Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 05, 2026 - Planning - Statutory Public Meeting - OPTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, March 5, 2026 6:00 p.m. The March 5, 2026 Statutory Public 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. CHAIRMAN’s REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING 4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN THE PURPOSE of the Public Meeting is to present the final draft of the new Official Plan. A presentation will be made by the consultant team, Arcadis, to review the key themes of the new Official Plan and the changes since the December 2024 Draft Official Plan based on the approved County of Elgin Official Plan and input received, including from the Open Houses that took place in June 2024 and January 2025. The current Bayham Official Plan was approved in February 2019, and Municipalities are required under Section 26 of the Planning Act to conduct an Official Plan Review every five (5) years to ensure the Official Plan: • Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; • Has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and; • Conforms with the County of Elgin Official Plan. The purpose of an Official Plan Review is to ensure that policies of the Official Plan are in conformity with provincial and County plans and policies and continue to meet the community’s vision for future change and development. This Official Plan Review is a municipal-wide initiative affecting all lands within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Bayham. 5. PRESENTATION A. Jeff Henry, Arcadis re Phase Four – Final Draft Official Plan 6. CORRESPONDENCE A. Summary of Comments Received B. Elgin County Comments Public Meeting Agenda March 5, 2026 2 C. Arcadis re Response to Elgin County Comments D. Southwestern Public Health Comments 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE FINAL DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW TAKE NOTICE that the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is in the process of conducting an Official Plan Review, and that the County of Elgin is the Approval Authority for Official Plan Amendments. that Council and the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a Public Meeting under Section 17(15) and Section 26(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13. to present the final draft of the new Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan Review project. AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold this Public Meeting on Thursday, March 5th, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers, Lower Level, 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville. The Public Meeting may be viewed virtually through the live-stream on the Municipality of Bayham’s YouTube Channel THE PURPOSE of the Public Meeting is to present the final draft of the new Official Plan. A presentation will be made by the consultant team, Arcadis, to review the key themes of the new Official Plan and the changes since the December 2024 Draft Official Plan based on the approved County of Elgin Official Plan and input received, including from the Open Houses that took place in June 2024 and January 2025. The current Bayham Official Plan was approved in February 2019, and Municipalities are required under Section 26 of the Planning Act to conduct an Official Plan Review every five (5) years to ensure the Official Plan: • Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; • Has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and; • Conforms with the County of Elgin Official Plan. The purpose of an Official Plan Review is to ensure that policies of the Official Plan are in conformity with provincial and County plans and policies and continue to meet the community’s vision for future change and development. This Official Plan Review is a municipal-wide initiative affecting all lands within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Bayham. THE EFFECT of this will be the preparation of a Final Draft Official Plan to present to the Municipality of Bayham Council for adoption. Following adoption, the adopted Official Plan will be sent to the County of Elgin for approval. ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the final draft Official Plan. The Municipality encourages your comments throughout the Official Plan Review process. If you have any comments, questions, require further information, or would like to be added to the project mailing list for updates and to be notified of the future decision of the County of Elgin on the proposed Official Plan, please email or mail to: • opreview@bayham.on.ca • Municipal Office: Attention - Official Plan Review (56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160, Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0) • Oral submissions may also be expressed at Open Houses or the Statutory Public Meeting. All comments received will form part of the public record and will be circulated to Council, Municipal Staff, and Arcadis. Written comments submitted on or before 12:00 Noon on Wednesday, February 25th , 2026 to munderhill@bayham.on.ca or at the municipal office will be included in the public meeting agenda. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY OR REGISTERED OWNER of any land to which the plan would apply would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the County of Elgin to the Ontario Land Tribunal but does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the proposed Bayham Official Plan is adopted, the specified person, public body, or registered owner of any land to which the plan would apply is not entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the proposed official plan is adopted, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the Official Plan, you must make a written request to the undersigned. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendments may be obtained by contacting the Municipal Office. Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 28th day of January 2026. Margaret Underhill Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160, 56169 Heritage Line Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca W: www.bayham.on.ca Bayham Official Plan Review –Shaping Our Future Phase Four -Final Draft Official Plan Statutory Public Meeting March 5, 2026, 6:00 –6:50 PM Jeff Henry, RPP, MCIP DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Presentation Outline © Arcadis 2026 Project Name Location 27 February 2026 2 1.Review of Planning Hierarchy 2.Process for the Bayham Official Plan Review 3.Public Consultation and Engagement 4.Changes Since First Draft Official Plan 5.Changes Since Final Draft Official Plan (County comments) 6.Next Steps 7.Questions DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1. Planning Hierarchy © Arcadis 2023 27 February 2026 3 •Planning Act •Provincial Planning Statement •Elgin County Official Plan •Bayham Official Plan •Bayham Zoning By-law Provincial Level County Level Local Level DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 Project Name Location 27 February 2026 4 Phase 1: Project Initiation Phase 5: Approval of Official Plan Phase 4: Final Draft and Adoption of Official Plan Phase 2: Consultation & Policy Review Phase 3: First Draft Official Plan Image Source: County of Brant Engagement & Consultation Ongoing We Are Here 2. Process for the Bayham Official Plan Review DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3. Public Consultation and Engagement © Arcadis 2026 Project Name Location 27 February 2026 5 •Since the initiation of the project in May 2024, the following public consultation and engagement has occurred: o 2 Open Houses (June 19, 2024, January 15, 2025) o 3 Special Council Meetings (May 23, 2024, August 29, 2024, Today) o 21 Inquiries via email or written submission (through February 25, 2026) o 2 One-on-One Meeting with the public •First Draft Official Plan released December 9, 2024 •Final Draft Official Plan released January 28, 2026 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3. Public Consultation and Engagement (continued) © Arcadis 2026 Project Name Location 27 February 2026 6 •Key Themes from the consultation and engagement include: o Settlement Areas (specifically the inclusion or removal of lands from property owners) o On-Farm Diversified and Agricultural Related Uses (specifically enhancing policies in the Official Plan) o Protection of Agricultural and Natural Heritage o Indigenous Engagement o How the new Provincial Planning Statement will impact the project timeline o Process pertaining to the Official Plan Review project DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 4. Changes Since First Draft Official Plan The Final Draft Official Plan included 38 modifications from the First Draft: •6 modifications were to align with County Official Plan modifications •3 modifications were to include OPA 39, 40, and 41 •12 modifications were policy changes and clarifications to policy •2 modifications were to align with Conservation Authority regulation limit changes •2 modifications were minor settlement area boundary adjustments •13 modifications were technical corrections (typos, drawing errors, omissions, etc.) 7 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 4. Changes Since First Draft Official Plan (continued) Policy changes and clarifications to policy (12 modifications): •Clarified Farm Labour Accommodation policies are about cumulative floor area •Removed historical permissions allowing new residential units in Agricultural Areas •Removed historical permissions permitting new Estate Residential lots •All established Estate Residential lots are now precisely mapped •Clarified locations of Mobile Home Parks and Seasonal Travel Trailer Parks •All established uses are now precisely mapped •Added that the impacts of climate change include human health per SWPH •Added new policy for Temporary Uses (Garden Suites) •Relies on Section 39.1 of the Planning Act; typical limit is 10 years per Council decisions 8 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 4. Changes Since First Draft Official Plan (continued) Minor settlement area boundary adjustments (2 modifications) •Minister undid minor corrections in Adopted County OP / First Draft Bayham OP •County OP Permits Minor Adjustments (Policy 2.9) •New adjustment added at County request 9 Approved County OP First Draft Bayham OP Final Draft Bayham OP RICHMOND CORINTH DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 5. Changes Since Final Draft Official Plan The County reviewed the Final Draft Official Plan and made 10 comments. Based on our review, we have proposed the following additional modifications: •Correct planning horizon from 30 years to 25 years (Section 1.1) •Clarify the only permitted conversion of lands designed “Agricultural Area” is through a settlement area boundary expansion and that the permitted new or expanded non-agricultural uses under Subsections 3.5-3.10 are only within the lands historically designated as Estate Residential, Mobile Home Parks, Seasonal Travel Trailer Parks and Campgrounds, Institutional, Commercial / Highway Commercial, Recreational, and Industrial (Section 3.2.3). Non-agricultural uses may be permitted within the “Agricultural Area” without redesignation, subject to provincial, County, and Bayham policies •Further clarify new or expanded non-agricultural uses are subject to the MDS Formulae (Sections 3.2.3, 3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.7.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.3, 3.9.2, 3.10.2) 10 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 5. Changes Since Final Draft Official Plan (continued) •Clarified establishment of farm labour accommodations is permitted subject to the previously noted criteria, corrected language (supplementary farm dwelling to farm labour accommodation), clarified large-scale farm labour accommodations is subject to Site Plan Control (Section 3.3.11) •Removed reference to LPRCA regarding identification of natural heritage features (Section 5.2(d)) •Removed reference to County regarding requirements for fish habitat and the habitat of threatened or endangered species (Section 5.10.1(a)) •Added Bayham-owned Collector Roads definition and table, revised road widening language to match County policy language (Section 6.3.2) •Clarified language regarding the form of agreement as a condition of consent (Section 11.6.7.2(b)) 11 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 5. Changes Since Final Draft Official Plan (continued) The LPRCA reviewed the Final Draft Official Plan and made 7 comments. Based on our review, we have proposed the following additional modifications: •Removed redundant policy from old Official Plan (4.4.8.7) •Clarified LPRCA regulated authority relates to significant wetlands (5.7) •Clarified LPRCA also has requirements for stormwater management in certain circumstances (6.4.9.2) •VIENNA TWO-ZONE FLOOD POLICY COMMENTS / REVIEW IN PROGRESS (8.7) 12 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 5. Changes Since Final Draft Official Plan (continued) Additional changes from one public comment received: •Corrected mapping of Meadows Mobile Home Park to match Zoning By-law (MH-2 zone) with corresponding policy updates given change in designated area (Section 3.5.1(a)) 13 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 6. Next Steps •Review comments on Final Draft Official Plan (including from today) 1-2 weeks •Make further revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan as applicable 1-2 weeks •Council adopts the new Official Plan April 2026 •County reviews the adopted Official Plan and either: 2-3 months •Approves the Official Plan •Approves the Official Plan with modifications •Municipality publishes the Final Official Plan online 1-3 weeks 14 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2026 6. Next Steps •Review comments on Final Draft Official Plan (including from today) 1-2 weeks •Make further revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan as applicable 1-2 weeks •Council adopts the new Official Plan April 2026 •Launch of Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review May 2026 •County reviews the adopted Official Plan and either: 2-3 months •Approves the Official Plan •Approves the Official Plan with modifications •Municipality publishes the Final Official Plan online 1-3 weeks 15 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2023 Questions 16 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE © Arcadis 2023 Thank You 17 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Feb 27/26 SUMMARY - COMMENTS RECEIVED & RESPONSES SENT DURING BAYHAM OPR 1. Name: Mark Hulst Address: 10668 Culloden Road Contact: Markhulst1@outlook.com Comment received: February 1, 2024 I would like to expand the Hamlet of "North Hall' Northerly of its current boundary line, (approximately 1350' feet), for the purpose of creating new residential building lots. Please find attached a copy of my property boundaries as reported by Geo warehouse and also a rough draft of a potential layout to create 10 new residential lots I have apportioned 100' of the entire frontage to allocate towards the municipal drain that currently runs through my property. I understand that an Engineer will have to compile a plan to include details of lot lines drainage etc etc. and that zoning will have to be amended as well as minor variances. If you could bring this matter up to the Township Planning department, I would appreciate it. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions comments or concerns. Response sent: October 15, 2024 Hello Mark, Arcadis has reviewed your request to include the subject property identified as 10668 Culloden Road within the Hamlet of North Hall Settlement Area boundary. To date, we received two (2) correspondences, one (1) dated February 2, 2024, and one (1) dated July 24, 2024. A ‘one-on- one’ meeting was also held on August 7th to discuss the proposed request in further detail. After completing our planning analysis and deliberating with Municipal of Bayham Staff, County of Elgin Staff, and Bayham Council, the subject property will not be included within the Settlement Area boundary as part of the new Bayham Official Plan for the following reasons: 1. This parcel is a part of a larger agricultural parcel that is located outside of the settlement area boundary. The current configuration would result in the fragmentation of existing agricultural lands, which should be protected as per Provincial and County policy direction. 2. The proposed boundary change request encourages strip development, resulting in the fragmentation of agricultural lands. Residential development should be directed within settlement areas that are fully or partially serviced rather than privately serviced. 3. This parcel is located within a ‘Highly Vulnerable Aquifer’ area, as per the newly adopted Elgin County Official Plan, therefore, the addition of private septic beds may negatively impact ground water quality and is contrary to the current public policy framework. The lands are also impacted by natural heritage features to the north. 4. The County of Elgin has identified in their newly adopted Official Plan that the Municipality of Bayham has a residential land surplus of 93.2 hectares (specifically in Vienna and Port Burwell where full municipal services are available), as per the Land Needs Analysis prepared by Hemson Consulting. This means there are more lands designated for residential development than what the future projected population growth in Bayham requires. 5. County of Elgin, being the approval authority for the lower-tier municipality’s Official Plan, did not alter the Settlement Area boundaries as part of their newly adopted Official Plan. Given the intent of this Official Plan Review is to ‘conform’ to the newly adopted Elgin County Official Plan, the settlement area boundary will not include additional lands for residential development and conform to what Elgin County has proposed. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We thank you for participating in this Official Plan Review project and certainly encourage you to stay engaged as we prepare the first Draft Official Plan document for early November. 2. Name: Sara Peters Address: 11219 Plank Road, Eden Contact: Sara.peters63@gmail.com Comment received: April 10, 2024 I am writing to respectfully request your consideration for the approval of a land severance for my property located at 11219 Plank Road, Eden, Ontario NOJ lHO. As a responsible landowner, I have carefully evaluated this decision and believe that a severance would be in the best interest of both myself and the community. I am requesting this approval as I would like to sever 4 half acre lots as shown in the enclosed diagram. I understand the importance of adhering to zoning regulations and ensuring that any development aligns with the overall planning objectives of the township/county. Therefore, I am committed to working closely with the appropriate authorities to address any concerns and ensure that the proposed severance meets all necessary requirements. I believe that by granting this request, it will not only enhance the value and utility of the property but also contribute positively to the community by facilitating responsible land development. Thank you for considering my request. I am available to provide any additional information or clarification as needed. I look forward to your favorable response. Response sent: October 15, 2024 Hello Sara, Arcadis has reviewed your request to include the subject property identified as 11219 Plank Road within the Hamlet of Eden Settlement Area boundary. To date, we received one (1) correspondence dated April 9, 2024. After completing our planning analysis and deliberating with Municipal of Bayham Staff, County of Elgin Staff, and Bayham Council, the subject property will not be included within the Settlement Area boundary as part of the new Bayham Official Plan for the following reasons: 1. This parcel is a part of a larger agricultural parcel that is located outside of the settlement area boundary. The current configuration would result in the fragmentation of existing agricultural lands, which should be protected as per Provincial and County policy direction. 2. The proposed boundary change request encourages strip development, resulting in the fragmentation of agricultural lands. The intent is to encourage comprehensive infill development within the larger parcels of lands already existing within the Hamlet of Eden, rather than strip development along Plank Road. 3. The County of Elgin has identified in their newly adopted Official Plan that the Municipality of Bayham has a residential land surplus of 93.2 hectares (specifically in Vienna and Port Burwell where full municipal services are available), as per the Land Needs Analysis prepared by Hemson Consulting. This means there are more lands designated for residential development than what the future projected population growth in Bayham requires. 4. County of Elgin, being the approval authority for the lower-tier municipality’s Official Plan, did not alter the Settlement Area boundaries as part of their newly adopted Official Plan. Given the intent of this Official Plan Review is to ‘conform’ to the newly adopted Elgin County Official Plan, the settlement area boundary will not include additional lands for residential development and conform to what Elgin County has proposed. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We thank you for participating in this Official Plan Review project and certainly encourage you to stay engaged as we prepare the first Draft Official Plan document for early November. 3. Name: Gerry Richer Contact: ceppsont@yahoo.ca Comment received: May 22, 2024 My name is Gerry Richer a retired resident living in Aylmer. I worked for the Ontario Government (MNRF) for some 35 years retiring in 2001. I am an indigenous First Nation of the Ojibwe Nation and have current ongoing working relations with various First Nations across Ontario. Recently, I read in this weeks edition of the Aylmer Express an article speaking to the council's discussion pertaining to the Land Acknowledgement Statement and so I would like to provide a comment. Firstly, I applaud your initiative to potentially adopt a Land Acknowledgement statement to precede council business. On this point, the Land Acknowledgement was as result of the Truth and Reconciliation process as result of the centuries of abuse/ignorance of First Nation Treaty and Inherent Rights. Prior to Canadian Confederation, the Royal Crown of England established numerous Treaties with First Nations across Canada of which some were deemed unceded lands. Over the past century or more, many municipalities, directed/mentored by the Ontario/Federal Governments at times chose to ignore these Treaties and on most occasions preferred a confrontational/legal approach to challenging First Nation Rights. Several Supreme Court decisions over the decades have ruled on the legality of such treaties. The Oka Crisis 1990 was over nothing less than an expansion of a golf course that supposedly required some form of municipal sign-off. The Caledonia Occupation beginning in 1995 was over nothing less than a Plan of Subdivision which also had municipal sign-off. The Haldimand Tract issue was another matter unresolved. The history of circumstances aside, these incidents speaks to the failure or lack of consultation and recognition of First Nation Treaties which may have had a different outcome had their been an ongoing relationship between the stakeholders and First Nations. As your municipality is initiating an Official Plan review, I would encourage your office to reach out and consult with either the Six Nations at their Ohsweken office by contacting a Lauren Jones at 519-445-0330 or the Chippewas of the Thames, a Mr Kodi Deleary, 226-919-7160. Either office would be available to provide a First Nation perspective. At the minimum, I would propose that a copy of the First Nation Treaty and its boundary be placed in the official plan as a separate schedule. Their offices may speak to other matters at a policy level. I'm sure you agree that including stakeholder interests at the policy level would be more beneficial/proactive then soliciting input at the developmental stages which can be costly and time consuming. Should you wish to discuss these matters further, please feel free to contact myself or either representative of the said communities. Response sent: January 7, 2026 Hello Mr. Richer, Thank you for your engagement with the Bayham Official Plan Review and your email received on May 22, 2024 regarding Council's adoption of a Land Acknowledgement statement preceding Council business and your suggestions at the outset of the Official Plan Review project related to First Nations engagement. In recognition of the partnership between the Municipality and the local Indigenous peoples, a Territorial Acknowledgement was included in the December 2024 Draft Bayham Official Plan and will be included in the January 2025 Final Draft Bayham Official Plan. Further, and in conformity with the County of Elgin's new Official Plan, recently approved in September 2025, Policy 11.3.2 (a) of the Draft Bayham Official Plan states that the Municipality will "create, in collaboration area Indigenous communities and the County, an engagement protocol to be applied when engaging and coordinating with Indigenous communities on planning matters." We thank you again for your feedback and engagement with the Bayham Official Plan Review. 4. Name: Susanne Schlotzhauer Contact: smschlot@hotmail.com Comment received: May 24, 2024 I trust this message finds you all well. I am writing to you following the special council meeting held last evening, which focused on the official plan review. I am eager to understand how I, as a resident of Bayham, can contribute to this significant process that will undoubtedly shape our future. While I appreciate that the alignment of our policies with provincial and county guidelines is a matter best left to the professionals, I am interested in understanding what Bayham seeks from its residents in terms of public input. This input, I believe, can play a crucial role in defining policies that will guide Bayham’s development. Many municipalities have found value in soliciting public input through questionnaires focused on specific official plan policies. Such an approach not only encourages public participation but also ensures that the policies reflect the needs and aspirations of the community they are intended to serve. I understand this kind of public engagement strategy is likely not a viable option for Bayham under our current budget constraints. However, I am keen to provide meaningful input into this process and would greatly appreciate any guidance on what Bayham is seeking from its constituents. This will enable me to tailor my contributions effectively. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your advice and to participating in shaping the future of Bayham. Response sent: May 31, 2024 Your email has been added to the group notification list. Please be advised that the OP Review email address will provide the reminders for upcoming events/meetings, draft publication of the Official Plan, and any other changes to the project. Thank you for your interest in the OP Review. 5. Name: Susanne Schlotzhauer Contact: smschlot@hotmail.com Comment received: May 24, 2024 Please add me to the Official Plan Review project mailing list for updates and to be notified of the future decision of the County of Elgin on the proposed Official Plan. Will this mailing list provide reminders for upcoming OP events, or will reminders be coming through Bayham web site subscriptions and/or the Voyent Alert. Response sent: May 31, 2024 Your email has been added to the group notification list. Please be advised that the OP Review email address will provide the reminders for upcoming events/meetings, draft publication of the Official Plan, and any other changes to the project. Thank you for your interest in the OP Review. 6. Name: Susanne Schlotzhauer Contact: smschlot@hotmail.com Comment received: June 12, 2024 Mayor and Members of Council, I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent handling of the Official Plan Review NOTICE of the upcoming open house this Wednesday, June 19, 2024, included under Section 12.1.1 of the June 6, 2024 meeting of council. It has come to my attention that there was a missed opportunity to publicly announce the upcoming open house. Instead of making a verbal announcement under Section 12.1.1, the decision was made to merely receive the information without verbal disclosure. This approach effectively excludes those members of the public who do not read the agenda from being notified of the upcoming meeting. Furthermore, it appears that no effort was made to encourage public participation in the process. This was a missed opportunity to remind the public that their input ensures that decision making around the “horseshoe” is responsive to the needs of its constituents and receptive to their opinions. It is truly discouraging based on my observations over the past two council terms, this administration appears to be more inclined towards obstructing meaningful public engagement opportunities rather than fostering them. Given the historical lack of public engagement in this process, this decision is both perplexing and disconcerting. I would appreciate an explanation as to why this course of action was chosen and how it can be rectified. Perhaps the NOTICE can be shared on Elgin County’s social media page to help spread the word. Moving forward, I am interested in learning about the Municipality’s future plans to encourage public engagement in the Official Plan Review process. I firmly believe that transparency and public involvement are paramount for the success of our community’s planning efforts. I look forward to your response. Response sent: June 14, 2024 Thank you for your interest. The Municipality of Bayham and the consultant team, Arcadis, are implementing a number of public engagement and consultation methods throughout the Official Plan Review project. As noted in the PowerPoint presentation prepared by Arcadis from the May 23, 2024, Special Council Meeting (also available on the Official Plan Review 2024 webpage), the following methods were listed and will continue to be implemented: - Official Plan Review specific email address (those who opt-in will receive notifications) - Municipal webpage (alerts will be made on the website and the webpage will be updated accordingly) - Ongoing mailing/contact list - Local newspaper (allows us to distribute notifications pertaining to the project. Notably, the Notice of Open House was circulated in the Aylmer Express on May 22nd and June 12th) - In-person Open Houses - In-person and virtual One-on-One Appointments with the project team (this will be discussed at the Open House with additional details to follow). Depending on the levels of engagement throughout the process and what we hear from the public or special interest groups, the Municipality of Bayham and consultant team may look at alternative public engagement methods where necessary. 7. Name: Tim Emerson Address: 92 Edison Drive, Vienna Contact: timothy.d.emerson@hotmail.com Comment received: June 19, 2024 What policies within the current Official Plan are working well and why? What policies would you want modified within the current Official Plan and why? Please remove my farm from Vienna Settlement + Re Zone A1 or A1 special and add that area to South of Vienna or South of Port Burwell West of Rail bed + and east of Otter Creek to better utilize water + sewage line along Plank Road Preferably Burwell Hwy 19 What should be considered within the Official Plan Review to ensure that future growth and development addresses local priorities and changing community needs and why? Change A1 use to include on farm value added processing of farm crops, vegetable grain, processing ie brewery's, food processing etc Agritourism Allow Farmers increase income without boundaries + costly red tape + zoning applications Additional Thoughts: Allows expanded uses of OS-1 in settlement areas with less influence from LPRCA. Response sent: January 20, 2026 Hello Mr. Emerson, Arcadis has reviewed your request and comments regarding a zone change and the removal of your lands from the Vienna Settlement Area, located at 92 Edison Drive, Vienna, which were received on June 19, 2024. The Municipality of Bayham Official Plan Review is a conformity exercise to ensure that the policies of the Bayham Official Plan are consistent with provincial and conform to County plans and policies. The Municipality and Consultant, Arcadis, is no longer pursuing the Settlement Area boundary changes that were presented in the Progress Report #1 on August 29th, 2024 at the Special Council Meeting for the Draft Bayham Official Plan as the Settlement Area Boundaries were not revised in the adopted County of Elgin Official Plan. Following the Special Council Meeting, Arcadis prepared the attached Memo in response to the comments and questions received from Council and the public, which was presented at the October 17th, 2024 Council Meeting. More specifically, please refer to the section titled “UPDATED SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES”, in the Memo for details on the minor revisions incorporated into the December 2024 Draft Official Plan, with the exception of the removal of the Port Burwell Provincial Park and related lands at the request of the Infrastructure Ontario. As part of the December 2024 Draft Official Plan, your lands located at 92 Edison Drive, Vienna are included within a “Specific Policy Area No. 15” overlay pertaining to servicing, which is explained in Section 10.15 on page 10-5 of the December 2024 Draft Official Plan. Thank you for your continued participation in this Official Plan Review. 8. Name: Mark Hulst Address: 10668 Culloden Road, RR #4, Aylmer Contact: Markhulst1@outlook.com Comment received: June 19, 2024 What policies within the current Official Plan are working well and why? - How many of the 1000 surplus lots available serviced? - How long has there been a lot surplus? - If these lots were available from 2016 to present we should ask why they didn't sell? - Why doesn't North Bayham provide more Res/Lots? What policies would you want modified within the current Official Plan and why? I would suggest expanding the hamlet of North Hall to the North of the most North Boundary on Culloden Road. I have approx 1500' of Road Frontage that is serviced with Natural Gas/Hydro/Telephone/ Currently there isn’t municipal water or sewer But, if the Hamlet is expanded, we could "Infill" + dig water wells (plenty of water & Install Septic Systems, Sandy, Loam mix) What should be considered within the Official Plan Review to ensure that future growth and development addresses local priorities and changing community needs and why? the feasibility of obtaining funding to expand municipal water + sewage to currently zoned subdivisions. Additional thoughts: With the additional jobs being created in Bayham's Newly developing Industrial land across from Chesterman's Equipment store. North Bayham should supply new housing options for workers that don't want to Drive/Live in Eden Straffordville + Pt Burwell where there are building lots available (currently) - Sprawling population in Bayham + surrounding areas have increase significantly within the Last 5-7 years (with non local buyers from the GTA Woodstock Guelph etc) - more lots will be needed for Housing for the Volkswagen Battery plant as well in the Near Future. Response sent: October 15, 2024 See Response #1 above. 9. Name: Adrienne Augustine Address: 57873 Carson Line Contact: augustinefamilyfarm@gmail.com Comment received: July 2, 2024 Any chance you can tell me if there are any proposed changes which may impact 57873 Carson Line? Not sure if we’d be consulted if there were? Do these project updates provide that level of information? Our farm is zoned Agricultural, now 5th generation, and has deep ravines with some wetlands/significant areas which provide great habitat for many species who need distance from human activity. Response sent: July 3, 2024 Thank you for your question. There are no direct changes proposed for your property at this time. If there were to be any direct impact on any property, the owner and neighbours would be contacted. There will be a review of all OP policies throughout this process including our policies regarding the Natural Heritage features i.e. significant wetlands, significant woodlands etc. The process does include consultation with the various agencies that provide us with data for inclusion in the document i.e. Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Parks. Please follow along with the notifications that will be sent out and let us know with any questions. 10. Name: Mark Hulst Address: 10668 Culloden Road Contact: Markhulst1@outlook.com Comment received: July 24, 2024 Please consider for review the attached photo of a zoning map of North Hall Bayham Township. I’ve selected a few potential pin#s that I would like for your firm to consider for a “Land Swap” within the boundary’s of North Hall. I would like to propose an extension of the north edge of the Hamlet Residential zoning to extend into my property located at 10668 culloden road (pin# 353390164) for the purpose of developing/infilling up to 10-15 residential building lots fronting on culloden road . Please feel free to call or email me at anytime if you would like more information or if you have any questions or concerns. P.S The current official plan reflects some plots in North Hall that although are zoned for residential are not being utilized because of the zoned land is being used for farmland within North Hall’s current boundary lines. Also there are 3 parcels that are zoned for HR but are not developable unless municipal services are installed which will never happen at this end of Bayham Township There are also 2 smaller acreage properties that have the HR zoning that are currently mostly consisting of wood plots and forest and swamp type land that could also never be developed for residential lots.( serviced with sewers and water or not) With all of the existing and new industrial developments current in the North end of Bayham/ bordering the Town of Tillsonburg, I feel the new Official Plan should be creating lots for the people who work at these business’ in Northern Bayham township . Looking forward to hearing from you Response sent: October 15, 2024 See Response #1 above. 11. Name: Elgin Federation of Agriculture Address: 450 Sunset Dr #228, St Thomas, ON Contact: elginfarmers@gmail.com Comment received: July 24, 2024 The Elgin Federation of Agriculture (EFA) represents the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) in Elgin County. Our primary objective is to support our members, farmland preservation and the Agri-food industry by ensuring that legislation impacting the sustainability of farm businesses in Elgin County is consulted and considered for its impact on our rural communities in Elgin County. Elgin County lands are one of the most agriculturally productive areas in the province, boasting 389,260 acres of farmland, with a robust employment community of more than 79,410 workers, including spin-off jobs in manufacturing, construction, food and beverage, and the transportation industries. The Elgin Federation of Agriculture has reviewed your consultation and policy analysis for the Municipality of Bayham's Official Plan review. We know the Municipality of Bayham must comply with the County of Elgin's Official Plan and the provincial policy statement (PPS). This includes the need for the Council to balance the demand for more housing while protecting prime agricultural lands, a non-renewable finite asset. The EFA supports the preservation of agricultural land, explicitly supporting no net increase in settlement area lands within the boundaries of Bayham. The EFA supports creating policies around agricultural and surplus farm dwelling severances based on the provincial policy statement and the County of Elgins Official Plan. Further, the EFA supports the proposed changes that would allow for diversification and the inclusion of agri-tourism operations directly related to farming, such as pick-your-own produce establishments, tasting rooms for wineries or cideries, sugar shacks, petting zoos, tourist ranches, produce markets, and farm-related commercial and industrial operations that support Elgin County's agricultural sector. The EFA strongly advocates including Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae I and II— requirements in rural areas. We believe compliance with the document is important for the balanced growth and development of new livestock facilities, manure storages, anaerobic digesters, and surrounding land use. The EFA suggests including policies to enhance the safety and security of farm operations near rural residential developments. One way to achieve this is by using subdivision agreements and including a notice or warning clause in each purchase and sale agreement between local municipalities and property owners adjacent to agriculture zones. These clauses could be registered on the title to ensure effectiveness, as described in The Township of Southwold report to Council PLA 2024-01, ZBA: 2024-01. The warning clauses should include the acknowledgment of the following: • The nearby agricultural operations and agree to support the "right to farm" principle; • That adjacent farms may utilize and house specialized seasonal farm workers to maintain the crop; • That farming operations use sprays to ensure healthy crops; these are all approved for safe use by Health Canada; • That standard and specialized farming equipment could be used and are permitted to be on adjacent roadways and • That manure may be applied to adjacent farmlands, which can produce unpleasant odours; farmers follow strict nutrient management plans. The EFA appreciates the work put into the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan review and the efforts to grow agribusiness and protect agricultural lands. We look forward to continuing to work together through this official plan review. Response sent: January 7, 2026 Thank you, Elgin Federation of Agriculture, for your engagement in the Bayham Official Plan Review on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) in Elgin County, and your comments received on July 24, 2024. Municipal staff and the Consultant, Arcadis, acknowledge your support for the preservation of agricultural land, no net increase in settlement area lands within the boundaries of Bayham, and the creation of policies around agricultural and surplus farm dwelling severances based on provincial and county plans and policies. We further acknowledge your suggestion to use subdivision agreements and include a notice or warning clause in each purchase and sale agreement between local municipalities and property owners adjacent to agriculture zones. In accordance with Section 3.2.8 of the Bayham Official Plan Review, new land uses, including the creation of new lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities must comply with the MDS Formulae to ensure compatibility between agricultural and non-agricultural uses to protect agricultural lands in Bayham for long-term agricultural use. We further note that MDS Formulae are not applicable within settlement area boundaries where residential subdivisions would be anticipated, as MDS I must be considered at the time of settlement area creation or expansion to protect the agricultural system. We trust this response addresses your concerns and suggestions. Please advise if you have any additional questions or comments with respect to the Official Plan Conformity Review. 12. Name: Susanne Schlotzhauer Contact: smschlot@hotmail.com Comment received: August 19, 2024 Dear Municipal Clerk, Planners, and Council Members, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent public notice announcing that the Official Plan Update Report to be discussed at an August 29th special meeting of council will only be presented to the public by the end of day on August 27th. https://www.bayham.on.ca/municipal-office/planning-development/official-plan-review-2024/ The update will present a potentially significant policy change with insufficient time for public review. The release of information to the public essentially only allows one full business day to review the proposed settlement area boundary changes and contact Ward Councillors with any questions, comments, or concerns. This limited timeframe is inadequate for meaningful public participation and undermines the official plan review process, as Council is meant to be the voice of the public. As per the screen capture below from the first open house, it appears Bayham is already deviating from its presented Official Plan timeline, as a first-draft was expected in August, not a status update as an ‘educational exercise’. How does this impact the timeline for release of a first draft? Under provincial policy, we would hope any proposed settlement area boundary expansion occur within fully serviced areas of Bayham. The Port Burwell Provincial Park represents about 63% of the Port Burwell Settlement Area, creating a significant barrier to growth. At an in-person open house held on June 19, 2024, I proposed removing the Provincially-owned lands from the Port Burwell settlement area to allow Port Burwell to grow. I would be particularly concerned if proposed settlement area boundary changes resulted in a net increase in areas on partial services or a net decrease in settlement areas on full municipal services. It is crucial that the public has the opportunity to express concerns and provide input on such potentially significant policy changes. On June 20, 2024, Bayham’s economists presented to Council their proposed increases in water billing rates over the next 10 years for the current 849 water users in Vienna and Port Burwell. Alarmingly, these proposed rates only consider operations and maintenance of the current system and do not account for significant water system capital needs estimated to exceed $20 million. Although Council requested that these increased billing rates be deferred until after the next election, the economists warned that more water users are needed in areas on full municipal services to offset the exorbitant costs burdened onto current users. We need growth to be able to afford to live here. Current water users in Bayham are already facing significant barriers to development, which could help offset the high water and wastewater capital costs. During the August 15th public meeting regarding the current zoning housekeeping amendment intended to bring zoning by- laws in compliance with Bill 23, it was highlighted that the current zoning by-laws within the Village Residential zones create significant barriers to development and unfair disadvantages not seen elsewhere in Bayham, Elgin, and Norfolk Counties. Additionally, there appears to be an unwillingness of this Council to approve moderate density development in areas on full services. If development is focused in areas serviced by private wells, it will negatively impact current water users financially as they struggle to finance an ever-crumbling infrastructure. On top of significant increases in taxes and water billing rates, this council has also proposed to hit Port Burwell with an area-specific tax to pay for $20 million of a $30 million stormwater infrastructure upgrade. In unanswered written correspondence to Council, I have argued that burdening Port Burwell residents with the cost of this project is unjustified, given that the project will benefit all of Bayham, not just Port Burwell residents. Municipal engineers have confirmed that improvements to our stormwater infrastructure will increase sewage capacity by about 100 households, allowing for increased development across Bayham, not just Port Burwell. The proposed area-specific tax is therefore unjustified. The infrastructure costs facing Port Burwell residents seem unattainable for the average household. I ask again, how can Council represent their constituents under this Official Plan review if there is not adequate time given to the public to review the information and reach out to their Councillors with their questions, concerns, and comments? The public has a right to review the proposed preliminary settlement area boundary and should be given, at a minimum, the time established under Bayham’s procedural rules. Even if this information is presented at the time the Agenda is published, the public is still not afforded the opportunity to make a delegation to Council, as a request for delegation is required before the agenda is even published. “This meeting is ultimately an educational exercise between the consultant team and Council with respect to the status of the Official Plan Review project and how the Settlement Area Boundaries in the Official Plan may change through this review.” The information being proposed has a potentially significant impact on Bayham residents and represents a potentially significant policy change. Silencing the public seems contrary to the official plan review process. I am requesting the Official Plan Review update be conducted in an open meeting where the public can participate and bring their voices to the table, or allow a longer period for review, as stipulated under our procedural rules, allowing public comments to come forward. An agenda for the planned August 29th Special Meeting would suggest the agenda and information be published this Friday, August 23, 2024. As this is a time sensitive matter, I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Please advise before Friday how Bayham intends to address my concerns. Response sent: August 20, 2024 Good evening, Susanne – The Special Council Meeting on August 29th is meant to be for information purposes only, whereby Council will get an understanding of the project timeline, consultation, and the preliminary Settlement Area Boundary changes that may occur. This exercise is for information purposes only and no decision of Council is being made on the 29th. This is to give Council a ‘taste’ of the potential Official Plan Settlement Area changes that may occur so they are not ‘unaware’ or ‘misinformed’ when Municipal Staff and Arcadis release the FULL First Draft OP Text and Mapping in Phase Three of the project. The proposed material presented on the 29th DOES NOT represent the first Draft Official Plan for Phase Three. We will make that clear to Council and those listening in on the Special Council Meeting. Once the First Draft OP Text and Mapping is released, there will be opportunity to review the material in full, thus providing the public a comprehensive document to provide comments on. As noted by the consultant team, consultation is ongoing throughout this project, so additional changes may be necessary after the first Draft OP is released prior to issuing the FINAL Draft Official Plan for Council’s adoption in Phase Four of the project. While members of the public cannot actively participate at the August 29th Special Council Meeting, we will still be encouraging comments and questions from the public following the presentation. The consultant team would be more than happy to have a One-on-One Appointment/Meeting to discuss your comments or questions after you complete a review of the presentation material. It is understood that you had previously requested a meeting, but Margaret Underhill received no confirmation. Further, with respect to the timelines, the consultant team specifically noted in their presentation that these timelines are “estimated”. The draft is to be released sometime between August – October to account for any potential disruption. For example, we just received news today that the Minister has issued the updated Provincial Planning Statement, taking effect on October 20, 2024. The consultant team will now need to factor this updated provincial document in their review/analysis to ensure the Draft Official Plan is consistent with the new PPS, as we previously noted at the Open House that we did not have a specified timeline from the Province as to when the new PPS would be released or come into effect. This may alter the estimated timing of the first Draft Official Plan (which Arcadis will note in the presentation on August 29th) and we hope you can appreciate that Municipal Staff and Arcadis are working diligently to address these very recent changes as part of the OP Review. With respect to your comments expressed at the Open House regarding the Port Burwell settlement area (notably the Provincial Park), the consultant team has taken your comments into consideration and will be addressing them at the August 29th Meeting. We appreciate your comments and feedback as the Municipality and Arcadis works through this project and we hope the above provides clarification. As noted above, we strongly encourage that you request a One-on-One Appointment with the consultant team. In regards to the timing of the Special Meeting Agenda and due notice, the Procedural By-law No. 2023-021 notes under Section 4.11.4: “Notice of Special Meetings shall be posted at the Municipal Office, on the Municipal Website and the Press shall be notified by e-mail not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the time appointed for the Special Meeting.” The Municipality anticipates releasing the Special Meeting Agenda Tuesday morning (27th) for a meeting at 6pm on the 29th. We are giving ~55 hours’ worth of notice, which is over and above by-law requirements. We trust this answers your questions/addresses your concerns. Any further procedural questions can be followed up with the Clerk. 13. Name: Alison Quigg Contact: alison.quigg@infrastructureontario.ca Comment received: September 16, 2024 Can you please add me to the mailing list for the Bayham OP review? Furthermore, can you please let me know when the first draft is expected to be released? Response sent: September 16, 2024 Thank you for your interest in the Bayham OP Review. Your email has been added to the circulation list. The first DRAFT is expected to be released in October. 14. Name: Stephen Cornwell Address: 261 Broadway, P.O. Box 460, Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 4H8 Contact: scornwell@cjdleng.com Comment received: October 3, 2024 Letter submission by Stephen Cornwell (CJDL) on behalf of the property owner, Brenda VanQuaethem, in reponses to the "Progress Report #1" and Special Council Meeting on August 29th. Response sent: October 11, 2024 Thank you for providing the letter dated October 3rd, 2024, in response to the Progress Report #1 presented at the August 29th Special Council Meeting. We have had an opportunity to review the letter and offer the following comments. The Municipality and Consultant, Arcadis, is no longer pursuing the Settlement Area boundary changes that were presented in the Progress Report #1 for the Draft Bayham Official Plan. Your client’s property will remain within the existing Settlement Area of Eden, as this will maintain conformity with the adopted (not approved) Elgin County Official Plan that did not alter the boundaries in Bayham. Following the Special Council Meeting, Arcadis prepared the attached Memo in response to the comments and questions received from Council and the public. More specifically, please refer to the section titled, “UPDATED SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES”, in the Memo for details on the minor revisions now proposed to the settlement areas. As part of the Draft Official Plan, your client’s lands will include a “Specific Policy Area” pertaining to servicing, which is explained on Page 5-6 of the Memo. This Memo is included in Staff Report DS-76/24 being presented at the upcoming October 17th Council Meeting for Council to receive for information purposes. The Report is attached and the Agenda is available on the municipal website under “Agendas & Minutes”. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or comments with respect to the Official Plan Conformity Review. 15. Name: Alison Quigg Contact: alison.quigg@infrastructureontario.ca Comment received: October 17, 2024 Good afternoon Margaret, Infrastructure Ontario (“IO”) is a crown agency responsible for the strategic management of the provincial realty portfolio on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure (“MOI”). Part of IO’s mandate is to protect and optimize the value of the portfolio, while ensuring real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives.  IO has reviewed the Memo that will be presented at the Special Council Meeting tonight that provides a progress update on the Bayham Official Plan Review project. IO has concerns with some of the Memo’s contents, specifically about the updated settlement area boundary changes. IO manages the Port Burwell Provincial Park and is concerned with the municipality’s proposed removal of the Park from the Port Burwell settlement area boundary. The Memo justifies that the lands should be removed from the settlement area boundary because they constitute a Provincial Park protected under the Provincial Park and Conservation Reserves Act and as part of the natural heritage system. While we acknowledge this, it is IO’s opinion that the Park is a key destination within the Port Burwell community and is designated as a Tier One Settlement Area within the County Structure Plan (Schedule ‘A’) of the Elgin County Official Plan, 2024. The Bayham Official Plan Review is meant to be a conformity exercise that should be consistent with the Upper Tier planning instruments, and therefore we kindly request that the Provincial Park remain within the settlement area boundary in the new Bayham Official Plan. There are also existing residences within the park that should be recognized as being part of the Port Burwell settlement area. The memo notes that removal of this Park is considered a “minor” revision to the settlement area boundary. The Provincial Park is close to 150 ha in size. IO does not believe the removal of 150 ha of land from the settlement area boundary is considered a “minor” revision and instead should warrant more detailed analysis. We kindly request that no decisions be made on the proposed settlement area boundary adjustments until IO has had time to consult with the Municipality about our concerns. We are happy to arrange a meeting with your team to discuss. Thank you in advance for considering our comments. Please also keep us informed and notified of all future Official Plan review updates. Response sent: December 9, 2024 Once again, we appreciate your review and acknowledge your comments on behalf of the MOI. As noted in the Memo prepared by Arcadis, titled “Response to August 29th Special Council Meeting Questions and Comments”, dated October 8th, 2024, it was previously noted that the Port Burwell Provincial Park would be removed from the Village of Port Burwell Settlement Area boundary. Following the preparation of the Memo and additional consultation both internally and with County of Elgin staff, the Municipality is no longer removing Port Burwell Provincial Park from the Village of Port Burwell Settlement Area boundary in the First Draft Official Plan. Given that this Official Plan Review is a “conformity” exercise with respect to the adopted County of Elgin Official Plan, and the County did not remove the Provincial Park from their Official Plan, the Provincial Park boundaries will remain as they exist today. Thank you for your continued participation in this Official Plan Review. 16. Name: Stephen Cornwell Address: 261 Broadway, P.O. Box 460, Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 4H8 Contact: scornwell@cjdleng.com Comment received: October 24, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: As noted in our previous submission to the Bayham Official Plan Review process, on behalf of clients of ours, we would like to propose changes to the Eden settlement boundary. Our clients include, Brenda VanQuaethem - owner of a farm property described as Part of Lots 22 to 24, Concession 9, and VanQuaethem Farms – owner of two farm properties described as Part of Lot 21, Concession 9 and Parts of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 9 (as shown below). Proposed ‘Land Swap’ Under the 2020 version of the Provincial Policy Statement municipalities could consider “adjustments of settlement area boundaries outside a comprehensive review” in certain circumstances where “there would be no net increase in land within the settlement areas” (Section 1.1.3.9). Many of adjustments to settlement areas that were made under this section were referred to as ‘land swaps’ since Official Plan settlement designations were removed from some areas and added to others, normally at the request of the involved owners. While the 2024 version of the PPS no longer includes this explicit guidance for “boundary adjustments”, it also no longer requires settlement boundary expansions to be supported by a comprehensive review. Section 2.3.2 of the 2024 PPS simply requires planning authorities to consider “the need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of uses”. With this requirement in mind, we recognize that the County of Elgin has identified in their newly adopted Official Plan that the Municipality of Bayham has a surplus of land available for residential development, and as the Bayham Official Plan Review process continues, the Municipality will be looking at opportunities to reduce and/or reconfigure its settlement area boundaries. With this letter, our clients are requesting changes to the Eden settlement area boundary that are tantamount to a ‘land swap’, where the total area within the settlement boundary remains the same but equal amounts of lands are added and removed from the settlement area. The specific configurations of the proposed swaps are shown in detail in the attached drawing. An excerpt from the drawing is shown below: Specifically, our clients are proposing that 5.59 ha of settlement area designation be transferred from the VanQuaethem Farms property described as Part of Lot 21, Concession 9 (shown in green hatching), to an identical area be added to their property described as Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 9 (shown in solid green). Similarly, we are asking that 3.97 ha of settlement area designation be transferred from two areas of Brenda VanQuaethem’s property described as Part Lots 22 to 24, Concession 9 (shown in yellow hatching), and an identical area be added to the northerly portion of that property (shown in solid yellow). Justification Our clients are proposing these adjustments as residential development of the areas proposed for removal is hindered by servicing constraints. Those areas are low-lying, and significant interventions would be required for them to be connected to Eden’s municipal sanitary service facilities (i.e. a pumping station would be required). The separate 0.37 ha triangle of settlement area designation that is included in the proposed transfer would adjust the boundary so that it extends parallel from Plank Road at a practical depth for development. To demonstrate that the proposed northerly extension of the settlement boundary on either side of Plank Road is appropriate, the drawing shows how an internal road network could be extended into these development areas to accommodate new residential developments. In terms of the 2024 PPS requirements for planning authorities to consider in allowing “settlement area boundary expansion”, we offer the following: The issue of need as described in Section 2.3.2.1(a) is not relevant as no net increase in the total Eden settlement area is proposed. Section 2.3.2.1(b) makes clear that whether or not “there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities” should be considered, and the lands proposed for development will have sufficient capacity for sanitary services upon completion of the pumping station upgrade that is scheduled for this year. With regard to agricultural land protections; neither the lands to be added nor those to be removed constitute specialty crop areas (Section 2.3.2.1(c)), there are no alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas or would be on lower priority agricultural lands (Section 2.3.2.1(d)), both areas comply with the minimum distance separation formulae (Section 2.3.2.1(e)), and no impacts on the agricultural system would result (Section 2.3.2.1(f)). Consistent with PPS Section 2.3.2.1(g), the proposed added settlement area lands provide for the phased progression of urban development in Eden, as demonstrated in the conceptual development plans. The adjustments we are proposing for the Eden Settlement Boundary are consistent with both the 2020 and 2024 Provincial Policy Statements. Boundaries Please note that our proposed swap relies on the settlement boundary mapping provided to us by the Municipality. The drawing shows the Eden Settlement Boundary with a thick red dashed line on the attached drawing. The settlement boundary mapping shown in the Elgin County Official Plan (shown in solid purple) is significantly different from the Municipality’s mapping on each of the subject properties. If we should base our proposal on the County’s mapping, please let us know and we will adjust the proposal accordingly. Summary In conclusion, we would greatly appreciate it if these proposed adjustments to the Eden settlement area could be considered as part of the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan Review process. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns about this request. Sincerely, Stephen Cornwell MCIP, RPP Senior Planner CJDL Consulting Engineers Response sent: January 7, 2026 Hello Mr. Cornwell, Thank you for your letter, dated October 4th, 2024, on behalf of Brenda VanQuaethem, in response to the Progress Report #1 presented at the August 29th Special Council Meeting. We have had the opportunity to review the letter and discuss the request with County planning staff and offer the following comments. The Municipality and Consultant, Arcadis, is no longer pursuing the Settlement Area boundary changes that were presented in the Progress Report #1 for the Draft Bayham Official Plan as the Settlement Area boundaries must conform to the boundaries in the County Official Plan, except for minor modifications as permitted by policy 2.9 of the new Elgin County Official Plan, approved in 2025. Based on discussions with the County, the proposed land-swap is not a minor modification and would require a County Official Plan Amendment. Therefore, the existing portions of your client’s property in the existing Settlement Area of Eden will remain as is in the Final Draft Municipality of Bayham Official Plan to maintain conformity with the new Elgin County Official Plan, approved in 2025. Should the owner wish to pursue a ‘land-swap’ change to the settlement area in the future, we understand that a request for pre-consultation meeting request should be submitted to the County prior to submitting the required County Official Plan Amendment application. Thank you for your engagement with the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan Review. 17. Name: Alison Quigg Contact: alison.quigg@infrastructureontario.ca Comment received: January 14, 2025 Infrastructure Ontario (“IO”) is a crown agency responsible for the strategic management of the provincial realty portfolio on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure (“MOI”). Part of IO’s mandate is to protect and optimize the value of the portfolio, while ensuring real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives. In advance of the Open House tomorrow evening, IO has reviewed the first draft of the Bayham Official Plan dated to December 2024. Within the Municipality of Bayham, IO manages Port Burwell Provincial Park. Back in October 2024, IO previously provided comments to staff noting our concerns with the Municipality’s suggested removal of Port Burwell Provincial Park from the Port Burwell settlement area boundary. Please find these comments attached. IO is pleased to see that the Municipality chose to keep Port Burwell Provincial Park within the Settlement Area boundary within the first draft of the Bayham Official Plan and we wanted to express our support for these changes. IO wishes to reserve the right to continue to provide comments as this Official Plan review process evolves. Furthermore, we kindly request to be notified of all future Official Plan Review updates. Response sent: N/A (Acknowledge receipt) 18. Name: Jeff Bolichowski Contact: jeff@armstrongstrategy.com Comment received: January 22, 2025 I'm reaching out to follow up on last week's open house for the Official Plan Review. I was the participant who asked about Design Guidelines and built form policy. It was mentioned that you're interested in taking one-on-one meetings via Zoom on the OP review. I'm working with an organization called the Masonry Council of Ontario, the not-for-profit trade group for Ontario's brick and stone sector. For the past decade or so, we've been going around the province looking at the current best practices in design policy through municipal planning, and we'd welcome the chance to offer some input in terms of progressive practices and get a sense of where Bayham plans to go in this area. Would it be possible to set up a call in the next couple of weeks, via Zoom? I've linked my colleagues John Armstrong and Andrew Payne in as well. Response sent: January 7, 2026 Hello Mr. Bolichowski, Thank you for your attendance and engagement at the Open House for the Municipality of Bayham’s Official Plan Review as well as the one-on-one consultation with the Municipal Staff and Consultant, Arcadis, on February 13th, 2025. More specifically, thank you for your inquiry regarding the Bayham Official Plans design guidelines and community planning permit system. With respect to Urban Design requirements, subsequent to that meeting, the province has consulted on and enabled legislation to permit limiting the required information and material a municipality can require to deem certain Planning Act applications complete. Further, the approved County of Elgin Official Plan included modifications that removed "Urban Design Brief" from the list of supporting information that may be required as part of a complete application. The Final Draft Municipality of Bayham Official Plan will conform to this modified County policy. Should the Municipality pursue the creation of Urban Design Guidelines in the future, it may be difficult to assess the consistency of applications to those Guidelines given provincially-directed policy changes. In regard to the Community Planning Permit System, the implementation of a Community Planning Permit System (CPPS) is out of the scope of this Official Plan Conformity Review. We note that, should the Municipality elect to pursue CPPS in the future, a detailed Official Plan Amendment would be required in any event. Thank you again for engaging in the Official Plan Review process. 19. Name: Toluwalope Adedugbe, Michelle Alvey, Kendall Chambers, Randie Gregoire, Robert Northcott, Shreya Sachdeva Contact: undisclosed (Southwestern Public Health) Comment received: February 21, 2025 Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft official plan for the Municipality of Bayham. As part of the comprehensive feedback from Southwestern Public Health, we are providing specific recommendations related to various aspects of the draft Official Plan. These suggestions aim to enhance the overall health and sustainability of the Municipality of Bayham and its residents. Health can be influenced at the population level through the environments in which we all live; as such, healthy built environments are a key part of promoting the well-being of our local communities. Changing the health of our communities in a positive way can be done through the intentional development of supportive built environments. Official plans are important documents that can be used to encourage these improvements. We are pleased to note that the use of community incentives to enhance the built environment are included in the draft official plan. We encourage the continued offering of these incentives to promote healthy built environment policies locally, including: a) Mixed-use housing options (i.e., co-location of retail and moderate density residential housing). b) Neighbourhood retail of essential amenities (i.e., grocery stores and pharmacies) in residential communities. c) A variety of housing forms and mixed income housing developments to increase access to local, affordable, and diverse housing options, which helps people stay in their communities longer and improves their ability to afford other basic needs such as health care and nutritious food, while decreasing stress. These healthy built environment principles could be added through the modification of existing portions of the draft official plan. For example, the following statement in Section 11.6.11 could be modified to include the following: “In designated Community Improvement Project Areas, the preparation of Community Improvement Plans will provide the Municipality with various powers to maintain and promote attractive and safe living and working environments through community improvements (for example, a variety of housing densities, mixed retail/residential housing options and local essential amenities, including grocers and pharmacies). This includes the authority to offer incentives to stimulate or leverage private and/or public-sector investment.” This type of policy would enable the development of gentle density in local population centers where it is most beneficial to the community. Food Systems and Agriculture We commend the emphasis placed on protecting the agricultural land base and operations in Section 3.2.1. To further support economic resilience in agriculture, we recommend incorporating a policy statement to support agricultural-related uses and on-farm diversified uses (such as farm stores, farm gate sales, and pick-your-own farms), which allow diversification of agricultural operations and provide access to revenue streams, which are essential for sustaining agricultural operations. Section 3.2.2 Protecting the Agricultural System highlights the significance of maintaining a viable agricultural sector. Enhancing this section with a policy statement that supports the capacity of local food systems through the establishment of local food hubs and processing centres, such as commercial kitchens and processing facilities, would further strengthen the infrastructure needed for local food production and processing. Within Section 3.2.3 Protecting Against the Conversion of Agricultural Land, the draft plan highlights the need to protect agricultural land from conversion to other uses. To further support this objective, we suggest including a policy to protect prime agricultural lands from urban encroachment and promote policies that ensure the continued viability of local farming operations. This would help maintain a sustainable supply of local, healthy foods, supporting community food security across Elgin County. While the focus is on rural areas, urban agriculture can also contribute to local food production. In Section 4.2.1 Community Design and Protecting Urban Character, we suggest including a policy to support urban agriculture, such as rooftop gardens, edible landscaping, community gardens, and urban farms. This can enhance local food production, enable community gardens, and protect green space. To ensure access to affordable healthy food, Section 4.3.1 Permitted Uses could include policies that implement zoning by-laws allowing mobile food vendors or temporary pop-up markets with affordable, healthy food choices.3,7,8 Climate Change We applaud the emphasis on addressing the impacts of climate change on both the built and natural environments in Section 9.4. Additionally, it's important to recognize that climate change has direct and indirect effects on human health, including increased heat-related illnesses, respiratory and cardiovascular conditions due to air pollution, and changes in the prevalence of infectious diseases.9 Effective land use planning can play a crucial role in helping communities adapt and become more resilient to these climate-related health impacts. To address the impacts of climate change on human health within the draft official plan, we propose “The Municipality recognizes the potential impacts of climate change on the built and natural environment.” be expanded to “The Municipality recognizes the potential impacts of climate change on human health as well as the built and natural environment.” To mitigate the implications of climate change and existing environmental conditions on human health to prevent injury, loss of life, and property damage we recommend adding the following policy statements to Section 9.4. e) Council will ensure the built environment be developed to provide protection against extreme heat, build climate resiliency and promote safe outdoor recreation and active transportation. f) Council will work with Conservation Authorities, Public Health and other organizations to identify and address climate change vulnerable areas and populations. Health Equity Section 9.3.4 of the draft official plan outlines the process for engaging with local Indigenous communities. To strengthen this section further, we suggest the incorporation of a framework for engagement with Indigenous communities. One example of a recognized framework for engagement that could be included in this section is the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation framework.12 Thank you for considering these recommendations and we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Bayham Official Plan (2024). Response sent: January 7, 2026 Southwestern Public Health c/o Toluwalope Adedugbe, Michelle Alvey, Kendall Chambers, Randie Gregoire, Robert Northcott, and Shreya Sachdeva We have reviewed your recommendations received February 21, 2025, and would provide the following comments: 1. Community Improvement Plans Based on our review, the current Official Plan policies enable gentle density with a range and mix of uses consistent with provincial and County planning policies without a Community Improvement Plan being required to prepared. Should the Municipality elect to pursue a Community Improvement Plan, the policy language in Section 11.6.11 is broad enough to enable the recommended objectives. We further note that there is more specific direction provided through Section 4.2.5 to potentially enable infilling, compact development, and expanded commercial/retail offerings. 2. Food Systems and Agriculture Policy direction for on-farm diversified uses are provided in Section 3.3.3 while agricultural- related uses are provided in Section 3.3.4. With respect to local food processing and policies related to protecting the agricultural system, Section 3.2.2 already includes reference to food processing within broad language that would enable the specific examples suggested. With respect to conserving and protecting prime agricultural land, the policies of the Draft Official Plan refer to the requirements of the Provincial Planning Statement for any requests for new or expanded settlement areas as well as new or expanded non-agricultural uses and provincial policy. Criteria for new or expanded settlement area boundaries is further detailed in Section 2.2 and reflects the policy language of the new Elgin County Official Plan. Finally, with respect to enabling urban agriculture, the Draft Official Plan policies do not unduly restrict the development of rooftop gardens, edible landscaping, and community gardens. However, there may be restrictions in the Zoning By-law that could be considered through the Zoning By-law update required within 3 years of the approval of the Official Plan. 3. Climate Change We recognize the importance of acknowledging the impacts of climate change on human health as well as the natural and built environment. In recognition of this, we have updated Section 9.4 of the Official Plan to state “The Municipality recognizes the potential impacts of climate change on human health as well as the built and natural environment.” With respect to the suggested two (2) policy statements for inclusion in Section 9.4 of the Official Plan, Section 9.4.b) provides Council the authority to prepare and adopt a Local Action Plan to consider actions as it relates to outdoor areas and public and private transportation. A Municipal Energy Plan and Local Action Plan was approved in 2018. In addition, the Municipality of Bayham currently works with the LPRCA to ensure updated flood mapping and hazard lands boundaries are reflected in municipal mapping. The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) provided Regulation Mapping updates to the Public in Fall 2025. The Final Draft of the Bayham Official Plan will be updated to reflect updates to the LPRCA Regulated Area Mapping. In the future a local climate change action plan may be undertaken by Council to identify climate change vulnerable areas and populations in the Municipality of Bayham. 4. Health Equity In addition to Section 9.3.4, which is specific to cultural heritage, Section 11.3.2 provides broader direction on Indigenous Consultation, mirroring the language of the new Elgin County Official Plan. This Section includes policies regarding the creation of an engagement protocol in collaboration with area Indigenous communities and the County. Based on emerging Municipal- Indigenous engagement protocols in other jurisdictions, cultural heritage is anticipated to be an important component of any protocol. Thank you for your engagement and input into the Official Plan Review. 20. Name: Gerry Richer Contact: ceppsont@yahoo.ca Comment received: 7th January, 2026 Hello Marg, what a surprise, I vaguely remembered responding to your notice of the OP update.. I honestly can't recall what I said in 2024 but needless to say recognizing the Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabek nations and associated Treaties would certainly suffice.. However, the municipality may wish to extend that further by establishing communication protocols with the hosting First Nation. Many FN band councils have neither the capacity nor whereforall to participate at local municipal planning processes so it would be more productive to interact at the policy/strategic level.. Just FYI cheers Gerry Richer Aylmer. Response sent: N/A (Acknowledged) 21. Name: Lindsay Blair Contact: lindsay.m.blair@gmail.com Comment received: February 19, 2026 Good Morning Margaret, I hope that you are well. Our team has been working on our reports and studies for the submission of planning applications for the Meadows Mobile Park. Our planners, WSP, have the following clarification and suggestion regarding the property and the OP reference. Would you be able to review the below and advise? It is our understanding that the Site is designated Mobile Home Parks as shown on Schedule A1 (Land Use of the Official Plan). We’ve identified the Site in the snippet below with a red arrow. Section 3.1.5 (Mobile Home Parks), Policy 3.1.5.1 of the Bayham Official Plan states that mobile Home parks are permitted in lands designated Mobile Home Parks. The issue is specifically, Policy 3.1.5.1.1 which refers the Site as Lots 23 and 24, Concession 9, and states that the existing 4.1 ha mobile home park is permitted as well as a 5.5 ha expansion subject to requirements. Based on our analysis and based on a survey plan, the existing mobile home park is currently 5.1 ha in size. Can the municipality please confirm what was used to reference the 4.1 ha is accurate or if this should be 5.1 ha? In addition, please note that we have reviewed the Municipality’s Final Draft Official Plan January 2026, and we note that the policies continue to refer to the existing mobile home park size as 4.1 ha in Section 3.5 Mobile Home Parks Designation, Policy 3.5.1 (a) as per the snippet below. We should aim to correct this to the accurate size. Is there an opportunity to have the size corrected through the Municipal’s Official Plan Review process? We would include in our proposed Official Plan Amendment application, but we wanted to flag this prior to our application submission. Thank you. Response sent: 24th February, 2026 We have reviewed the request from Lindsay Blair on behalf of Meadows Mobile Park received on February 19, 2026. Through the Official Plan Review, we are cleaning up outdated site-specific designations and policies for non-agricultural uses in the prime agricultural area to ensure compliance with the PPS and County of Elgin Official Plan that we have noticed or where it has been brought to our attention. In the case of the Meadows Mobile Home Park, we appreciate your bringing this issue to our attention. In our review, the area designated "Mobile Home Parks" on existing Schedule 'A1' of the current Official Plan and carried forward onto Schedule B of the Final Draft Official Plan is smaller than the area zoned site-specific Mobile Home Park (MH-2) zone on Schedule A Map No. 3 of Zoning By-law 456-2003. The designated area is also smaller than the existing footprint of the Mobile Home Park and the zoned area is larger than the existing footprint. Based on a review of the GIS mapping from the December 18, 2025 Consolidated Zoning By-law 456-2003, the area zoned MH-2 is just under 6.7ha in area. We propose to address this issue by: 1. Modifying the area designated on new OP Schedule B to match the area zoned MH-2 on the version to be adopted by Council. 2. Modifications to Final Draft Official Plan policy 3.5.1(a) per the below (deletions, additions), which maintains the existing total potential permissions of 9.6 ha given a revised existing designated area of 6.7ha (4.1ha + 5.5ha = 9.6ha becomes 6.7ha + 2.9ha = 9.6ha): In addition to an existing 4.1 hectare mobile home park, an additional 5.5 2.9 hectares of land to a maximum of 9.6 hectares contiguous with the existing mobile home park in Lots 23, 24, Concession 9, and municipally addressed as 11981 Plank Road, will be considered for mobile home park purposes may be designated "Mobile Home Parks" subject to site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in accordance with the applicable Official Plan policies and subject to the following requirements: (remainder of policy maintained as-is) Please review and advise if you have any comments or concerns on the above. If you can do so by end-of-day on March 2, we can include this update in my presentation to the Special Council meeting on March 5th along with other unrelated modifications arising from comments received from the most recent circulation. Please note that Council will not be asked to adopt the new Official Plan on March 5th, which will occur at a forthcoming meeting anticipated later in March. The additional time will allow us to address any additional comments from Council and the public that arise on (or before) March 5th. February 6, 2026 Ms. Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk / Planning Coordinator Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160 Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Dear Ms. Underhill, Re: Request for Comment, Municipality of Bayham Final Draft Official Plan, January 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to provide a review of the draft official plan. Our office has had the opportunity to review the above noted draft of the official plan against the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and the Elgin County Official Plan (OP) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Section 1.1 – The introductory paragraph of the document indicates that the draft OP has a planning horizon to 2051 (25 years), whereas Section 1.1 of the document identifies a 30- year planning horizon. Section 2.1.3 of the PPS permits planning horizons between 20 and 30 years. Although this does not present a conflict with the PPS, the Municipality is encouraged to clarify the intended planning horizon for the OP. 2. Section 3.2.3 – States that lands designated ‘Agricultural Area’ may be converted to another designation for the purposes of an expansion of a settlement area boundary, or another non-agricultural use subject to the policies of the PPS, however Section 4.3.4 of the PPS only permits conversion of agricultural lands for expansion / identification of a settlement area. As such, it is recommended that this policy be clarified to more accurately reflect the policies of the PPS. 3. Section 3.3.11.1 – States, “certain types of farming operations require outside farm labour to function. As such, the Municipality supports the erection or placement of additional dwellings on farm parcels where the size or nature of the farming operation warrants additional dwellings.” The County would encourage the Municipality to reword these sentences to clarify that additional dwellings are supportable when they are required to accommodate farm labour. 4. Section 3.3.11.2 – The County would encourage the Municipality to consider applying site plan control for Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation development. 5. Sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10 – These sections of the plan all address non-agricultural land use designations in the Municipality’s Rural Area. While it is recognized that these mostly represent areas of existing development, the County would encourage the Municipality to clarify that new development or the expansion of existing development in these land use designations are subject to Minimum Distance Separation Formulae. 6. Section 5.2 d) – States that the Municipality shall rely on the expertise of the Conservation Authority in identifying natural heritage features. It should be noted that under provincial legislation, conservation authorities can no longer provide input on matters of natural heritage matters. 7. Section 5.10.1 b) – Notes potential County requirements regarding development fish habitat and the habitat of threatened or endangered species. It should be noted that the County does not regulate development within fish habitat or the habitat of threatened or endangered species. These are solely regulated by the provincial and federal governments. 8. Section 6.3.2 – This section speaks broadly to right-of-way widths for roads, but does not specifically identify the design widths for various road classifications, including the County’s road network. It is highly recommended that the Municipality incorporate a list of road classifications for both local and county roads that explicitly indicates their design widths, to ensure clarity when dedications for road widenings are required. 9. Section 6.3.2.3 – This section speaks to the Municipality’s authority to take land for road widenings during the development process, but does not note the County’s authority to do the same. It is recommended that the language of this section be clarified to also note the County’s authority in this regard. 10. Section 11.6.7.2 b) – This section references a ‘site plan agreement’ with respect to the granting of consents when it should more accurately reference a ‘development agreement’ as site plan control is not applicable to land division applications. We trust that these comments will be helpful as the Municipality finalizes the Official Plan. The County would be pleased to discuss any of the above comments further or provide clarification as needed. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you have any questions or require additional input. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the Municipality through the Official Plan review and implementation process. Sincerely, Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning & Development County of Elgin 1/3 Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc. 420 Wes Graham Way Suite 106 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 0J6 Canada Phone: 519 585 2255 www.arcadis.com Ms. Margaret Underhill Deputy Clerk / Planning Coordinator Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Line, PO Box 160 Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Date: February 26, 2026 Our Ref: 30260140 / 3404 Subject: Response to Elgin County Comments, Final Draft Official Plan (January 2026) Dear Ms. Underhill, We have reviewed the letter from Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning & Development for the County of Elgin, dated February 6, 2026. The letter was a response to the circulation of the Final Draft Official Plan, January 2026 of the Municipality of Bayham. Please find below our responses to the comments provided in Table 1 below. In addition, we have attached to this letter the redline revisions to the text of the Final Draft Official Plan arising from these responses for ease of reference. Additional revisions are anticipated as comments from LPRCA were received on February 25, 2026 and one public comment was received. Table 1: Responses to County of Elgin Comments Section Comment Response 1.1 The introductory paragraph of the document indicates that the draft OP has a planning horizon to 2051 (25 years), whereas Section 1.1 of the document identifies a 30-year planning horizon. Section 2.1.3 of the PPS permits planning horizons between 20 and 30 years. Although this does not present a conflict with the PPS, the Municipality is encouraged to clarify the intended planning horizon for the OP. Corrected. Planning horizon intended to align with County, being 2051 (25 years). 3.2.3 States that lands designated ‘Agricultural Area’ may be converted to another designation for the purposes of an expansion of a settlement area boundary, or another non- agricultural use subject to the policies of the PPS, however Section 4.3.4 of the PPS only permits conversion of agricultural lands for expansion / identification of a settlement area. As such, it is recommended that this policy be clarified to more accurately reflect the policies of the PPS Clarified. Section revised to note that the only permitted conversion of lands designated “Agricultural Area” is through a settlement area boundary expansion per PPS 4.3.4, and that the permitted new or expanded non-agricultural uses under Subsections 3.5 – 3.10 are within the lands historically Margaret Underhill Municipality of Bayham February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com 2/3 PTL_OPR-County-Response Section Comment Response designated for such uses, consistent with Elgin County Official Plan (EOP) policy 5.18. 3.3.11.1 States, “certain types of farming operations require outside farm labour to function. As such, the Municipality supports the erection or placement of additional dwellings on farm parcels where the size or nature of the farming operation warrants additional dwellings.” The County would encourage the Municipality to reword these sentences to clarify that additional dwellings are supportable when they are required to accommodate farm labour. Revised wording to clarify the establishment of farm labour accommodation is permitted subject to criteria, consistent with EOP policy 5.11. 3.3.11.2 The County would encourage the Municipality to consider applying site plan control for Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation development. Clarified that Site Plan Control is applicable. 3.5-3.10 These sections of the plan all address non-agricultural land use designations in the Municipality’s Rural Area. While it is recognized that these mostly represent areas of existing development, the County would encourage the Municipality to clarify that new development or the expansion of existing development in these land use designations are subject to Minimum Distance Separation Formulae. References to MDS added at applicable subsections. 5.2(d) States that the Municipality shall rely on the expertise of the Conservation Authority in identifying natural heritage features. It should be noted that under provincial legislation, conservation authorities can no longer provide input on matters of natural heritage matters. Revised to remove reference to LPRCA. 5.10.1(b) Notes potential County requirements regarding development fish habitat and the habitat of threatened or endangered species. It should be noted that the County does not regulate development within fish habitat or the habitat of threatened or endangered species. These are solely regulated by the provincial and federal governments. Removed reference to County in 5.10.1(a). No reference to County in (b). 6.3.2 This section speaks broadly to right-of-way widths for roads, but does not specifically identify the design widths for various road classifications, including the County’s road network. It is highly recommended that the Municipality incorporate a list of road classifications for both local and county roads that explicitly indicates their design widths, to ensure clarity when dedications for road widenings are required. Revised to use the base language from EOP policy 8.3, modified to provide specific right- of-way ranges for Municipal roads similar to the approach of the County. The subsection clarifies that the required right-of-way width is determined by the authority having jurisdiction, which Margaret Underhill Municipality of Bayham February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com 3/3 PTL_OPR-County-Response Section Comment Response necessarily includes the County for County roads. 6.3.2.3 This section speaks to the Municipality’s authority to take land for road widenings during the development process, but does not note the County’s authority to do the same. It is recommended that the language of this section be clarified to also note the County’s authority in this regard. Revised to clarify conveyance is to the authority having jurisdiction. Subsection 6.3.2.1 is similarly revised. 11.6.7.2(b) This section references a ‘site plan agreement’ with respect to the granting of consents when it should more accurately reference a ‘development agreement’ as site plan control is not applicable to land division applications. Revised to development agreement. Conclusion We trust that the responses provided address the comments of the County. We are available to engage in further discussions with the County if required prior to adoption, recognizing opportunities will also exist after adoption and prior to approval to discuss any potential modifications deemed appropriate by the County. Sincerely, Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc. Jeff Henry, RPP, MCIP Urban Planner Email: jeff.henry@arcadis.com Direct Line: 519-585-2255 Mobile: 519-998-5883 Enclosures: Revisions to Final Draft Official Plan Revisions in Final Draft Official Plan www.arcadis.com Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc., 420 Wes Graham Way, Suite 106, Waterloo, Ontario, 519 585 2255 1/13 Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale 1 1.1 An Official Plan is a strategic document that describes how and where a municipality will grow over a 30-year planning horizon. An Official Plan is a strategic document that describes how and where a municipality will grow over a 25-year planning horizon. Planning horizon intended to align with County, being 2051 (25 years). 2 3.2.3 The conversion of lands designated “Agricultural Area” to other uses shall be strongly discouraged. Any such request will require an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and be subject to the following policies: a) Requests to expand a settlement area boundary shall be considered in accordance with provincial policy and the policies of this Plan, recognizing the excess of residentially designated lands described in Subsection 1.1. Requests for new or expanded non- agricultural uses shall be subject to the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement for non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas and the applicable policies of Subsections 3.5 through 3.10 of this Plan. The conversion of lands designated “Agricultural Area” to other uses shall be strongly discouraged. Requests to expand a settlement area boundary will require an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and shall be considered in accordance with provincial policy and the policies of this Plan, recognizing the excess of residentially designated lands described in Subsection 1.1. Requests for new or expanded non- agricultural uses within lands historically designated for non- agriculture and non-resource uses shall be subject to the applicable policies of Subsections 3.5 through 3.10 of this Plan as well as Subsection 3.2.8, Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae. Clarified that the only permitted conversion of lands designated “Agricultural Area” is through a settlement area boundary expansion per PPS 4.3.4, and that the permitted new or expanded non- agricultural uses under Subsections 3.5 – 3.10 are within the lands historically designated for such uses, consistent with EOP 5.18. 3 3.3.11 Certain types of farming operations require outside farm labour to function. As such, the Municipality supports the Certain types of farming operations require outside farm labour to function. As such, the establishment of farm labour Revised wording to clarify the establishment of farm labour accommodation is permitted subject Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 2/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale erection or placement of additional dwellings on farm parcels where the size or nature of the farming operation warrants additional dwellings. The establishment of farm labour accommodation is permitted in the “Agricultural Area”, subject to the following policies: a) Minor Variance: Such dwellings may only be permitted by a minor variance to the Zoning By-law and may not be severed from the farm operation; b) Built-Form: Such dwellings may be temporary dwellings in the form of a mobile home or modular home; or a permanent dwelling in the form of a converted dwelling or bunkhouse; c) Alternative Location(s): Demonstration that alternative locations for the accommodation in existing farm dwellings on lots in the same farm operation, in temporary accommodation, in settlement areas and other similar accommodation are not feasible and not appropriate for the intended accommodation; a) Need: Sufficient information must be provided which outlines how the type, scale, and/or size of the farm operation warrant the need for a supplementary farm dwelling; accommodation is permitted in the “Agricultural Area”, subject to the following policies: a) Minor Variance: Such accommodations may only be permitted by a minor variance to the Zoning By-law and may not be severed from the farm operation; b) Built-Form: Such accommodations may be temporary building(s) in the form of a mobile home or modular home; or a permanent building(s) in the form of a converted dwelling or bunkhouse; c) Alternative Location(s): Demonstration that alternative locations for the accommodation in existing farm dwellings on lots in the same farm operation, in temporary accommodation, in settlement areas and other similar accommodation are not feasible and not appropriate for the intended accommodation; d) Need: Sufficient information must be provided which outlines how the type, scale, and/or size of the farm operation warrant the need for the proposed farm labour accommodation(s); e) Existing accommodations: Sufficient justification must be provided to show how any existing farm labour to criteria, consistent with EOP 5.11. Reviewing the section, the references to supplementary farm dwelling and dwelling unit was also corrected to the new language of farm labour accommodations in building(s). Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 3/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale b) Existing dwellings: Sufficient justification must be provided to show how any existing farm labour dwelling units that are part of the farming operation can’t satisfy the housing needs of the farming operation; c) Location: Sufficient justification must be provided to show how the location of the farm labour dwelling unit makes efficient use of existing services and infrastructure and how the location will not impact surrounding land uses. Preference will be given to close proximity to principal farm dwellings and the use of natural landscaping to buffer temporary dwellings from surrounding land uses; d) Size and Type: The farm labour dwelling unit is of a minimum size and type that can accommodate both health unit and building code requirements, and shall be no larger than necessary to accommodate the needs of the temporary farm help residing in the dwelling. Preference will be given to temporary dwellings, or alternatively permanent dwellings that are one storey in height, with a cumulative maximum floor area of approximately 167 m2 for all farm accommodations that are part of the farming operation can’t satisfy the housing needs of the farming operation; f) Location: Sufficient justification must be provided to show how the location of the farm labour accommodation makes efficient use of existing services and infrastructure and how the location will not impact surrounding land uses. Preference will be given to close proximity to principal farm dwellings and the use of natural landscaping to buffer temporary dwellings from surrounding land uses; g) Size and Type: The farm labour accommodation is of a minimum size and type that can accommodate both health unit and building code requirements, and shall be no larger than necessary to accommodate the needs of the temporary farm help residing in the accommodation. Preference will be given to temporary building(s), or alternatively permanent building(s) that are one storey in height, with a cumulative maximum floor area of approximately 167 m2 for all farm labour accommodations on the lot; Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 4/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale labour accommodation dwelling(s) on the lot; e) Rural Character: The temporary dwellings, or alternatively permanent dwellings, address visual impacts on rural character through architecture, massing, and landscaping; f) Amenity Space: There is adequate amenity space incorporated into the development for the occupant(s) of temporary dwellings, or alternatively permanent dwellings; g) Services: The farm labour dwelling unit must demonstrate an adequate supply of potable water and sanitary sewage disposal system to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Preference will be given to dwellings which can make use of existing services; and, Vehicular access: The farm labour dwelling unit must demonstrate how vehicular access will not contribute to any traffic-related hazards to the satisfaction of the appropriate road authority. Preference will be given to the use of existing driveways. h) Rural Character: The temporary building(s), or alternatively permanent building(s), address visual impacts on rural character through architecture, massing, and landscaping; i) Amenity Space: There is adequate amenity space incorporated into the development for the occupant(s) of temporary building(s), or alternatively permanent building(s); j) Services: The farm labour accommodation must demonstrate an adequate supply of potable water and sanitary sewage disposal system to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Preference will be given to building(s) which can make use of existing services; and, Vehicular access: The farm labour accommodation must demonstrate how vehicular access will not contribute to any traffic-related hazards to the satisfaction of the appropriate road authority. Preference will be given to the use of existing driveways. 4 3.3.11.2 Farm labour accommodation that cannot comply with the policies in Subsection 3.3.12.1 above are referred to as “Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation” and may be permitted for temporary Farm labour accommodation that cannot comply with the policies in Subsection 3.3.12.1 above are referred to as “Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation” and may be permitted for temporary Clarified that a Site Plan Application is required for Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation, consistent with current practice and as requested by the County. Further Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 5/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale accommodation of seasonal farm labour through temporary dwellings, or a permanent dwelling subject to a Site- Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment based on the following criteria: a) Alternative Location(s): Demonstration that alternative locations for the accommodation in existing farm dwellings on lots in the same farm operation, in temporary accommodation, in settlement areas and other similar accommodation are not feasible and not appropriate for the intended accommodation; b) Rural Character: The temporary dwellings, or alternatively permanent dwellings, address visual impacts on rural character through architecture, massing, and landscaping; c) Amenity Space: There is adequate amenity space incorporated into the development for the occupant(s) of temporary dwellings, or alternatively permanent dwellings; … accommodation of seasonal farm labour through temporary dwellings or a permanent dwelling, subject to a Site- Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and a Site Plan Application based on the following criteria: a) Alternative Location(s): Demonstration that alternative locations for the accommodation in existing farm labour accommodation on lots in the same farm operation, in temporary accommodation, in settlement areas and other similar accommodation are not feasible and not appropriate for the intended accommodation; b) Rural Character: The temporary building(s), or alternatively permanent building(s), address visual impacts on rural character through architecture, massing, and landscaping; c) Amenity Space: There is adequate amenity space incorporated into the development for the occupant(s) of temporary building(s), or alternatively permanent building(s); … clarified both temporary and permanent dwellings are subject to the noted applications and policies through relocated comma. Reviewing the section, the references to supplementary farm dwelling was also corrected to the new language of farm labour accommodations in building(s). 5 3.3.11.3 The Municipality may enter into an agreement with the applicant relating to such matters as location, maintenance, buffering, removal, and period of The Municipality may enter into a development agreement with the applicant relating to such matters as location, maintenance, buffering, removal, Clarifying the type of agreement, which is secured either through a Minor Variance (Farm Labour Accommodation) or Site Plan Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 6/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale occupancy of any Farm Labour Accommodation, as well as any other matters deemed appropriate to ensure that the dwelling is used for its intended purpose of providing housing for farm help. and period of occupancy of any Farm Labour Accommodation, as well as any other matters deemed appropriate to ensure that the building(s) is used for its intended purpose of providing housing for farm help. Control (Large Scale Farm Labour Accommodation). Reviewing the section, the references to supplementary farm dwelling was also corrected to the new language of farm labour accommodations in building(s). 6 3.5.2 Development of Mobile Home Parks is limited to expansions of existing parks or to new parks within settlement areas as designated on the Schedules of this Plan. The expansion of any of the listed existing parks above, will be subject to the policies of Subsection 4.5 of this Plan. Proposed expansion of Mobile Home Parks into the “Agricultural Area” designation shall be discouraged and may only be considered by a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment, subject to the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement for non- agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas and applicable policies of this Plan. Development of Mobile Home Parks is limited to expansions of existing parks or to new parks within settlement areas as designated on the Schedules of this Plan. The expansion of any of the listed existing parks above, will be subject to the policies of Subsections 3.2.8 and 4.5 of this Plan. Proposed expansion of Mobile Home Parks into the “Agricultural Area” designation shall be discouraged and may only be considered by a site- specific Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment, subject to the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement for non- agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas, the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae, and applicable policies of this Plan. Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. 7 3.6.1 Seasonal travel trailer parks and campgrounds may be permitted in areas designated “Seasonal Travel Trailer Parks and Campgrounds” on Schedule “B” of this Plan. Subject to the policies of Seasonal travel trailer parks and campgrounds may be permitted in areas designated “Seasonal Travel Trailer Parks and Campgrounds” on Schedule “B” of this Plan. Subject to the policies of Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 7/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale Subsection 3.2 of this Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, it shall be the policy of this Plan to encourage new seasonal travel trailer parks or campgrounds to locate in areas conducive to such development. Such areas should be part of the Otter Creek System, or on the shoreline of Lake Erie where exceptional scenic vistas, aesthetic settings and recreational opportunities exist, subject to the policies of this Plan including Section 8 (Development Hazards). Consideration in the evaluation of proposed seasonal travel trailer parks or campgrounds shall be in accordance with Subsection 4.6 of this Plan. Subsection 3.2 of this Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, it shall be the policy of this Plan to encourage new seasonal travel trailer parks or campgrounds to locate in areas conducive to such development. Such areas should be part of the Otter Creek System, or on the shoreline of Lake Erie where exceptional scenic vistas, aesthetic settings and recreational opportunities exist, subject to the policies of this Plan including Subsection 3.2.8 (Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae) and Section 8 (Development Hazards). Consideration in the evaluation of proposed seasonal travel trailer parks or campgrounds shall be in accordance with Subsection 4.6 of this Plan. 8 3.7.4 In order to protect the surrounding resource lands from the effects of the proposed use, the proposed institutional use should meet, in addition to the policies of this Plan, the following criteria: In order to protect the surrounding resource lands from the effects of the proposed use, the proposed institutional use is subject to the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae and should meet, in addition to the policies of this Plan, the following criteria: Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. 9 3.8.1 All commercial uses are encouraged to be located within settlement areas. Notwithstanding this, commercial uses may be permitted in areas currently designated “Commercial / Highway Commercial” on Schedule “B” of this Plan. All commercial uses are encouraged to be located within settlement areas. Notwithstanding this, commercial uses may be permitted in areas currently designated “Commercial / Highway Commercial” on Schedule “B” of this Plan Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 8/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale subject to the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae. 10 3.8.3 The establishment of new, or expansion of existing, commercial uses in the Rural Area shall be discouraged and may only be considered by a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment. The following policies shall govern the development and zoning of commercial uses, which shall be included in a ‘Highway Commercial Zone’ or ‘Rural Commercial Zone’ in the Zoning By-law and which are subject to the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement for non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas, where applicable: The establishment of new, or expansion of existing, commercial uses in the Rural Area shall be discouraged and may only be considered by a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment. In addition to the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae per Subsection 3.2.8, the following policies shall govern the development and zoning of commercial uses, which shall be included in a ‘Highway Commercial Zone’ or ‘Rural Commercial Zone’ in the Zoning By-law and which are subject to the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement for non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas, where applicable: Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. 11 3.9.2 In order to protect the surrounding resource lands from the effects of the proposed use, the proposed recreational use should meet, in addition to the policies of this Plan, the following criteria: In order to protect the surrounding resource lands from the effects of the proposed use, the proposed recreational use is subject to the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae and should meet, in addition to the policies of this Plan, the following criteria: Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. 12 3.10.2 Industrial uses in locations other than the Bayham Industrial Park may be permitted on a limited basis subject to an Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment, and provided they meet all other applicable policies of Industrial uses in locations other than the Bayham Industrial Park may be permitted on a limited basis subject to an Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment, provided they meet the Minimum Distance Provide additional clarity that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is applicable for new or expanded uses, in accordance with the PPS. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 9/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale this Plan, and the Zoning By-law regulations for industrial uses. Separation Formulae, all other applicable policies of this Plan, and the Zoning By-law regulations for industrial uses. 13 5.2(d) The Municipality shall rely on the expertise of the Province and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority in identifying potential natural heritage features; and, The Municipality shall rely on the expertise of the Province in identifying potential natural heritage features; and, Revised to recognize provincial changes to the scope of Conservation Authorities. 14 5.10.1(a) has reasonable confirmation that development can proceed in accordance with County, provincial and/or federal requirements; and has reasonable confirmation that development can proceed in accordance with provincial and/or federal requirements; and Removed reference to County as jurisdiction for fish habitat or the habitat of threatened or endangered species is provincial and/or federal. 15 6.3.1 Roads in the Municipality shall be classified into a hierarchy on the basis of jurisdiction, function, user characteristics, speed and interconnections. The classification of roads and the existing and proposed road system is shown on all Schedules and Appendices of this Plan, and are identified as follows: Provincial Highways - Provincial Highways are designed to provide a traffic moving function and are not intended to service adjacent lands. Provincial Highways typically service high volumes of traffic at high speeds. County Roads – County Roads are designed to provide a range of traffic volumes for moving people and goods Roads in the Municipality shall be classified into a hierarchy on the basis of jurisdiction, function, user characteristics, speed and interconnections. The classification of roads and the existing and proposed road system is shown on all Schedules and Appendices of this Plan, and are identified as follows: Provincial Highways - Provincial Highways are designed to provide a traffic moving function and are not intended to service adjacent lands. Provincial Highways typically service high volumes of traffic at high speeds. County Roads – County Roads are designed to provide a range of traffic volumes for moving people and goods Added definition of Collector Roads, being one of two classifications of Municipal Roads. County Rural Collector Roads and County Urban Collector Roads are included within the definition of County Roads for the purposes of this plan. Two minor typos are also corrected for consistency in nomenclature. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 10/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale throughout the County of Elgin and to adjacent municipalities. Local Roads – Local Road are Municipally-owned roads which are intended to provide access to abutting properties, to serve destinations as opposed to through traffic, and to act as feeders to the arterial road system. Private Roads - Private roads are lanes, driveways, roads, or rights-of-way maintained by private individuals or bodies. It is the policy of this Plan to limit new development on private roads. The creation of a new lot for any purpose on a private road outside of a plan of condominium is not permitted, unless specifically permitted in this Plan. throughout the County of Elgin and to adjacent municipalities. Collector Roads – Collector Roads are Municipally-owned roads which are intended to provide both access to abutting properties and traffic movement between local roads, other collector roads, and the arterial road system. Collector Roads are listed in Table 2. Local Roads – Local Roads are Municipally-owned roads which are intended to provide access to abutting properties, to serve destinations as opposed to through traffic, and to act as feeders to the arterial road system. Private Roads - Private Roads are lanes, driveways, roads, or rights-of-way maintained by private individuals or bodies. It is the policy of this Plan to limit new development on private roads. The creation of a new lot for any purpose on a private road outside of a plan of condominium is not permitted, unless specifically permitted in this Plan. 16 6.3.2 The required right-of-way width (or road allowance) of a road or highway shall be determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Generally, Municipality of The required right-of-way width (or road allowance) of a road or highway shall be determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Policy is revised to use the base language from EOP policy 8.3, modified to provide specific right-of- way ranges for Municipal roads Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 11/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale Bayham-owned arterial roads shall have a right-of-way ranging from 20 metres to 30 metres. Local roads shall have a right-of-way ranging from 20 metres to 26 metres. In some cases, such as cul-de-sacs and short streets, consideration may be given to road allowances that are less than 20 metres in width; however, in no case shall a road allowance be created that is less than 15 metres in width. The right-of-way width for any public road may allow for the placement of travel lanes, turning lanes, utilities, infrastructure, high occupancy vehicle lanes, sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, medians, streetscaping and landscaped boulevards, where appropriate. New roads and re-constructed roads under the Municipality’s jurisdiction shall be developed to comply with the following standards: Collector Roads shall have a right-of- way width of between 20 metres and 26 metres. Local Roads shall have a right-of-way width of 20 metres, with site-specific consideration of no less than 15 metres for cul-de-sacs or short streets Land dedications for roads and/or road widening purposes shall be dedicated to the authority having jurisdiction at no expense. Where ranges of a standard are provided, it shall be at the sole discretion of the Municipality to determine the appropriate standard. Deviations from these standards may be considered when: a) the location of an identified cultural heritage resource limits design options; and/or b) the presence of a natural system feature or mature trees limits design options. similar to the approach of the County. The subsection clarifies that the required right-of-way width is determined by the authority having jurisdiction, which necessarily includes the County as the applicable authority for County roads. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 12/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale The right-of-way width for any public road may allow for the placement of travel lanes, turning lanes, utilities, infrastructure, high occupancy vehicle lanes, sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, medians, streetscaping and landscaped boulevards, where appropriate. 17 6.3.2.1 In addition to the road right-of-way width in Subsection 6.3.2, the Municipality may, without the need for an amendment to this Plan, require the dedication of lands to be used for ‘daylight triangles’, to provide sufficient sight distances and turning lanes to provide safe and appropriate access where major traffic generators intersect. Where additional land is required for intersection improvements, such land shall be dedicated to the Municipality at no expense. In addition to the road right-of-way width in Subsection 6.3.2, the authority having jurisdiction may, without the need for an amendment to this Plan, require the dedication of lands to be used for ‘daylight triangles’, to provide sufficient sight distances and turning lanes to provide safe and appropriate access where major traffic generators intersect. Where additional land is required for intersection improvements, such land shall be dedicated to the authority having jurisdiction at no expense. Revised to clarify conveyance is to the authority having jurisdiction. 18 6.3.2.3 As a condition of a development approval, land for road widenings shall be conveyed at no expense to the Municipality in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. As a general principle, required road widenings will be taken equally from both sides of the right-of- way. Unequal road widenings may be considered by the Municipality where the area is affected by a topographic feature which is difficult to overcome or costly to develop for road purposes. As a condition of a development approval, land for road widenings shall be conveyed at no expense to the authority having jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. As a general principle, required road widenings will be taken equally from both sides of the right-of-way. Unequal road widenings may be considered by the Municipality where the area is affected by a topographic feature which is difficult to Revised to clarify conveyance is to the authority having jurisdiction. Revisions to the Final Draft Official Plan February 26, 2026 www.arcadis.com Revisions-to-Final-Draft-OP_County-Comments 13/13 # Section Jan 2026 Final Draft Official Plan Revised Final Draft Official Plan Rationale overcome or costly to develop for road purposes. 19 Table 2 (New) [Table 2 added at end of Subsection 6.3.2, listing all Collector Roads by segment; subsequent Tables and references renumbered accordingly] Revised to include a specific list of Municipally-owned Collector Roads. 20 Schedules A, B, B1, B2, B3, C, D, and Appendix 1, 2 Base Features … Local Roads Base Features … Municipal Roads Revised as Municipal Roads includes both Local Roads and Collector Roads. 21 11.6.7.2(b) The policies of this Plan and the requirements of the Municipality regarding consents may be implemented through a site plan agreement between the Municipality and the applicant pursuant to the Planning Act. The policies of this Plan and the requirements of the Municipality regarding consents may be implemented through a development agreement between the Municipality and the applicant pursuant to the Planning Act. Clarified the form of agreement is a development agreement. February 21, 2025 Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Lane, PO Box 160 Straffordville ON N0J 1Y0 Re. Bayham Official Plan Review – 2024 Feedback Council for the Municipality of Bayham, Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft official plan for the Municipality of Bayham. As part of the comprehensive feedback from Southwestern Public Health, we are providing specific recommendations related to various aspects of the draft Official Plan. These suggestions aim to enhance the overall health and sustainability of the Municipality of Bayham and its residents. Health can be influenced at the population level through the environments in which we all live; as such, healthy built environments are a key part of promoting the well-being of our local communities. Changing the health of our communities in a positive way can be done through the intentional development of supportive built environments. Official plans are important documents that can be used to encourage these improvements. We are pleased to note that the use of community incentives to enhance the built environment are included in the draft official plan. We encourage the continued offering of these incentives to promote healthy built environment policies locally, including:1,2 a) Mixed-use housing options (i.e., co-location of retail and moderate density residential housing).3 b) Neighbourhood retail of essential amenities (i.e., grocery stores and pharmacies) in residential communities.3 c) A variety of housing forms and mixed income housing developments to increase access to local, affordable, and diverse housing options, which helps people stay in their communities longer and improves their ability to afford other basic needs such as health care and nutritious food, while decreasing stress.3 These healthy built environment principles could be added through the modification of existing portions of the draft official plan. For example, the following statement in Section 11.6.11 could be modified to include the following: “In designated Community Improvement Project Areas, the preparation of Community Improvement Plans will provide the Municipality with various powers to maintain and promote attractive and safe living and working environments through community improvements (for example, a variety of housing densities, mixed retail/residential housing options and local essential amenities, including grocers and pharmacies). This includes the authority to offer incentives to stimulate or leverage private and/or public-sector investment.” This type of policy would enable the development of gentle density in local population centers where it is most beneficial to the community. Food Systems and Agriculture We commend the emphasis placed on protecting the agricultural land base and operations in Section 3.2.1. To further support economic resilience in agriculture, we recommend incorporating a policy statement to support agricultural-related uses and on-farm diversified uses (such as farm stores, farm gate sales, and pick-your-own farms), which allow diversification of agricultural operations and provide access to revenue streams, which are essential for sustaining agricultural operations.3 Section 3.2.2 Protecting the Agricultural System highlights the significance of maintaining a viable agricultural sector. Enhancing this section with a policy statement that supports the capacity of local food systems through the establishment of local food hubs and processing centres, such as commercial kitchens and processing facilities, would further strengthen the infrastructure needed for local food production and processing.3 Within Section 3.2.3 Protecting Against the Conversion of Agricultural Land, the draft plan highlights the need to protect agricultural land from conversion to other uses. To further support this objective, we suggest including a policy to protect prime agricultural lands from urban encroachment and promote policies that ensure the continued viability of local farming operations. This would help maintain a sustainable supply of local, healthy foods, supporting community food security across Elgin County.3,4,5 While the focus is on rural areas, urban agriculture can also contribute to local food production. In Section 4.2.1 Community Design and Protecting Urban Character, we suggest including a policy to support urban agriculture, such as rooftop gardens, edible landscaping, community gardens, and urban farms. This can enhance local food production, enable community gardens, and protect green space.3,4,6,7 To ensure access to affordable healthy food, Section 4.3.1 Permitted Uses could include policies that implement zoning by-laws allowing mobile food vendors or temporary pop-up markets with affordable, healthy food choices.3,7,8 Climate Change We applaud the emphasis on addressing the impacts of climate change on both the built and natural environments in Section 9.4. Additionally, it's important to recognize that climate change has direct and indirect effects on human health, including increased heat- related illnesses, respiratory and cardiovascular conditions due to air pollution, and changes in the prevalence of infectious diseases.9 Effective land use planning can play a crucial role in helping communities adapt and become more resilient to these climate- related health impacts.10 To address the impacts of climate change on human health within the draft official plan, we propose “The Municipality recognizes the potential impacts of climate change on the built and natural environment.” be expanded to “The Municipality recognizes the potential impacts of climate change on human health as well as the built and natural environment.” To mitigate the implications of climate change and existing environmental conditions on human health to prevent injury, loss of life, and property damage we recommend adding the following policy statements to Section 9.4.11 e) Council will ensure the built environment be developed to provide protection against extreme heat, build climate resiliency and promote safe outdoor recreation and active transportation. f) Council will work with Conservation Authorities, Public Health and other organizations to identify and address climate change vulnerable areas and populations. Health Equity Section 9.3.4 of the draft official plan outlines the process for engaging with local Indigenous communities. To strengthen this section further, we suggest the incorporation of a framework for engagement with Indigenous communities. One example of a recognized framework for engagement that could be included in this section is the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation framework.12 Thank you for considering these recommendations and we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Bayham Official Plan (2024). Sincerely, Toluwalope Adedugbe, Health Promoter Michelle Alvey, Health Promoter Kendall Chambers, Registered Dietitian Randie Gregoire, Public Health Nurse Robert Northcott, Health Promoter Shreya Sachdeva, Health Promoter References 1. Walker C, Arnett E, Lang J, Basinski C, Leger S, Stone E. Health Equity & Climate Change: Shaping Supportive Policy. Southwestern Public Health; 2019. 2. Basinski C, Leger S, Tigchelaar J, Alvey M, Chambers K, Lichti M, et al. Public Health & the Built Environment. Southwestern Public Health; 2024. 3. BC Centre for Disease Control. Healthy Built Environment Linkages Toolkit: making the links between design, planning and health, Version 2.0. Vancouver, B.C.: Provincial Health Services Authority; 2018. 4. Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit. Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit. [Online]. Barrie: Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit; 2014 [cited 2025 January 31. Available from: www.simcoemuskokahealth.org. 5. Peterborough Public Heralth. Peterborough Public Health. [Online].; 2018 [cited 2025 January 31. Available from: peterboroughpublichealth.ca. 6. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario). Evidence of municipal- and community-level interventions to promote sustainable food systems. Evidence brief. Toronto:, Health Promotion, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention; 2020. 7. Ontario Dietitians in Public Health. Municipal land use planning policies that promote equitable and sustainable food systems. Rapid review. Ontario:; 2024. 8. Tatebe K, Watson K, Robert N, Kreitzman M, Polasub W, Mullinix K. Food systems planning in Canada: a toolkit of priority practices for planners. toolkit. Richmon, British Columbia: Institute for Sustainable Food Systems; 2024. 9. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Human Health Impacts of Climate Change. [Online].; 2022 [cited 2025 February 11. Available from: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/climatechange/health_impacts. 10 . American Public Health Association. Public Health Opportunities to Address the Health Effects of Climate Change. [Online].; 2015 [cited 2025 February 11. Available from: https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy- statements/policy-database/2015/12/03/15/34/public-health-opportunities-to- address-the-health-effects-of-climate-change. 11 . Hemson and Laura Taylor Design (LTD). County of Simcoe Land Use Planning Community Climate Change Strategy Draft May 2024. [Online].; 2024 [cited 2025 February 11. Available from: https://simcoe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CCW- 2024-170-Schedule-3.pdf. 12 . Federation of International Association for Public Participation. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. [Online].; 2024 [cited 2025 February 13. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/iap2_spectrum_2024. pdf.