number for the Board. This is a necessary requirement for the Board to independently administer its payroll and manage invoice payments, separate from the County of Elgin. During this process, it was discovered that the Province has not yet defined the appropriate CRA classification for OPP Detachment Boards. The Inspectorate of Policing confirmed that no formal definition will be provided at this time, as no other Board in the province has pursued a separate business number. In most regions, one of the member municipalities performs administrative and financial functions on behalf of the Board and recovers associated costs from the other participating municipalities. In such cases, the municipality's existing business number is used for Board operations. The Inspectorate recommended that the Elgin OPP Detachment Board consider establishing a similar arrangement and advised that the County of Elgin, which is not a member municipality of the Board, should cease providing financial services. In response, Member Andrew Sloan, Mayor of the Municipality of Central Elgin, offered to explore the possibility of his municipality providing financial administration support and committed to presenting a proposal for consideration at the meeting in September. It was also recommended that the Board investigate the option of hiring an independent administrator to support its administrative operations. Moved by: Andrew Sloan Seconded by: Trudy Kanellis THAT the report titled “Financial Setup Update” from the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer dated June 12th, 2025 be received and filed, and; THAT cheques be ordered at a cost of $200 plus HST, and; THAT discussions regarding financial set up be deferred until September when the Municipality of Central Elgin can provide a proposal for financial management of the Board, and; 5 THAT a job description/cost model for an Administrator Role be investigated. Motion Carried. 6.6 Draft Elgin OPP Detachment Board Budget - Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Jennifer Ford The Board decided to defer discussion about the proposed 2025 Budget until discussions related to financial support and administration could be considered. The Board voted to continue to split Board costs by municipality based on number of households served as per the OPP Budget and as per historical practices under the former Police Services Board. Moved by: Dominique Giguère Seconded by: Ida McCallum THAT the report titled “2025 Budget Discussion” from the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer dated June 12th, 2025 be received and filed, and; THAT consideration of the the proposed 2025 Budget be deferred; and, THAT the split of costs between Municipalities be calculated as per Option A. Motion Carried. 7. Closed Session Items – None. 8. Rise and Report – None. 9. Correspondence 9.1 Spotlight Report - Policing of Protests and Major Events: Public Order Maintenance in Ontario and Inspection of Ontario Police Services Boards for Years 2023-2024 - Ryan Teschner, Inspector General of Policing of Ontario May 2025 Moved by: Dominique Giguère Seconded by: Trudy Kanellis RESOLVED THAT Correspondence Item 9.1 be received and filed. Motion Carried. 10. New Business Mayor Sloan expressed his support for officers in schools and suggested a letter be sent to the Minister of Education to indicate the Board's support. 6 Representation for the OPP indicated that information to be released in the coming weeks will support this development and negate the need for correspondence. Vice Chair Giguère requested that a discussion on the Local Action Plan be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Detachment Commander Holmes indicated that he had just received the finalized Elgin OPP Detachment Board Annual Report for 2024. In order to meet its requirements under the Community Safety and Policing Act, the Board is required to circulate this report to participating municipalities by June 30th annually. Moved by: Dominique Giguère Seconded by: Andrew Sloan THAT the Elgin OPP Detachment Board Annual Report for 2024 be circulated first to the the Board, and then to participating Local Municipal Partners. Motion Carried. 11. Adjournment Member Andrew Sloan offered to host the Board in the Central Elgin Boardroom for the next meeting. Moved by: Andrew Sloan Seconded by: Trudy Kanellis RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn at 2:59 p.m. to meet again on September 30, 2025, at 1:00p.m. Motion Carried. Katherine Thompson, Acting Secretary-Treasurer. Dave Jenkins, Chair. 1 Elgin OPP Detachment Board Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025, 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Members Present: Dave Jenkins, Board Chair Dominique Giguère, Vice Chair Andrew Sloan, Board Member Ida McCallum, Board Member Trudy Kanellis, Board Member Staff Present: Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. with Dave Jenkins in the Chair. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by: Trudy Kanellis Seconded by: Andrew Sloan RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the September 16, 2025, Elgin OPP Detachment Board meeting be approved as presented. Motion Carried. 3. Adoption of Minutes None. 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof None. 5. Delegations 6. Reports 6.1 Renewal of OAPSB Group Insurance Plan The Board considered the renewal of the OAPSB Group Insurance Plan for the period of September 27, 2025 - September 27, 2026. 2 Moved by: Trudy Kanellis Seconded by: Dominique Giguère RESOLVED THAT the Elgin OPP Detachment Board approve the renewal of the OAPSB Group Insurance Plan for the term September 27, 2025-September 27, 2026, at a cost of $3,600 + 8% tax, and THAT staff be directed to proceed with the renewal in the online portal. Motion Carried. 7. Closed Session Items – None. 8. Rise and Report – None. 9. Correspondence – None. 10. New Business – None. 11. Adjournment Moved by: Andrew Sloan Seconded by: Dominique Giguère RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn at 9:28 a.m. to meet again on September 30 at 1:00p.m. Motion Carried. Katherine Thompson, Acting Secretary-Treasurer Dave Jenkins, Chair. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 10, 2025 Community Living Elgin Concludes 20+ Years Leading EarlyON Programs ST. THOMAS, ON – The St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services team announces that, effective December 31, 2025, the EarlyON Child and Family Centre program in the East Zone will transition to a new operator. Community Living Elgin has provided notice that they will not be continuing in the role of East Zone Lead beyond this date. The St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services team extends its sincere gratitude to Community Living Elgin for more than 20 years of dedicated service to families and children across St. Thomas and Elgin County. From operating the Ontario Early Years Centres to delivering EarlyON programs, their staff have made a lasting difference through their commitment, compassion, and creativity. “Over the past two decades, Community Living Elgin has been a trusted partner in supporting children and families across St. Thomas and Elgin County,” said Teresa Sulowski, Manager of Children’s Services, St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services. “Their leadership in early years programming has created welcoming spaces where families could learn, connect, and thrive together.” “Community Living Elgin has been a trusted partner to St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services for over two decades. Their long-standing commitment to families has strengthened the foundation of early learning in our community,” said Heather Sheridan, Director of St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services. “We are grateful for the care and collaboration they have offered over the years, and we wish them continued success in their future endeavors.” The St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services team remains committed to ensuring a smooth transition and the continuity of EarlyON programs in the East Zone. Beginning in 2026, Tiny Tots Co-Operative Nursery School of Aldborough Inc. – the current EarlyON provider in the West Zone (serving Dutton-Dunwich and West Elgin) – will assume responsibility for EarlyON program delivery in the East Zone as well. Further details regarding the transition and future program delivery will be shared with families and community partners in the coming months. About EarlyON Child and Family Centres EarlyON Child and Family Centres offer free, high-quality programs—both in-person and virtually—for children from birth to six years of age and their parents and caregivers. Programs provide welcoming environments with qualified early childhood professionals where children can engage in play-based learning and development. Parents and caregivers have opportunities for support, connection, and access to valuable resources. Families seeking more information about EarlyON programs are encouraged to contact the St. Thomas–Elgin Social Services Children’s Services Team or visit StThomasElginEarlyON.ca ### Media Contact Rebecca Chouinard Communications and Public Relations Coordinator rchouinard@stthomas.ca 519.631.1680 x 4199 ELGIN OPP DETACHMENT BOARD Municipality of West Elgin Municipality of Dutton-Dunwich Township of Southwold Municipality of Central Elgin Township of Malahide Municipality of Bayham October 7, 2025 Re: Request for Proposals – Financial Management Services for the Elgin OPP Detachment Board Dear Member Municipalities, I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the Elgin OPP Detachment Board to formally request proposals from interested municipalities willing to assume financial management role on behalf of the Board. OPP Detachment Boards are not recognized as standalone entities by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and therefore cannot obtain a business number to operate independently. As such, the Inspectorate of Policing has advised that one of the partner municipalities must manage the Board’s financial operations using that municipality’s business number. Until now, the County of Elgin has provided financial administration support to the Board. However, as the County is not a member of the Detachment Board, it is no longer in a position to continue in this role. We are therefore seeking proposals from our member municipalities who are interested in assuming the following financial responsibilities: • Processing payroll and expenses for Board five (5) members • Managing the Board’s bank account • Developing and presenting an annual operating budget (see a sample, previous budget for a scope of complexity, attached) and an annual financial report (budget and actual). • Accounts payable and accounts receivable functions (see sample budget for scope, minimal number of transactions per year). The proposal should include: • A brief description of your municipality’s capacity, interest, and experience in delivering these services for outside organizations. • An estimate of yearly cost (approximate upper limit amount, based on estimated number of hours needed to perform the tasks listed above and the proposed hourly rate). ELGIN OPP DETACHMENT BOARD Please submit proposals no later than November 10, 2025, to both: • Dave Jenkins, Chair, Elgin OPP Detachment Board (dmjenkins95@gmail.com) • Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk, County of Elgin (kthompson@elgin.ca) We appreciate your attention to this important matter and thank you in advance for your consideration. Your support is critical to ensuring the continued effective operation of the Elgin OPP Detachment Board. Sincerely, Dave Jenkins Chair, Elgin OPP Detachment Board dmjenkins95@gmail.com Elgin Group Policing Police Services Board Budget Not Final Budget Budget YTD Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual 2023 2022 2022 2021 2021 2020 2020 Recoveries (36,235) (35,880) (33,156)(36,538) (36,997) (35,875) (34,959) Total Revenue (36,235) (35,880) (33,156) (36,538) (36,997) (35,875) (34,959) Wages 9200 9200 9000 9,200 9,200 9,200 8,450 Benefits 417 0 424 0 370 Total Wages & Benefits 9,200 9,200 9,417 9,200 9,624 9,200 8,820 Mileage 2000 2000 2,000 2,000 Travel‐Other 430 430 430 430 Development 14000 14000 396 14,000 1,045 14,000 2,141 Purchased Services (RIDE) 11329 0 13,254 0 13,539 Project Costs 0 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 Miscellaneous 10605 10250 11513.63 9,908 12,074 9,245 10,459 Total Operating Costs 27,035 26,680 23,739 27,338 27,373 26,675 26,139 Net Income Total* 0 0 (0)0000 *Balance of costs billed back to Municipal Partners at year end by % of Households REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Lorne James, Treasurer DATE: October 16, 2025 REPORT: TR-18/25 SUBJECT: 2025 Q3 VARIANCE REPORT BACKGROUND The Q3 (third quarter) financial reports are provided for Council’s fiduciary review. This Report provides a summary of current revenues and expenditures up to September 30, 2025, and variances to the Operating Budget and Capital Budget. This Report also seeks preliminary direction from Council regarding the 2026 tax levy increase so staff can proceed in drafting the 2026 Operating Budget. DISCUSSION The Operating Budget and Capital Budget are in-line with expected levels given the cyclical nature of operations and slowing inflation/ tariff spikes and currency. The Municipality is experiencing slowing building development through the third quarter, specifically in Building and Development services. Capital pressures, at this point, are less than anticipated due to projects to-date coming in or under budget. Collections The Municipality has noticed an improvement in collections from Q2 to Q3 on tax and water/wastewater arrears. Staff do note that we are still slightly off 2024 and 2023 Q3 numbers though. Staff will continue to watch collections and advise if the trends worsen either before year-end reports or 2026 tax rate supported budget. There is weakness in the current arrears, which is defined as 30 to 90 days, and has been a trend issue over 2025. Debt Below are current interest rates available for debt servicing for any future Bayham projects in 2026 and beyond from Infrastructure Ontario and Royal Bank of Canada: Term Rate Royal Bank of Canada Operating line of credit 4.45% Royal Bank of Canada 10 year term, 25 year amortization 5.50% Infrastructure Ontario Investments The Municipality has some short-term investments that recently matured in March 2025. Those investments are sitting the general cash account yielding a 2.94-percent interest rate on account. Below are some options for short-term investing in near term: Investment Value Maturity Date Current Yield RBC GIC $5,000,000 6 Months 2.59% RBC GIC $5,000,000 1 Year 2.62% 2026 Budget Direction – Tax Levy It is expected that the Draft 2026 Operating Budget will be published after Council adopts, in principle, the 2026-2035 Capital Budgets. Staff currently anticipate the Draft 2026 Operating Budget being finalized and published in early December 2025 for consideration on January 6, 2026. The 2026 Draft Operating Budget will include 11 month year to date actuals for 2025, operating revenues and expenditures, and levy-supported capital requirements. Staff are seeking preliminary direction from Council regarding an acceptable ceiling for a 2026 tax levy increase so staff can review and development a Draft 2026 Operating Budget for Council’s consideration in January 2026. Currently, Consumer Price Index is at 1.9 percent for the current year end trailing. Staff are also aware through MPAC that projected assessment growth is around 1.3 percent. STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2: Quality of Governance > To continually demonstrate financial responsibility to the community. Initiative(s): Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. Appendix A: 2025 Q3 Operating Revenue & Expense Variance Report 2. Appendix B: 2025 Q3 Capital Expense Variance Report RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report TR-18/25 re 2025 Q3 Variance Report be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council provide any direction to staff in regards to a preliminary tax levy increase for 2026. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Lorne James, CPA, CA Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer Revenues 05.10 General Taxation $6,782,847 $6,715,270 101% 05.20 Other Revenues $985,423 $1,304,800 76% 10.10 General Government $104,503 $97,500 107% 10.20 Council 20.10 Fire Services $181,287 $45,000 403%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 $126,924 $262,000 48%lower building activity 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services $29,917 $46,000 65%Municipal Share Billing to Malahide 25.10 Roads $411,709 $605,951 68%seasonality of RMA funding 25.20 Winter Control $5,889 $5,000 118%seasonality 25.40 Street Lights 30.10 Water $592,065 $779,899 76% 30.15 Richmond Water $72,715 $104,267 70% 30.30 Waste Disposal $23,053 $35,000 66%lower bag tag sales 30.20 Waste Water $686,762 $999,500 69% 35.20 Cemeteries $1,068 $2,000 53%seasonality 40.10 General Assistance 45.10 Parks & Recreation $195 $2,600 8%student grant in q4 funding 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre $23,987 $20,000 120%higher utilization 45.40 Libraries $64,484 $78,904 82%County Library lease 45.50 Museums $19,203 $13,200 145%additional student grant received 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism $150,148 $123,500 122%collections in advance of services 50.15 Tourism & Marketing $126,061 $85,000 148%Strong summer of paid parking 50.20 Environmental Services $0 $6,500 0%grant at year end reporting Capital $932,006 $6,895,250 14%refer to capital sheet Expenditures 05.10 General Taxation 05.20 Other Revenues 10.10 General Government $977,662 $1,263,885 77% 10.20 Council $76,938 $109,708 70% 20.10 Fire Services $447,202 $701,839 64%lower projected fire points 20.20 Police Services $720,593 $980,727 73% 20.30 Conservation Authority $106,665 $111,665 96%timing of LPRCA billing 20.40 Building Services $108,716 $233,316 47%lower shared service time due to lower building activity 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services $112,748 $155,666 72% 25.10 Roads $1,461,821 $2,148,168 68% 25.20 Winter Control $79,694 $129,306 62%seasonality 25.40 Street Lights $31,516 $44,000 72% 30.10 Water $571,740 $779,900 73% 30.15 Richmond Water $47,536 $104,266 46% 30.20 Waste Water $591,515 $999,500 59% 30.30 Waste Disposal $324,477 $490,000 66%seasonality 35.20 Cemeteries $15,653 $22,500 70%seasonality 40.10 General Assistance $7,440 $9,000 83% 45.10 Parks & Recreation $83,421 $117,940 71% 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre $47,426 $64,346 74% 45.40 Libraries $30,356 $78,904 38%reserve transfer 45.50 Museums $59,883 $61,476 97%seasonality 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism $200,646 $239,438 84% 50.15 Tourism & Marketing $97,239 $112,399 87% 50.20 Environmental Services $5,531 $8,444 66% Capital $7,020,637 $9,264,750 76%refer to capital sheet Municipality of Bayham Appendix A: 2025 Q3 Operating Revenue and Expense Variance Report 2025 Actuals 2025 Budget % Consumed 2025 2025 % Actuals Budget Consumed General Government Liability Reserve Transfer 15,000$ 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 22,615$ 25,000$ 90%complete Office 365 Upgrades 13,326$ 25,000$ 53%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%deferred 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 SCBA Purchase 368,213$ Emegency Trailer 45,535$ trailer from Provincial Grant Roads Tunnel Line Culvert removal 460,000$ 0%on hold Tandem 447,565$ 540,000$ 83%complete Elliott Rd.242,753$ 250,000$ 97%complete Gravel Program 159,490$ 215,000$ 74%ongoing Carson Line 31,786$ 150,000$ 21%started Sidewalks 590$ 100,000$ 1%on going / awaiting invoice Road Signs 2,658$ 7,500$ 35%on going Guardrails 10,000$ 0%on going Roads Needs Study - AMP 24,199$ 25,000$ 97%complete Road Side Brushing 6,033$ 50,000$ 12%on going Hill Management 30,000$ 0%in operations Lakeshore Line Study 19,912$ 35,000$ 57%ongoing PB Storm Sewer - Phase 1C 1,650,000$ 0%on hold Water Waterline 37,583$ 2023 holdback, all grants received Waste Water System Equipment 24,748$ 46,000$ 54%ongoing SCADA Comp.30,000$ 0% Air Blowers 28,000$ 0% Wastewater Sampler 29,000$ 0% Manhole rehab 7,851$ 26,000$ 30% Eden Pumps 8,012$ 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%complete, note 2024 capital carry over East Pier Rehabilitation 50,000$ 0% Reycling Unit 2,946$ Facilities Facility Audit 60,000$ 0%to be done in 2026, reserved SCC Expansion 28,269$ 2,171,000$ 1%Eligible architecture costs PB Lighthouse 1,506,250$ 0% Marine Musuem 103,462$ carry over from 2024, no levy impact Planning and Development Municipality of Bayham Appendix B: 2025 Q3 Capital Expense Variance Report Official Plan Review 2,268$ 30,000$ 8%ongoing THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2025-061 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE AND TO DECLARE LANDS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AS PART OF THE OPEN PUBLIC HIGHWAY SYSTEM (PART 2 OF 11R-11368 – PART OF COYLE ROAD) WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001,c.25, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. AND WHEREAS ownership of Part 2 on Registered Plan 11R-11368 was transferred and registered as CT259882 on October 3, 2025; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of declaring Part 2 on 11R-11368, being a travelled portion of Coyle Road, as part of the open public highway system. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the land described as Concession 8 Part Lot 25, Municipality of Bayham, being Part 2 of Reference Plan No. 11R-11368, is hereby declared as part of the public and travelled road system of the Municipality of Bayham. 3. 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 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. ___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. Z817-2025 COUNTRYSIDE COMMUNITIES INC. 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 “H” by changing the zoning symbol on the lands from ‘Village Residential 1 (R1(h2))’ Zone to a ‘Site-Specific Village Residential 1 (R1-24(h2))’ Zone, which lands are outlined in heavy solid lines and marked “R1-24(h2)” on Schedule “H” 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 Exceptions – Village Residential 1 (R1) Zone by adding the following clauses: 10.12.24.1 Defined Area R1-24(h2) as shown on Schedule “H” to this By-law. 10.12.24.2 Minimum Lot Area – Lot 12, Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 755m² for a single detached dwelling 10.12.24.3 Minimum Lot Area – Lots 3 & 4, Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-BA2501 375m² for a semi-detached dwelling 10.12.24.4 Maximum Building Coverage 35% 10.12.24.5 Maximum Building Height 8.0m 10.12.24.6 Maximum Driveway Coverage – Semi-detached dwellings Notwithstanding Section 4.34.1, 60% is permitted 3) THIS By-law comes into force: a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Municipal Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal. READ A FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME THIS 16th Day of October 2025. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 16th Day of October 2025. _____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2025-062 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 16, 2025 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 October 16, 2025 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 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK