the corporation of the municipality of lambton shores

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORESCOUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA

Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013Time: 3:00 p.m.Location: Legacy Centre - Thomas Hall, Thedford

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

3. Municipal Issues for Council Discussion

3.1 3:00 p.m. - PowerPoint by the Clerk Carol McKenzie on By-lawEnforcement with Lambton Shores

14 - 25

3.1.1 CL Report No. 98-2013 - Re: 2013 By-law Enforcement AnnualReport

26 - 30

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the 2013 By-law Enforcement PowerPoint Presentationand Report CL 98-2013 be received for information.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the order of the agenda be amended to review Item No.10.14 being CL Report 99-2013.

3.2 3:30 p.m. - Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services will PresentFindings from the Public Information Session and RecommendationsRelated to Ice Management in Port Franks

3.2.1 D.C.S. Report No. 142-2013 - Re: Port Franks Ice Management -Summary of September 7, 2013 Public Meeting

31 - 112

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 142-2013 related to 'Port Franks IceManagement - Summary of September 7, 2013 Public Meeting'be received; and that council receive and file th eAECOM report'port Franks Ice Management Cost Sharig Study - pHase 2' andaeco report filed

3rd and 4th clause be eliminate that cao prpepare report on icejam and what could occur to define this project long term and a

1

option on a new direction alternative strategy to deal with theflooding ussues

3.2.2 D.C.S. Report No. 143-2013 - Re: Dredging EquipmentPurchase - Cost Benefit Analysis

113 - 121

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 143-2013 regarding 'Dredging EquipmentPurchase - Cost Benefit Analysis' be received; and

THAT Lambton Shores continue to contract annual spot dredgingwork rather than purchase dedicated equipment and deliver thisservice in-house.

3.3 4:00 p.m. - Patti Richardson, Planner will Review with Council thePlanning Framework on which the Draft Official Plan was Prepared andthe Major Changes from the Current Official Plan to Draft #5

3.3.1 PL Report No. 38-2013 - Re: Draft 5 of the Lambton ShoresOfficial Plan

122 - 131

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council receive the 5th Draft of the Lambton ShoresOfficial Plan for discussion; and

THAT in order to keep the public informed and engaged, it isrecommended that Council approve the following actions:

1. That Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be placed onthe Municipal Website;

2. That the public be advised on the Municipal website thatCompact Disk copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores OfficialPlan are available from the Planner upon request;

3. That the public be advised on the Municipal website that anycomments or questions respecting Draft 5 of the LambtonShores Official Plan be forwarded in writing to the Planner;

4. That a copy of the anticipated schedule for the Official Planreview process as approved by Council on October 3, 2013 beplaced on the Municipal website.

5. That printed copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores OfficialPlan be placed in all Lambton Sores Municipal Offices andlibraries.

4. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification

Please Note:  As per By-law 73-2013, Section 15, Subsection 13 - Questionsmust pertain to decisions made by Council on the items included in the agendadiscussed to this point and be for the purpose of clarification only, and not forthe purpose of making statements.

2

5. Confidential Business

Open Session will adjourn for the Closed Session followed by a one hourrecess. (Doors will re-open at 5:45 p.m.)

5.1 Closed Session Minutes of Council - October 17, 2013

5.2 D.C.S. Report No. 141-2013 - Re: Update on Request to PurchaseMunicipal Land (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) c of theMunicipal Act - The disposition of land by the Municipality.)

5.3 Discussion on Dealing with Matters of Litigation (Authorization to Close -Section 239 (2) e of the Municipal Act - Litigation or potential litigation,including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting theMunicipality or Local Board.)

5.4 Request to Purchase Municipal Land (Authorization to Close - Section239 (2) c of the Municipal Act - The disposition of land by theMunicipality.)

6. Consent Agenda

6.1 Bluewater Recycling Association Meeting Highlights for October, 2013 132 - 135

6.2 Minutes of the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authoritiy Board ofDirectors' Meeting held September 12, 2013

136 - 142

6.3 Agenda for the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Board ofDirectors' Meeting held October 17, 2013

143

6.4 General Manager's Report from the Ausable Bayfield ConservationAuthority dated October 17, 2013

144 - 145

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the following items listed as part of the consent agenda bereceived and filed:

6.1 Bluewater Recycling Association Meeting Highlights for October,2013;

6.2 Minutes of the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Board ofDirectors' Meeting held September 12, 2013;

6.3 Agenda for the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Board ofDirectors' Meeting held October 17, 2013;

6.4 General Manager's report from the Ausable Bayfield ConservationAuthority dated October 17, 2013.

7. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

7.1 Regular Council Meeting - October 17, 2013 146 - 158

3

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the minutes of the Council meeting held the 17th day of October,2013 be accepted as presented.

8. Delegations, Public Meetings & Presentations

8.1 6:00 p.m. - Dr. Renade, the Medical Officer of Health,  County ofLambton Health Services - Re: Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-law ToolKit & Support

159 - 167

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the presentation made by the County of Lambton CommunityHealth Services Department regarding smoke-free outdoor spaces bereceived by Council.

8.2 6:15 p.m. - Mary Jean Hill - Re: Concerns with Fireworks Displays inResidential Areas

168 - 169

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the presentation from Mary Jean Hill regarding concerns withfireworks displays in residential areas be received by Council.

8.3 6:30 p.m. - Susan Mills, Manager, Grand Bend Chamber of Commerce -Re: Information on the Provision and Cost Associated with ProvidingLambton Shores with Tourism & Visitor Services with the Goal ofObtaining a Multi-Year Services Contract

170 - 199

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the presentation by Susan Mills, Manager, Grand Bend Chamberof Commerce regarding information on the provision and cost associatedwith providing Lambton Shores with Tourism and Visitor Services with thegoal of obtaining a multi-year service contract be received by Council andrefer the reequest to the budget discussions.

9. Correspondence & Petitions

Correspondence - For Council Information

9.1 Claude Dauphin, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Re:Continued Membership

200

9.2 Susan Crowley, President & CEO, Children's Health Foundation - Re: Appreciation of Support for Dream Lottery

201

9.3 Ann Baldwin, Regional Director, Ministry of Transportation - Re: Speed ofTraffic within the Southernly Portion of Highway #21 Connecting Link inGrand Bend

202

9.4 Ross Lashbrook, Manager (A), Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry 203

4

of the Environment - Re: Change to the Grand Bend & Area SewageServicing Master Plan

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the following items of correspondence be received for Councilinformation:

9.1 Claude Dauphin, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities -Re: Continued Membership;

9.2 Susan Crowley, President &  CEO, Children's Health Foundation -RE: Appreciation of Support for Dream Lottery;

9.3 Ann Baldwin, Regional Director Ministry of Transportation - Re:Speed of Traffic within the Southernly Portion of Highway #21Connecting Link in Grand Bend;

9.4 Ross Lashbrook, Manager (A), Environmental Approvals Branch,Ministry of the Environment - Re: Change to the Grand Bend &  AreaSewage Servicing Master Plan 

Correspondence - For Council Direction

9.5 Bob Sharen, Chair, Zone 3 Community Group - Re: Request for "Zone 3Newsletter" on Wastewater Collection & Treatment in North LambtonShores

204

RECOMMENDATION:

we have updated sewage master plan

move staff prepare draft newsletter as per spirit of letter from grouprecommendations in letter - noting sewer plan has been updated,  forcouncil approval to be mailed first tax bill1st meeting in January - shouldgo to everyone

9.6 Karl Elliott - Re: Request for Council Support for Proposed FIT 3.0Applications for Solar Installation

205 - 211

RECOMMENDATION:

WHEREAS Karl Roger Elliott and Mabel June Elliott (the 'Applicant')proposed to construct and operate a rooftop solar installation (the'Project') on Gordon Road (Con 3 Pt Lot 22-23) Thedford, Ontario (the'Lands') in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario under theProvince's FIT Program;

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council of theMunicipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario indicate by resolution Council'ssupport for the construction and operation of the Project on the Property;

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the FIT Rules, Version 3.0, Applicationswhose Projects receive the formal support of Local Municipalities will beawarded Priority Points, which may result in the Applicant being offered aFIT Contract prior to other Persons applying for FIT Contracts;

5

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario supports theconstruction and operation of the Project on the Lands.

This resolution's sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receivePriority Points under the FIT Program and may not be used for thepurpose of any other form of municipal approval in relation to theApplication or Project or any other purpose. 

9.7 Douglas Harold Willsie - Re: Request for Council Supoort for ProposedFIT  3.0 Applications for Solar Installation

212 - 216

RECOMMENDATION:

WHEREAS Douglas Harold Willsie and Janet Marie Willsie (the'Applicant') proposed to construct and operate a rooftop solar installation(the 'Project') on 9519-9521 Northville Road, R.R. #1, Thedford, Ontario(the 'Lands') in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario under theProvince's FIT Program;

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council of theMunicipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario indicate by resolution Council'ssupport for the construction and operation of the Project on the Property;

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the FIT Rules, Version 3.0, Applicationswhose Projects receive the formal support of Local Municipalities will beawarded Priority Points, which may result in the Applicant being offered aFIT Contract prior to other Persons applying for FIT Contracts;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario supports theconstruction and operation of the Project on the Lands.

This resolution's sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receivePriority Points under the FIT Program and may not be used for thepurpose of any other form of municipal approval in relation to theApplication or Project or any other purpose. 

9.8 Paul Wilson, Community Chair, Community Improvement Coalition -Community Centre & Ice Rink Committee - Re: Request for theMunicipality of Lambton Shores to be Named as Charitable Partner forthe CIC Community Centre & Outdoor Rink Feasibility Project

217 - 221

RECOMMENDATION:

motion that we be a charitable partners of phase one  jr and ls

9.9 Allen Stubbs, Trail Committee Chairman, Warwick Snowmobile Club -Re: Request to Use Iron Bridge

222 - 228

RECOMMENDATION:

approve this

6

9.10 Richard Matzka - Re: Request for Clarification on MiscellaneousAllocation

229

RECOMMENDATION:

db - move to deal with jr motion.

defer to November 21st db and lorie

10. Consideration of Committee Minutes and Staff Reports

10.1 Minutes of the Economic Development Committee Meeting heldSeptember 6, 2013

230 - 232

10.2 Minutes of the Economic Development Committee Meeting heldSeptember 17, 2013

233 - 234

10.3 Minutes of the Economic Development Committee Meeting held October1, 2013

235 - 237

10.4 Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board Meeting heldSeptember 18, 2013

238 - 242

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the minutes of the Economic Development Meetings heldSeptember 6th and 17th and October 1, 2013 and the minutes of theForest B.I.A. meeting held September 18, 2013 be accepted aspresented.

Planning

10.5 PL Report No. 46-2013 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013 for RoySchrijver - 7549 Arkona Road

243 - 279

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT PL Report No. 46-2013, regarding Official Plan AmendmentApplication OP-01/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to theLambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549Arkona Road, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permitthe creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which issurplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation, bereceived and filed and that the by-laws to implement the amendments tothe Official Pan and Zoning By-law be approved.

10.6 PL Report No. 47-2013 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013  forGary Edward Struyf - 392 Main Street, Thedford 

280 - 314

RECOMMENDATION:

7

THAT PL Report No. 47-2013, regarding Official Plan AmendmentApplication OP-03/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment tothe Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 393Main Street, Thedford, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law topermit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which issurplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation, bereceived and filed and that the by-laws to implement the amendments tothe Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved.

Community Services

10.7 D.C.S. Report No. 137-2013 - Re: Amendment to Recreation FacilityFee Schedule

315 - 316

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 137-2013 regarding an amendment to the RecreationFacility Fee Schedule be received; and

THAT Council adopt the existing fee schedule for the pavilion located atthe Port Franks Community Centre.

10.8 D.C.S. Report No. 138-2013 - Re: Jericho Wind Energy Project -Requests for Drainage Reports

317 - 319

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 138-2013 related to 'Jericho Wind Energy Project -Request for Drainage Reports' under Section 78 of the Drainage Act bereceived; and

THAT the request for drainage improvements received from the ScottDrain under Section 78 (1) and Section 74 of the Drainage Act beapproved; and

THAT Spriet &  Associates be appointed as the engineer for the projectconditional on the expiration of the 30 day notice period to theConservation Authority as required under Section 6 of the Drainage Act.

10.9 D.C.S. Report No. 140-2013 - Re: Renewal of the ThedfordShuffleboard Club Agreement

320 - 324

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 14-2013 regarding the 'Renewal of the ThedfordShuffleboard Club's Lease Agreement' be received; and

THAT the Club be granted a one-year agreement with the Municipalityfor the periodic use of Thomas Hall at the Legacy Recreation Centre,with a monthly fee of $125.00 plus HST, commencing January 1, 2014.

10.10 D.C.S. Report No. 145-2013 - Re: Intellectual Property for the Grand 325 - 330

8

Bend Sewage Treatment Plant - Dillon Consulting Design

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 145-2013 regarding the 'Intellectual Property for theGrand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant - Dillon Consulting Design' bereceived; and

THAT Council authorize the Director of Community Services to sign theletter of agreement with Dillon Consulting for the provision of intellectualproperty associated with the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment FacilityUpgrade.

Finance & Administration

10.11 TR Report No. 87-2013 - Re: Tax Arrears Extension Agreement 331 - 335

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR 87-2013 being a report to address Tax Arrears bereceived; and

THAT By-law 103 of 2013, authorizing the execution of a tax arrearsextension agreement that was signed by the Treasurer and theregistered owner of the property as shown on the Assessment Roll asRoll 3845 520 010 400000 0000 on October 28th, 2013, pursuant toSection 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001 be approved.

10.12 TR Report No. 89-2013 - Re: Fire Service Agreement 336 - 339

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Treasurer's Report TR-89-2013 regarding Fire Service AgreementReview be received; and

THAT staff provide a written response to the Town of Plympton-Wyoming acknowledging their notice to terminate the Fire Serviceagreement with Lambton Shores, and clarifying the nature of any mutualaid service that may be requested in the future; and

THAT staff continue to meet with the Municipalities that Lambton Shoreshas fire service agreements with and when necessary, the LambtonCounty Fire Service Coordinator and Fire Marshal's office representativeand report back to the Fire Services Board and Council should changesto the agreements be necessary.

10.13 CL Report No. 97-2013 - Re: Election 2014 - Report #1 - Key Dates &Method of Election

340 - 345

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 97-2013 providing information on the 2014 MunicipalElection be received; and

THAT, in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Section

9

42.(1) the Council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores authorizes thecontinuation of the 'Vote by Mail' method of election; and

THAT prior to June 1, 2014 the final policies and procedures arepresented to Council for approval.

10.14 CL Report No. 99-2013 - Re: By-law Enforcement 346 - 348

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 99-2013 being a report providing information on thecurrent By-law Enforcement Contract is received.

RECOMMENDATION:

That staff prepare a report on a full review of by-law enfocement of allaspects of provisions of by-law enforcement to make a reocmmendationto the new council of 2014.

10.15 CL Report No. 100-2013 - Re: Propsoed Council Meeting Dates for2014

349 - 353

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 100-2013 being a report to consider Council meetingdates for 2014 be received and that staff prepare a report on the meritsof having bot

dd and mu

get a reprot on starting both meetings at 3 p.m.

11. By-laws & Resolutions

11.1 By-law 103-2013 - Re:Authorizing the Execution of a Tax ArrearsExtension (See TR Report No. 145-2013)

11.2 By-law 104-2013 - Re: Authorize Agreement with Darch Fire Inc. for FirePumping Apparatus

354 - 356

11.3 By-law 107-2013 - Re: Official Plan Amendment for Schrijver (See PLReport No. 46-2013)

11.4 By-law 108-2013 - Re: Zone Amendment for Schrijver (See PL ReportNo. 46-2013)

11.5 By-law 109-2013 - Re: Zone Amendment for Struyf (See PL Report No.47-2013)

11.6 By-law 110-2013 - Re: Official Plan Amendment for Struyf (See PLReport No. 47-2013)

11.7 By-law 111-2013 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 357

10

RECOMMENDATION:

okay

12. Accounts

None at this time.

13. Notice of Motion

13.1 Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: Request forDiscussion  on Release of the Pinery Provincial Park's Unused SewageCapacity Allocation

358

RECOMMENDATION:

This motion is referred to next meeting dd and john russell WHEREASCouncil is aware, the Pinery Park was allocated capacity for an averagedaily flow of 470 m3 for their sewage collection system when theirsystem was designed for 253 m3.  As well, there are reliable reports thatin 2012 the Park used less than an average of 50 m3 per day during theyear.  Original plans to extend the Park's collection system have sincebeen abandoned and the MNR staff are seriously considering agreywater recycling system.

WHEREAS Lambton Shores Council inquired about redirecting thisunused capacity to other developments, they were asked to allow 2years for data collection before revisiting the Park's sewage allocation inthe lagoons/STF.  The Park's collection system has been operatingsince 2011 and the two years of heavy seasonal flow will be completedby the 2013 Thanksgiving weekend.  The Pinery sewage travels to thelagoons on the Goosemarsh Line and as I understand, the GoosemarshLine is used almost exclusively for Park Sewage.

I HEREBY MOVE that Council direct our CAO to make contact withPinery managers, MNR and Ontario Parks Board of Directors andinquire about the 2013 flows and their openness to discussing a releaseof the Park's unused capacity allocation.

AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to provide an update to ourprevious Goosemarsh Line Report providing information on (1) thePinerys contribution of money to date on the total cost of theGoosemarsh Line, (2) the status of the debt associated with theGoosemarsh Line (including whether the debt is still floating or nowfixed) and (3) a report on discussions with MNR staff to date regardingcapacity requirements.  This information would return to Council beforethe end of November.

13.2 Notice of Motion from Councillor Underwood - Re: Protection of theGreat Lakes from Nuclear Waste Repositories

359

RECOMMENDATION:

WHEREAS the Great Lakes are a connected water system;

11

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 millionNorth Americans;

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes Basin is home to 90% of Ontario'spopulation;

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes contribute an estimated $180 billion toCanada-U.S. trade;

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes support 45% of Canada's industrialcapacity;

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $100 million commercialfishing industry;

AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $350 million recreationalfishing industry;

AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Lambton Shores is concerned thatthe proposal for nuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario mayset a precedent for possible future expansion of Deep GeologicalRepositories (DGR) for high level nuclear waste, without fullengagement and consultation with Great Lakes Basin municipalities;

AND WHEREAS the Clean Water Act of Ontario demands thatMunicipal Councils uphold a high standard of care in order to protectwater quality;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of theCorporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in  order to protectthe great Lakes and its tributaries, urges that neither this proposednuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario, nor any otherunderground nuclear waste repository, be constructed in the GreatLakes Basin, in Canada, in the United States, or on any First Nationsproperty.

13.2.1 Councillor Russell provided notice of the following motion forconsideration at the November 21, 2013 Council Meeting

WHEREAS the issues surrounding the Grand Bend SewageMaster Plan and the decisions arrived upon have been subjectto ongoing and endless questioning; and

WHEREAS the amount of resources necessary for fullanswering of such questioning is not endless; and

WHEREAS the project is at a point where decisions have beenmade that allow the project to move forward;

BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct the CAO to prepare areport that outlines a communication approach for Council todebate and adopt as being the best way to publicly address thehistory of the Sewage saga from 2005 to present, with an intentto clarify what decisions were made when to bring us up to thecurrent time.  While this report is being produced, no new

12

questions on historical Sewage issues will be entertained,except to file, to allow for staff to work on the budget and itsimplication.

14. New Business

An opportunity for an emergent issue to be discussed by Council.

15. Councillor Reports

An opportunity for Members of Council to make a report.

16. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification

Please Note:  As per By-law 73-2013, Section 15, Subsection 13 - Questionsmust pertain to decisions made by Council on the items included in the agendadiscussed to this point and be for the purpose of clarification only, and not forthe purpose of making statements.

17. Adjourn

RECOMMENDATION:

That the November 7, 2013 Council meeting adjourn at 8:09 p.m.

13

1

The Enforcement of Municipal

By-laws

By-Law Enforcement - Overview

Lambton Shores is divided into two service areas:

North Area –shown in yellow is north of Klondyke Road, and includes Grand Bend, Huron Woods, Southcott Pines, and Van Dongen Subdivisions.

South Area –shown in red, is all areas south of Klondyke Road, including Port Franks, Ipperwash, Arkona, Forest, Thedford

North Area Enforcement

Keith Crawford, of Crawford Security and By-law Enforcement, along with 6-8 part time staff, patrol the north area

South Area Enforcement Glenn Bell is

responsible for the south area and undertakes the role of canine control, weed inspector, livestock evaluator and other duties for the entire municipality such as grease trap inspections.

Beach Patrol In the north area, the enforcement

staff patrol the municipal beach…..

Beach Patrol for the safety of the patrons…..

14

2

Special Events to oversee

“Special

Events” …..

Beach Patrol

And to enforce the regulations prohibiting ….

Glass on the beach…..

Overnight

Guests……

Beach Patrol

Campfires….

Beach Patrol

Dogs on the beach during prohibited

times…

Beach Patrol

The use of

B-B-Q’s on the beaches and in the parking lots……

Beach Patrol

15

3

and other general

nuisances.

Beach Patrol Parking Lot Control - Grand Bend The By-law Officers monitor the 6 metered municipal parking lots

Parking Lot Control - Grand Bend

to ensure parking tickets are purchased and time restrictions adhered to.

Parking Lot Control- Grand Bend

By-Law staff also assist patrons with the parking meters in the parking lots

Two hour parking on Grand Bend Main Street is monitored to ensure turnover of parking spaces to accommodate shoppers

Parking Enforcement

Throughout the Municipality, parking regulations are enforced to ensure roadways remain clear for emergency response vehicles,

Parking Enforcement

16

4

to ensure residents have unimpeded access to their property,

Parking Enforcement

to ensure our traffic flow ….

Parking Enforcement

to ensure our children are safe…..

Parking Enforcement and that

accessible parking spaces reserved and designated for disabled persons are available for use by eligible persons

Parking Enforcement

At times, towing of ticketed vehicles is

necessary

Parking Enforcement

Staff also patrol the parking lots and enforce “On Street” parking restrictions between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. …….

Parking Enforcement

17

5

to avoid the possibility of cars serving as accommodations.

Parking Enforcement

and in the winter months, to aid snow removal efforts.

Parking Enforcement

Parking Enforcement Port Franks

Although there are no municipally owned beaches in Port Franks, or in Ipperwash

Parking Enforcement Port Franks

Parking areas are monitored

to minimize the disruption for

residents

Parking Enforcement Port Franks

Not only at the beach parking areas, but in the surrounding residential areas as well.

When the spaces are

gone, people become quite creative…..

Parking Enforcement

Or just don’t care….

18

6

Parking Enforcement Ipperwash Boat Launch Area

The launch area at Centre Ipperwash Road is also monitored. Recent changes have improved access for tow vehicles..

Before……..

Parking Enforcement Ipperwash Boat Launch Area

And after…

Parking Enforcement Special Events

Parking at Special Events is monitored to assist with traffic flow, and to minimize the disruption to residents.

Parking

restrictions are also monitored near the two Tim Horton’s

Especially on

weekends.

Parking Enforcement

Staff take hundreds of calls each year regarding tickets issued. And ensures the required paperwork is completed…

Parking Enforcement Streets By-Law

The streets by-law deals with obstructions on the streets and sidewalks...

19

7

Streets By-law

including human obstructions….

Dog Control

Dogs found running at large are collected and taken to the Sarnia Humane Society

Dangerous Dogs With the amendments to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, municipalities are responsible for regulating the ownership and care/control of Pit Bulls, and similar breeds of dogs.

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

Property Standards and Tidy Yard by-laws set out the community’s standards for property and building maintenance.

Property Standards and Tidy Yards Examples of a

property before compliance ……

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

And after

20

8

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

Before….

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

Before…

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

and after….

and after.

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

Before…

Property Standards and Tidy Yards

and after.

Property Standards

The insides of dwellings are also inspected…..

21

9

Property Standards to ensure the dwelling is fit for occupancy.

Property Standards

In some cases, the issues are significant and take time to address

Zoning Enforcement

Zoning by-laws establish and regulate the use of land by implementing the policies of the Official Plan

Grease Trap Inspections

Grease traps at commercial and institutional premises

are monitored to prevent the entry of grease and oil into the public sewage system to ensure that our systems operate efficiently

Example of a poorly maintained grease trap

Grease Trap Inspections

and a clean trap.

Fireworks

Also enforced is the comprehensive Fireworks By-law, which regulates the sales and setting off of fireworks.....

22

10

Open Air Burning

Open Air Burning is monitored for environmental reasons.....

Open Air Burning

and to avoid the possibility of forest fires.

Open Air Burning

And burn permit applications under the by-law are investigated to ensure only permitted items are burned……..

Noise By-law The noise by-law

prohibits and regulates noises likely to disturb the residents and carries a fine of

$ 300.00 for violations…

Sign By-law

The sign by-laws regulate:

Portable Signs, Roof top signs, on site Real Estate signs, Free standing signs, and Fascia Signs….

Fill and Alteration of Grade Site alteration is regulated to ensure work proceeds in accordance with municipal standards

23

11

“Grow Ops” The Municipal Act

requires Municipal inspections of “Grow Ops”

“Chip Wagons Chip wagons are

inspected and licenses are issued annually

“Taxi License s In Grand Bend,

owners and operators of Taxi cabs are licensed and monitored..

Dumpsters

The use, location and sanitation of garbage dumpsters are monitored

Livestock Evaluator The role of the

Livestock Evaluator is to investigate and report on the extent and the amount of damage caused to livestock as a result of an attack by wild animals

Fence Viewer The role of the

fence viewer is to attend on site, hear evidence and arbitrate on the portion of the fence each party shall construct, reconstruct or repair.

24

12

Fence Viewer

In the urban areas, the height and location of fences are monitored.

Weed Inspector Weeds are

inspected and ordered destroyed before they can damage crops, or become invasive

In summary, the By-law Staff keep busy,

enforcing regulations pertaining to:

Parking, Open Air Burning, Noise By-law, Grow Ops, Zoning Infractions, Site Alterations, Beaches and Beach Patrol, Parking Lots, Tidy Yards, Property Standards, Dog Control, Streets, Fences, Grease Traps, Fence Viewing, Sign regulations, Chip Wagons, Fire works, Dumpsters, Taxi cabs …..

25

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

CL Report No. 98-2013 Council Meeting Date : November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk RE: 2013 By-law Enforcement Annual Report RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the 2013 By-Law Enforcement PowerPoint Presentation and Report CL 98-2013 be received for information.

REPORT Summary The report provides background information on the role of the Lambton Shores’ By-Law Enforcement Officers, and the activities of the officers during 2013. Background The PowerPoint presentation included as Attachment 1 to this report will be presented at the meeting to provide an overview of the responsibilities of the Municipal by-law officers, and the various by-laws they enforce. Municipal by-laws generally deal with non life threatening situations, such as property matters – standards of maintenance, fencing, site alteration, zoning etc, or the health and safety of residents, such as parking restrictions, dog control, open air burning, streets by-laws, sewage discharge, etc. The by-laws affect both residents and visitors to our community, The Officers understand the impacts of enforcement and use common sense and discretion, with compliance being the prime goal, as opposed to prosecution. Compliance is often challenging, particularly if there is a need to change behaviors or actions. It is important to be aware that the officer’s authority is limited, not only by the municipal by-laws, but also by provincial legislation. For example, the officers do not have the same power of entry that Peace Officers have, nor the right to compel a person to provide identification. Often times, there is a process mandated by the Province that must be followed when dealing with issues, such as Property Standards matters, which impacts the time needed to address issues. Education related to the community expectations that are expressed through municipal by-laws is a very important aspect of enforcement, as is the fair and consistent application of the rules to ensure accountability and equity. 26

New for 2013 - Initiation of the Inspection of Multi Unit Rental Properties Earlier this year, a program was initiated whereby multi-unit rental accommodations for transient occupants were inspected for the purposes of assessing fire safety.

The Grand Bend Fire Chief, North Area By-law Officer and Chief Building Inspector attended the properties to assess the buildings for suitability as accommodations for transient occupants. The inspection included the adequacy of smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire extinguishers. Also, information was provided to property owners on Fire Code requirements for exit signs and emergency lighting etc. and applicable regulatory by-laws of the municipality that occupants should be apprised of, including parking, open air burning, fireworks etc.

13 inspections were scheduled for properties with multiple rental units. All 13 were contacted and advised of the proposed inspections. At that time, we were advised by one property owner that he would be discontinuing cottage rentals. All other rental accommodations were inspected, any Building Code or Fire Code violation was noted, and a follow up inspection scheduled. Overall, the inspectors were pleased with the co-operation from the property owners, and the general overall status of buildings.

Future discussions of the program will include the option to inspect all residences used as rental accommodations.

2013 Report from the By-law Officers: Lambton Shores’ North - 2013 By-law Enforcement Report: By-law enforcement for Lambton Shores’ North during the summer of 2013 consisted of 4 full time officers and 3 part time officers. As in the past, officers handled the needs of a tourist area with flexible judgment and common sense. Officers understand that their role is not only enforcement, but to be ambassadors for the Municipality, and assist residents and visitors when possible. For example, officers are always willing to listen to a person who has received a parking ticket and if the rationale or explanation for the offence is valid, the tickets are voided. Each year, the number of tickets voided is quite numerous. The co-operation of the OPP officers, Lambton Shores’ staff and Council allowed officers to apply municipal bylaws in a fair but firm manner. The summer of 2013 was a mixed bag of weather which always creates challenges for businesses and bylaw enforcement. Bylaw officers had a busy summer but certainly not up to the level of the previous two summers which were probably somewhat abnormal due to the dry hot weather. Provincial Offences Notices. 27

Officers issued the following POA tickets: (2012)

Noise------------------------------ 09 (14) Glass on beach---------------- 02 (10) Fail to leash animal----------- 01 (0) Distribute goods on beach-- 01 (0) Discharge fireworks------------ 01 (0) Public nuisance------------------ 13 (10) Safety on Beach (0) (2) Nuisance on Beach (0) (3) Total ---------------------------------- 27 39

Heightened attention in Plan 24 during peak periods achieved the desired result of fewer complaints and better behavior by tenants. I believe the breakdown of the noise charges reflects the positive efforts of the council and enforcement officials to educate landlords that unacceptable conduct result in charges being laid.

The only repeat offender was a private residence in Pinedale Subdivision. For the most, part landlords were cooperative and made attempts to educate their tenants as to the bylaws and rights of neighbours. Extra patrols also helped. The busiest period for tenant misconduct ran from late April until the last week of June when we had a record number of rental units used for prom parties. In addition to cottage rentals, there are “prom buses” that arrive, and convey a number of partiers to the area as well. This activity is spreading throughout the town and will probably increase in future years. That being said, the attitude and behaviour of the prom kids was much better than in previous years. A good portion of the extra hours budgeted was used during this period. We have to remember that education and acceptance of what we expect from landlords and tenants is a process and doesn't occur overnight; however, the process appears to be well underway. Parking Tickets: A total of 1459 parking tickets were issued. (normal average 1900) Officers issued 399 parking tickets on Main St. Based on 100 days; this is an average of 4 tickets per day. Again the process of signage and education is working. Officers use their discretion as to ticketing relative to the weather, saturation point etc. The municipal parking lots are patrolled after the scheduled closing times to ensure “car camping” does not take place. By-law officers work with the towing company to remove cars when necessary. Main Beach: There were no significant bylaw problems on the Main beach this summer. Frequently, a bylaw officer would patrol with an OPP officer and OPP laid numerous charges for alcohol. All weekends had extra bylaw beach patrols and every weekend beachgoers had to remove their bbq's from the beach and parking areas. Again, in the ambassador role, if food has been partially cooked they are allowed to finish. This is an education 28

process and it is usually those first timers that bring bbq's. Better signage would be helpful and perhaps something on the web if it isn't already there. I will do a separate report for signage later in the year. Fire Safety: We also conducted fire/safety inspections at several rental properties throughout the summer. Properties at Queens Ave, Warwick Ave, Shady Lane, Elmwood Ave, Ontario St, Centre St, and Huron Ave were inspected. Generally most properties passed the minimum standards such as smoke detector or CO2 placement, and emergency exit information etc. A couple of properties had some structural issues which were ordered remedied by the CBO or Fire Chief and future follow up inspections scheduled. I also have 3 property standards orders that are being monitored with good progress but still a few outstanding minor issues. These will be observed for compliance. Keith Crawford (Report prepared by Keith Crawford, North Area By-Law Enforcement Officer) Lambton Shores South- 2013 Bylaw Enforcement Report: The summer of 2013 started off slowly with many weekends experiencing wet and windy weather conditions. This prevented boaters from launching in Ipperwash most weekends with the exception of 2 or 3 times. The revised boat launch area at Ipperwash worked very well with only two incidents of boaters parking and leaving their vehicles in the prohibited area. The usual parking problems in Windsor Park subdivision were greatly reduced with the erection of new signage along Sanderson Road and Wedd Road .The new signs clearly indicated that parking was prohibited on weekends and holidays. Constant patrols on the weekends, in Port Franks and Ipperwash, also had a deterrent on parking violations. Again the weather played a role in reducing the number of visitors to the beach especially on the weekends. The following complaints were investigated or infractions issued: 2013 (2012) Property Standards Investigations (major) 1 (9) Property Standards Investigations (minor) 6 (13) Property Standards Investigation follow-up 7 (27) Grass and Weed complaints (Tidy Yard) 7 (10) Fence By-law investigations 2 (4) Giant Hog Weed investigations 1 (4) Parking exemption requests 4 (8) Parking complaints 3 (8) Dog complaints (barking, strays etc.) 43 (42) 29

Dogs taken to Sarnia Humane Society 11 (9) Zoning By-law investigations 5 (7) Zoning By-law investigations follow-up 5 (3) Burning Complaints 3 (16) Garbage dumping complaints 5 (1) Chip wagon inspections 3 (2) Abandon vehicle complaints 1 (0) Livestock Evaluations 1 (1) General Occurrences 11 (21) Grease Trap inspections 6 (5) Dumpster By-law investigation 2 (1) Parking Enforcement: Overnight parking (Winter) 16 Ipperwash Beach Designated Boat Launch area 2 Handicapped Parking 1 Trailer and Tow vehicle area 18 East Parkway 18 Army Camp Road 9 Port Franks Sanderson Road 22 Bond Road 11 Dune Drive 1 Mud Creek Trail 5 TOTAL 103 (Report prepared by G.C. Bell, South Area By-Law Enforcement Officer) Financial Implications None at this time. Any recommendations from the By-law Officers to improve service or better educate the public will be presented during the annual budget review.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol McKenzie

Clerk

30

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 142 – 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Port Franks Ice Management – Summary of September 7, 2013 Public

Meeting RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 142-2013 related to “Port Franks Ice Management – Summary of September 7, 2013 Public Meeting” be received; and THAT Council receive and file the AECOM report “Port Franks Ice Management Cost Sharing Study – Phase 2”; and THAT Council direct that no further work be undertaken with respect to an active ice management program for the Port Franks Area; and THAT Council reaffirm that the Municipality’s approach and response to ice jam related flooding is through the Lambton Shores Emergency Plan.

REPORT Summary This report presents a summary of the public feedback from the September 7, 2013 public meeting regarding the Port Franks and Area Ice Management cost sharing study, and presents recommendations for Council to consider for moving forward. Background The Port Franks area has been subject to significant erosion and ice-related flooding in the past decade. Ice jams typically occur in the month of February, but can range from January – April in a given year. A number of reports have been completed to study the issue in the Port Franks area by AECOM and their predecessor Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Ltd. The studies have reviewed the possible causes of ice jams, and have argued that several geometric and geological factors contribute to the cause of ice jams. The location of the mouth of the river at Lake Huron makes it particularly difficult to control and/or minimize the hazard. At the May 22, 2012 meeting Council reviewed the updated ice management report prepared by AECOM, and a recommended preliminary cost sharing strategy for any future ice management initiatives that may take place. In that report AECOM

31

recommended that Phase 2 of the study be undertaken so that the recommended cost sharing strategy could be further developed. Council concurred that the cost sharing model be pursued as well as petitioning support from upper levels of government, and passed the following motions:

12-0522-11 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel Seconded by: Councillor Maguire

That the cost sharing model be pursued further by completing Phase 2 of the Cost Sharing Study for ice management in Port Franks. Carried

12-0522-12 Moved by: Councillor Illman Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel

That Council petition support from upper levels of government to deal with ice management in Port Franks. Carried

As noted in DCS 94-2013, the second motion has been acted upon. In the fall of 2012 municipal representatives were successful in meeting with representatives of upper levels of government to present the ice management issue and the costing challenges. The potential of funding for the project was discussed at that time, and the Municipality was informed that the only applicable funding program was the Water Erosion Control Initiatives (WECI) funding. Representatives from AECOM and the ABCA attended Council on July 4, 2013 to present Phase 2 of the cost sharing study. The presentation included information on the preferred ice management alternatives (localized dredging and flood proofing berms) and the proposed cost sharing formulas and cost allocation options. As a result Council passed the following resolution:

13-0704-01 Moved by: Councillor Scott Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel

That a public information centre be scheduled for September, 2013 to present the findings of the AECOM Report on the Ice Management Cost Sharing Study and proposed solutions to the resolve the issues. Carried

The public information session was held on September 7, 2013 at the Legacy Recreation Centre and was attended by approximately 450 citizens. The meeting included presentations by AECOM and the ABCA, and attendees were encouraged to collect and submit comment forms for the project. Staff received in excess of 230 comments on the project, and these are summarized in a report appended to this DCS report. The comment form distributed for the project was designed with three key survey questions regarding support for and willingness to pay for the project, and an open section for general comments. 32

These are the results of the survey questions: 1. Do you own property that has been affected by ice jam flooding in the Port

Franks area? Response

YES NO TOTAL RESPONSES

53

181

234 (23%) (77%) (100%)

1.1 If yes, how many times have you been affected by ice jam flooding? Most Frequent Response Average TOTAL RESPONSES

0 times

1 time

87

1.2 How many years have you been there?

Median Response Average TOTAL RESPONSES

22 years

26.6 years

146

2. Do you believe that work should be undertaken to reduce the risk of ice jam

flooding in the Port Franks area?

YES NO MAYBE TOTAL RESPONSES

82 141 2 225 (36%) (63%) (1%) (100%)

3. Are you willing to share in the cost of reducing the risk of flooding based on

the cost sharing formula presented?

YES NO TOTAL RESPONSES

19

206

225 (8%) (92%) (100%)

3.1 If no, are you willing to pay anything towards the cost of ice management?

YES NO MAYBE TOTAL

RESPONSES 24 176 4 204

(12%) (86%) (2%) (100%)

33

In the open section for comments the public has provided a variety of messages for Council to consider in determining any further action. These are fully summarized in the attached comments summary report (Attachment 1), and only the most common themes and messages are shown below. Comments related to project costs, and proposed funding model

All or a portion of the project should be funded by taxes.

I do not want to pay anything towards this project

The project only benefits the boating community so they should pay the costs.

The project only benefits people along the river so they should pay the costs.

Property owners affected by flooding knew this was a long standing problem when they purchased and should be responsible for their own property protection.

I am not willing to pay for work that does not benefit my property. Comments Related to Preferred Solutions and Proposed Work Plan

Some form of dredging is the preferred option

Berming is not a preferred option. Based on the survey results, and the comments received, the following conclusions can be drawn from the respondent’s responses:

1. There is not a majority of respondents in favor of undertaking work for ice management.

2. There is very little support from respondents for the current cost sharing model. 3. There is very little support from respondents for paying anything towards the cost

of ice management. 4. Based on responses received, there is a mix of two preferred methods for paying

for the project costs: a. Some or all of the project costs should be shared by the entire Lambton

Shores tax base. b. Only those directly benefitting individuals should pay for project costs (i.e.

riverfront properties, the boating community, marinas & businesses)

In addition, a petition from the majority of property owners affected by the berm option in the Plan 41 area was submitted opposing this option. This petition is provided as Attachment 2. This lack of support for the project is a key consideration for Council moving forward. If Council decides to apportion costs to private landowners the likely provision in the Municipal Act is for the costs to be apportioned as a local improvement. For a local improvement levy to be successful a majority of the affected property owners must support the program, and the survey results seem to indicate that there may not be support for this approach. As a result, any decision to proceed with the project with an implied assumption that there will be cost sharing with the public would be a decision that is made with the risk that the project may not proceed once the affected landowners have their opportunity to vote in favor of, or in opposition to, the project. 34

Alternatives to Consider To move this project forward, Council can consider the following options:

1. Receive and Approve the AECOM Report and Continue with the Current Funding Model: Council could receive the feedback from the public, and decide to move forward with the current funding model in its proposed form. In this model project costs are split: 10% to the Conservation Authority 45% to benefitting landowners located in the flood plain 45 % to Lambton Shores tax levy. As noted above, there appears to be little support for work to be undertaken for ice management, and even less support for the current funding model. Staff does not recommend this option.

2. Proceed with Ice Management, and Fully Fund from the Tax Levy Council could receive the feedback from the public, and decide to move forward the project and fund the total project costs through the tax levy either through borrowing or budgeting for this work in a single year. Based on the feedback from the survey respondents, 63% of respondents do not believe work is needed related to ice management, and this does not include feedback from those remaining residents in areas like Forest, Arkona, Thedford, and Grand Bend. There is likely to be little public support for this approach, and staff recommends against this option.

3. Proceed with Ice Management, and Direct a New Cost Sharing Study be

Developed to Redefine “Benefit” Council could receive the feedback from the public, direct that active ice management proceed but under a different cost sharing model. This approach would respect the feedback that the definition of “benefitting property” be narrowed from the current approach of including all properties in the flood plain to something different. Again, it is difficult to recommend this option because, based on the respondent feedback, there does not appear to be a majority supporting work for ice management. As noted above, any costs that are levied to private property would be completed as a local improvement. For a local improvement levy to be successful a majority of the affected property owners must support the program, and the survey results seem to indicate that there may not be support for this approach. Staff does not recommend this option.

4. Status Quo – Receive and File the Current AECOM report, Do Not Proceed with Active Ice Management Work As noted above, there does not appear to be a majority support for completing work related to ice management. In 2008, Council of the day came to much the same conclusion after several years of study work related to ice management

35

with little support for the resulting cost sharing formula. As a result, the following resolution was passed: 08-1201-11 Moved by: Councillor Simpson

Seconded by: Councillor Illman

That the Municipality of Lambton Shores advise the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority of the decision not to proceed with the Port Franks Ice Management project Carried In the case of ice management, the status quo is not the same as “do nothing” as Lambton Shores does currently have plans in place to respond to flood events through its emergency preparedness program. ABCA and SCRCA flood threats are communicated to the public by way of the municipal website. In the event of a flood, the Municipality offers evacuation centres, in this case the Port Franks Community Centre. Depending upon the severity of the flood, and the level of impact, the Municipality can choose to declare an emergency and activate its Emergency Operations Centre. Based on the feedback gathered from the September 7, 2013 public meeting it would appear that this option is the best at this time. As a result, staff is recommending that Council proceed with Option #4.

Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council receive and file the AECOM report “Port Franks Ice Management Cost Sharing Study – Phase 2”. Staff recommends that Council direct that no further work be undertaken with respect to an active ice management program for the Port Franks Area. Staff recommends that Council reaffirm that the Municipality’s approach to ice jam related flooding is through the Lambton Shores Emergency Plan. Financial Impact The recommended solution represents no cost increase to the current operating and capital budget. Emergency management is part of the current operating budget. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Attachments:

1. Summary Report of the Comments Received from the September 7, 2013 Public Meeting.

2. Petition received from the property owners of Port Franks Plan 41.

36

Port Franks and Area Ice Management Study

Summary Report of the Comments Received from the September 7, 2013 Public Meeting

Compiled by:

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng Director of Community Services Municipality of Lambton Shores

October 24, 2013

37

Note to the Reader: Social science research is, at times, very difficult to summarize. The task is subjective, requires judgement and interpretation of data collector. This report is no different, and several assumptions were made to best represent the data. The report is split into two sections. The first section presents the summary of the survey questions that were posed through the comment form handed out at the September 7, 2013 public meeting. The second section of the report presents a summary of the written comments received through the comment forms and via email after the public meeting. These comments have been sorted by their common theme and by their common message. To code these comments we were required, at times, to read them in conjunction with their survey responses to determine support, favor, or opposition to the components of the project. In some cases a comment has been allocated to multiple “themes” or “messages” as this was the preferred approach for representing multiple comments within a body of text. Please note, a petition from the majority of property owners affected by the berm option in the Plan 41 area was submitted opposing this option. This petition is appended separately. The third section of this report presents the unsorted master listing of the comments as dictated by Community Services administration staff. This master listing contains some follow-up questions that have been asked regarding the project that were not included in the second section of this report as these questions did not present a position or opinion. Lastly, all personal and property information has been redacted from the comments as the comment form did not imply to the respondent that their comments would form part of a public record.

38

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY OF SURVEY QUESTIONS The comment sheet prepared for the September 7, 2013 public meeting included three survey questions . This section presents the summary of the results of that survey. 1. Do you own property that has been affected by ice jam flooding in the Port

Franks area? Response

YES NO TOTAL RESPONSES

53

181

234 (23%) (77%) (100%)

1.1 If yes, how many times have you been affected by ice jam flooding? Most Frequent Response Average TOTAL RESPONSES

0 times

1 time

87

1.2 How many years have you been there?

Median Response Average TOTAL RESPONSES

22 years

26.6 years

146

2. Do you believe that work should be undertaken to reduce the risk of ice jam flooding in the Port Franks area?

YES NO MAYBE TOTAL

RESPONSES 82 141 2 225

(36%) (63%) (1%) (100%)

39

3. Are you willing to share in the cost of reducing the risk of flooding based on the cost sharing formula presented?

YES NO TOTAL RESPONSES

19

206

225

(8%) (92%) (100%)

3.1 If no, are you willing to pay anything towards the cost of ice management?

YES NO MAYBE TOTAL

RESPONSES 24 176 4 204

(12%) (86%) (2%) (100%)

40

SECTION 2 – SUMMARY OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON COMMENT FORMS AND VIA EMAIL This section of the report presents a summary of the written comments received through the comment forms and via email after the public meeting. These comments have been sorted by their common theme and by their common message. To code these comments we were required, at times, to read them in conjunction with their survey responses to determine support, favor, or opposition to the components of the project. In some cases a comment has been allocated to multiple “themes” or “messages” as this was the preferred approach for representing multiple comments within a body of text. Please note, a petition from the majority of property owners affected by the berm option in the Plan 41 area was submitted opposing this option. This petition is appended separately. The common category, theme, and message of the comments can be loosely summarized as follows: 1. Category: Comments related to project costs, and proposed funding

model 1.1 Theme: Comments related to cost apportionment to the Lambton Shores

tax base (28 comments). Most common message(s):

All or a portion of the project should be funded by taxes.

1.2 Theme: Comments related to not wanting to pay anything (on taxes, or other) (17 comments).

Most common message(s):

I do not want to pay anything towards this project

1.3 Theme: Comments related to cost apportionment to “direct benefit”, including: riverfront properties, the boating community, marinas & businesses (46 Comments)

Most common message(s):

The project only benefits the boating community so they should pay the costs.

The project only benefits people along the river so they should pay the costs.

41

Property owners affected by flooding knew this was a long standing problem when they purchased and should be responsible for their own property protection.

I am not willing to pay for work that does not benefit my property.

1.4 Theme: Comments related to assessing costs to the entire watershed, or through the Drainage Act (17 Comments)

Most common message(s):

The work should be undertaken under the Drainage Act.

1.5 Theme: Comments related to Changing the Funding Model (7 comments)

Most common message(s):

The funding model should take into account the elevation of buildings on a lot to determine risk.

1.6 Theme: Comments related to lack of financial assistance for past personal

property work (10 comments)

Most common message(s):

Our past property protection work did not receive funding from the tax bases, or other municipal dollars, so why should this project?

1.7 Theme: Comments related to the need of Federal, Provincial, and External

Funding (10 Comments)

Most common message(s):

The Federal and Provincial Governments should be contributing to this project.

1.8 Theme: Comments related to affordability (8 comments)

Most common message(s):

If this project moves forward I will not be able to afford the cost levied to my property.

1.9 Theme: Other Comments related to affordability (7 comments)

2. Category: Comments Related to Preferred Solutions and Proposed Work Plan

42

2.1 Theme: Comments supporting some form of the dredging option (33 comments) Most common message(s):

Some form of dredging is the preferred option

2.2 Theme: Comments opposing dredging (1 comment)

2.3 Theme: Comments opposing the berm option (26 comments) Most common message(s):

Berming is not a preferred option.

2.4 Theme: Comments Suggesting Alternative Options (10 comments)

Most common message(s):

Various alternative options were proposed.

2.5 Theme: Other Comments (25 comments)

3. Category: Comments Related to Individual Properties

3.1 Theme: Comments related to properties not affected by the work (32 comments)

Most common message(s):

My property is not affected by the work.

3.2 Theme: Comments related to property being affected by flooding (5 comments)

Most common message(s):

We have been flooded and have not suffered damage.

We have been flooded and have suffered damage.

3.3 Theme: Other Comments (4 comments) 4. Category: General Comments (21 comments)

43

CATEGORY 1: Comments Related to Project Costs, and Proposed Funding Model Comments related to cost apportionment to the Lambton Shores tax base. 1. we already pay taxes and this should be covered under the property taxes 2. The mouth of the river needs to be dredged! Because of global warming it may

never happen again. Regular maintenance of the river has never been done! Why not remove the debris that causes the sand/gravel deposits? All the farms drain into the river – everyone should bear the cost of dredging!! Berm is a bad idea!!

3. Even though my property is not in affected area, will my takes increase due to municipality involvement! If yes, will it be a 1 year payment or continued & variable $/yr due to work done. If river mouth and channel into lake is dredges on a regular basis can it be done properly – not dumped to the north and the litoral sand drift is to the south so it fills up again the next day or week. It is a make work project for person doing it if done wrong. Blower boat is better than the previous method for channel. Excellent presentation!

4. Every person(s) living on river should PAY. Decide how to increase Municipal Fee’s users. Take some monies from TAX (Lambton Shores complete) Government – Municipal/Public Adventures.

5. If no dredging has been done in the last 15 years – that should have been done – why put this on tax payers – fix the problem. Why do we bother because you’re going to do whatever you want anyway. Poor meeting – not many questions answered.

6. The flooding is caused by drainage from property upstream. Also, properties in our area that are above flood levels are not assessed the same as people in the low living areas. All taxpayers have been contributing taxes toward the school assessment and if we have no children it is at no benefit to us. I have no children of school age and never have since moving here. I am will to pay a portion with the major cost being covered by property taxes. Berms (Levies) are the better solution

7. I would like to know who initiated this study (ABCA)? I don’t think anyone that attended the meeting wants anything done and definitely do not want our taxes to increase. It will be interesting to see if any of our input will make any difference.

8. I believe that spot dredging as needed in problem areas each year if needed is the best solution to the problem. I think the costs should be paid out of the general fund that we all contributed with our taxes. When the bendway weirs were installed, there wasn’t any cost sharing applied to other property owners other than those of us directly affected. I also think that now the river mouth is being property maintained (thank you) the problems up river will be reduced.

9. Our property is partly flood zone, but not including the area on which the house stands. We do not feel that we will ever in Windsor Park be at risk of ice jam flooding. We suggest that any cost be shared by the whole tax base.

10. As for as the cost sharing it should be absorbed by everyone living in Lambton Shores. I think putting burms in would be one of the worst thing it would only divert the water elsewhere not where you want it to go. Dredging should be done to open

44

up the old natural river behind Biddulph, Riverside and Edward. When dredging stopped there the water and ice had nowhere to go but out the man made cut. We all pay good taxes especially people on the water. Stop wasting money on studies and lets maintain our waterway!

11. I feel we pay a lot of taxes and get nothing for it. Some of it should go to flood control.

12. I pay waterfront taxes now – put money to keep debris out of the river. 13. A program needs to address all areas, the river mouth in this proposal is not even

considered. I agree with some cost sharing but I do not agree with the costs between the public and the town (Lambton Shores). The town (Lambton Shores) and ABCA have been involved with the flood plain. They have allowed for people to build in areas that are on the flood plain (with exceptions). Why should other landowners pay for other peoples and the towns problems.

14. Ice jam flooding represents a problem with infrastructure. Infrastructure design and maintenance is the responsibility of government. If needed, the municipal, provincial and perhaps federal governments should combine their expertise to address this problem. How dare you imply that your infrastructure problem is our responsibility.

15. I am willing to pay for damage to my house if and when there is flood damage to it. With high taxes we are paying and not getting any benefits for them, any ice management should come out of the taxes. Localized dredging would be my preference and not the berms. It should be looked into the permits for building, when our house was built, the builder wanted to raise the foundation one cement block, but was not permitted to do this. Why?

16. Port Franks is also part of Lambton Shores and should also be included as such when improvements and maintenance are needed.

17. As for funding, I feel it is difficult to draw an arbitrary line on a map and make one resident pay more than the person adjacent to him. It is a not a factual line. This pits residents against each other which is harmful to a community. At the information meeting you could see the different groups pointing fingers at each other. One comment was that farmers further up the river should pay because they contribute to excess drainage. It is my opinion that dredging should be carried out on an as needed basis funded by all the citizens of Lambton Shores from the general tax base. This work would not only help in ice management but also keep the river open for navigational purposes. The latter is for the benefit of all boaters and tourists. I look forward to hearing the results of the Comment Study.

18. I do agree with the proposals and that something needs to be done. It is in the collective benefit of all residents of Lambton Shores that we continue to upgrade our infrastructure for all purposes whether it be transportation, commercial, recreational, educational etc. What perplexes me is the cost sharing model in which for this project, i.e. just those who “directly benefit” from the project share the cost rather than the entire tax base.

19. For example, some of my taxes go to the board of education to fund schools, but my children have all finished. I get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to rebuild roadways or bridges that I will never use. I get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to pay for community centers in communities in which I do not belong. I

45

get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to maintain and improve recreational facilities and lands that I don’t use, Again no “direct benefit”.

20. So I do not understand why in this case the rules are essentially changed. If this is the model then I would like to begin to apply this to everything and choose what my taxes get spent on so that it benefits me directly. Of course this is not reasonable nor is it viable to manage such a system. Therefore I would strongly recommend that these costs be shared by the entire tax base as all other major infrastructure projects (to my knowledge) are. If this model is adopted I think the precedent it will set is very dangerous and it will become increasingly difficult for council to manage.

21. Firstly, how and why only a certain number of properties were chosen and not effected by ice damage has me in a quandary when we all pay our taxes to Lambton Shores where everyone should be involved if this process goes through or even necessary to begin with which includes businesses such as marina’s and farmers as mentioned in the meeting.

22. We consider ourselves as long time residents and therefore feel very strong that any costs should be distributed amongst all who live and enjoy our Lambton Shores community. We had a brief discussion on the above with Elizabeth at the meeting. If there needs to be any action to reduce or avoid flooding from ice jams it should be paid on tax basis for all residents of the community of Lambton Shores. The river and lake are for the enjoyment of all people.

23. Ultimately, should the council decide to proceed, my father and I have a serious concern about how this major project is to be funded. What perplexes us is the cost sharing model in which for this project, i.e. just those who “directly benefit” from the project share the cost rather than the entire tax base.

24. In the past, our taxes go to the board of education to fund schools, rebuild roadways or bridges, pay for community centers in communities etc. Many of these disbursements from the current tax base would provide us “No Direct Benefit”, as we use our Port Franks property as a summer cottage. We agree that infrastructures and other items need to be maintained and that is the purpose of property taxes.

25. However, we feel that any project of this magnitude should be considered like other major expenditures, and be levied across the entire tax base for Lambton Shores, not the few that may have direct impact by flooding. We may not necessarily agree with the project, but sharing it across everyone in the entire tax base makes sense.

26. So we do not understand why in this case the rules are essentially changed. If your proposed model is adopted I think the precedent it will set is very dangerous and it will become increasingly difficult for council to manage.

27. Should you decide to proceed, any project of this size should be considered across the entire tax base, not just “those directly affected”. It is very hard for me to justify a huge tax burden when our taxes are already quite high. We use our property for the summer only.

28. It is how we get work done for public good and happens now as part of taxes paid to Lambton Shores. I am concerned that Lambton Shores has thwarted discussion of options for cost sharing by having only 2 options to consider. 500 people out to a public meeting is excellent – even when concerns are raised. Keep the momentum send an update and what next steps are.

46

Comments related to not wanting to pay anything (on taxes, or other) 1. Existing taxes are extreme now. We don’t need any new projects which will

increase our taxes. We are not affected for this work. 2. I’m not in the flood pain and am not interested in paying any additional taxes! Look

at the seasonal boaters for extra $. They benefit from anything you do. 3. Sell the marina in Grand Bend & Conservation marina in Port Franks. Use these

funds to take care of the ice jams and keep the river flowing. No cost to taxpayers. 4. This area is in a “flood plain” and at one time building permits were not issued in our

area. Our property should not be included in the catchment area, we receive no benefit, if the project proceeds. We are not in favor of paying any costs towards this project. Water levels are down – leave as is.

5. Fine to cost share but not willing to pay for something that is no benefit to me. 6. The government has money for everything. The cottagers already pay more than

their share in taxes. Why don’t Ausable Bayfied adopt more reasonable approaches to rivers that are used by St. Clair Conservation.

7. I am not willing to share the cost of this study. No one shares the cost of my flooding problems (not caused by ice floods). My property floods every time it rains due to the water (rain) coming from the road and neighbours. I was told by the Ausable Bayfield Con. that I can only add 1 truck load of soil on my property or I would have to purchase a permit. No one ever purchased a permit to fill up their property. I did purchase a permit but why? I also get water from the lake (swamp) no one will help me with the problem and it has cost me a lot of money. I have spoken to the township and ABCA.

8. I am not concerned with flooding on my street. Therefore I am not interested in this program or funding it.

9. Not in flood plain, should not be asked to share cost. No benefit to my property! 10. If given access to this river (public asset) I would support a tax assessment. If no

access, I oppose any tax increase for private land protection, berm or dredging my current tax is already extremely high for very little service or minimal infrastructure, we are paying $2,700.00 a year now.

11. Every person(s) living on river should PAY. Decide how to increase Municipal Fee’s users. Take some monies from TAX (Lambton Shores complete) Government – Municipal/Public Adventures.

12. Want nothing to do with this! 13. If my taxes go up, I demand assistance to maintain my erosion problems that have

been directly caused by the weirs that were done several years ago. 14. When I bought my property I did my own research as for as flooding. There has

been no flooding in my area in at least 60 years. That’s why I bought there and not on a flood plain. ** I will never pay any money for Ice Management **.

15. My house is on top of a sand hill many feet up from the river road. You can’t put your boat in as they tell you it is private. Also don’t walk in their park. So why should I a 82 year senior pay.

16. The cost sharing proposals are unfair. Lambton Shores taxpayers are already paying – those affected areas would pay twice.

47

17. In all the years that we have been at Port Franks, we have paid taxes and received little benefit from them. Many thousands of dollars have been paid by Armstrong East to arrange for dredging, that we have needed. Now you are asking us to pay for a protection for some other community – both capital and yearly maintenance. We love the land and are good stewards of our community, but the limited objective and financial burden seem poor conceived and unfair financially. We are most disappointed.

Comments related to cost apportionment to “direct benefit”, including: riverfront properties, the boating community, marinas & businesses. 1. boaters directly benefit from dredging and they should pay with higher fees 2. Judging by the Patrick St. speakers at the meeting, they have already taken

measures about the flooding. The only reason to dredge would then be for boaters. They can pay through increased fees.

3. Should be shared among those who use the river and are directly affected only. This includes those who have boats (seasonal).

4. Should consider higher levy for businesses along river (ie. Marina’s) 5. If anyone buildes on flood plain, why expect anyone else to pay to protect your

property? 6. Boaters should pay “sum” of the ice problem. 7. The costs should be shared by the homeowners directly affected (waterfront). 8. Since we are in an area that is affected by ice jams considerable LESS than other

areas (ie. Once out of a total of 15 events in 80 years); I would be willing to assume a share in the cost that is considerable LESS than that assumed by those in higher risk areas. To be clear, our share of the costs should be minimal compared to other areas (such as Lazy Acres/Defore, Plan 41 and even Port Franks). Suggest we assume no more than 10% of the cost to DB landowners, while higher percentages are allocated to those that are more directly affected.

9. Local improvement costs to those only that are directly affected. 10. I do not agree to this plan. It is a money grab. If the boaters want this they should

pay for it. I live on the lake and we have never had a problem. You messed up Mud Creek – so you don’t know what you are talking about. If this goes ahead I will not pay for it! I am from Calgary and berms caused more problems – do not put in berms.

11. No berm – limited dredging amortized over a reasonable number of years. Provincial – windmills, drainage farmers/Federal – gazebo, navigatable water boaters.

12. It should only concern property owners in immediate access to river banks. Please do not spread the cost to all!

13. If we have to pay we need total access. Put walking trail all along riverfront for people to enjoy their tax dollars. We are not all boaters or do we have riverfront property. They were all aware of the risk of flooding why should we pay.

14. Let the course of nature continue and those that infrequently have some water issues manage them themselves as they see fit. This is not a overall Municipality issue.

48

15. Vertical elevation of property should be a factor in determining if property is at risk. In as vertical elevation ever considered? Should it be? The cost should be shared only by those at risk, and those who benefit.

16. The properties that would benefit directly should bear the cost. 17. Elevation of residence should be considered. Consider funding from area

businesses (marinas, trailer park). 18. Pack ice at the mouth of the river affects flooding upstream. Does not the Federal

Government have some financial responsibility? Our property has never flooded. We will receive no benefit. Affected people should pay, not everyone who lives in the area. At who’s request – for who’s benefit – and who’s interest (gain) is this even an issue?

19. People have purchased property in the flood area knowing the risk. Individual liability remains their responsibility. Rarely do man made solutions – natural resolution – many examples exist where berms/dredging failed due to multiple natural factors which vary & change annually and cannot be controlled. Eg. The cut made in the 40’s.

20. People who do not benefit from dredging/ice jamming methods should not have additional costs incurred. Unfortunately, from what I have heard direct answers were not given to a lot of questions. When you tell people write it on your comment sheet; only that individual will get an answer. I think you need to send a completed report on all questions, that you answer to all Port Franks residents. Very, very vague on solutions – it seems with all the studies done, better alternatives need to be addressed.

21. My property is on high ground and not affected! I believe that those directly affected should contribute including businesses. Of greater concern may be the very low water levels.

22. The homeowners who directly receive benefit ie those who get flooded should pay the costs for any ice management projects. It is not fair for others to pay so those affected are unjustly enriched by this.

23. Most of the people who own property in the flooded area knew what they were buying. As you stated this has been going on since 1935. They took the risk. They should live with it or pay for it themselves.

24. I find it hard to believe there has been no dredging in the river cut since 1949. I watched a large tree stuck in the river just upstream from the bridge at 21 highway remain in place for nearly two years while it formed an island with sediment. Who is responsible for this kind of ongoing maintenance in the river ABCA? Dredging would directly benefit boaters so there should be ways of proportioning cost to them. Possibly on the ABCA fees at the marina.

25. Ice jamming doesn’t occur every year. The mouth of the Ausable is where the jamming usually occurs. Global floods change the whole landscape immediately. Ice Management in my opinion is not a solution. The homeowner should take their own responsibility at their cost.

26. All the residences on Seth Lane were threatened by high lake levels in the 1970’s. All but one owner took action to protect their cottage. That cottage ended up in the lake. All walls and protective measures had to be financed by the owner 100%. I

49

feel that owners of property threatened by the river should pay for their own protection as we did then.

27. How are you going to determine how much each household would pay? There is a lot of people in the area, are on fixed income. Everybody who bought homes in Flood Plain are aware of the risk!

28. I would prefer to keep the river view as it is natural. Would river maintenance funds not come from docking fees and boat launch fees? We don’t own a boat or use the river and there are no structures on our property that are at risk of river flooding.

29. Those affected directly if they are interested should pay based on elevation and history.

30. Ice jams have been a problem in parts of the cut for years so if you had removed trees and debris on a regular basis this certainly would have helped with the jams. We were told that this has never been done. We all have banks on Canal St. so no need for berms. We also all paid for a pump for the flooding. If you do dredging every boater who rents a slip from a marina or township (conservation) needs to pay toward the cost. They are the ones who will benefit from dredging. We are not in favour – too much money in these hard times and it is not needed. First the reversing pump, then the sewer, now this. What will you think of next???!!

31. Problem area mainly Patrick St. area let them pay to flood proof themselves as I did 28 years ago such as build up property. Conservation should never have sold the property so cheap to get rid of liability and now ask others to protect others who knew each year could be flooded. Nature will do what it wants to do (water level). A good freeze up & ice scouring will do more than throwing money at it. Some maintenance could be done out of general revenue such as dead head removal.

32. Marinas and properties on the river are the affected stakeholders who would benefit and therefore pay any and all costs.

33. Affected stakeholders are the marinas and properties on the river – they should pay. 34. Homeowners having a problem purchased at the water knowing that the water was

there with a risk factor involved. We do not feel that we should feel responsible for preventing the problem. The water was there first. Our property is surrounded by large old trees. No one helps with our cleanup after high winds and ice storms. Environment takes strange turns at times and when you purchase property any environmental risks must be taken into account as your own responsibility. We are not in flood plain. No benefit to us.

35. What about the boaters that use the marinas in Port Franks? They will benefit from this too with absolutely no cost burden to them.

36. In speaking to Tom Prout at the meeting and then after the meeting on a one-to-one basis, I became aware that he had made up his mind and I am hopeful the others on Lambton Shores council payroll have not done likewise. I am concerned about the suggestion of allocating all or most of the cost of dredging and berm expense through taxes on Plan 41 residents. My family and I have lived on Lot 5, Plan 41 7736 Patrick St. during summer and at times during the winter and spring river break-up for some 61 years. I was one of the earliest twenty (20) year lessees and then owner of said property when sold to us in 1989 and additional piece of land to river sold to us in 1994. We have experienced the flooding during this time in our area when the ice jams and the river overflows. This has happened 4 or 5 times

50

during our residency. We have not had severe damage or any flooding in our cottage. We were made aware of the possibility of flooding when we purchased the property and with that in mind took action to raise our cottage sufficiently to avoid damages. The true causes of ice jamming and river flooding are:

a. 1. The failure of water being able to flow freely into Lake Huron at the mouth and required dredging to keep this channel open.

b. 2. Many of the marinas close to the lake have failed to remove all parts of docks and obstacles at the end of the boating season therefore causing ice jams.

37. There are three to four hundred boat slips in the Conservation area, private marinas and property owners rented out yearly and these boat owners are using our waterways and not paying any money for keeping our river navigable. Clearly these boaters are causing a lot of erosion due to speed and no consideration of a “No Wake” ruling yet to be applied to this area of the river. Low water for the last 15-20 years due to weather and everyone using water from the great lakes has caused a lot of the sudden ice jamming and flooding in the river. We do not want a berm built on our property. It is not the answer to spend all that money into such a project. You will ruin the property and chances are it will not work. If dredging is implemented I feel all of Lambton Shores tax payers and seasonal boaters should be responsible for keeping the river channel open. We already pay more taxes than other areas. Please divide any new expenses equally among all. Also keep us informed of all meetings regarding this subject and do not hold when a large percentage of land owners are away during the winter months. Have photos if required to support above information.

38. Part of erosion problem is the wake from all types of watercraft. Possibly a fee through docking and launching could be collected to help in the cost sharing of river maintenance.

39. My family has owned a cottage on Patrick St. for 30 years – we knew about the possibility of flooding on the street when we bought it. It actually flooded the first year we owned it. We have never had any significant damage to our property. I do not believe the people who ran the meeting actually know what causes the flooding and why and how Patrick St. floods – the water does not come over the riverbank – it comes up the street. I believe it is the responsibility of each property owner on Patrick St. to do their own preventative measures to protect their own property.

40. Cost sharing schemes need to include all users – marinas, recreational boaters. 41. I maintain my property to the best of my ability. People that bought along the river

have the responsibility to maintain their property! Some of these people rent docking space to boaters. Let them use this money to repair and prevent any flooding. We that do not live along the water and cannot even walk down the river or sit and enjoy rivers. If taxes or any cost of living here rises i will not be able to afford to live in my home. I have only my government cheque to live on (monthly).

42. Flooding in no way will affect our property and consequently we do not feel that we should be asked to share in the cost. We did not choose to live along the water’s edge. From comments at this meeting I’m not sure if your solutions would even be a good “longterm” solution. I agree that boaters should be considered as well. It seems they would benefit the most.

51

43. When we bought our property we were not on flood plain. Why am I now? Maybe meters at all the Marina’s would help out for the cost of maintaining the river – the seasonal boaters should be paying – user pay. If I am now considered a flood plain, does this affect my Insurance?

44. Port Franks has a marina that generates revenue. We also generate revenue via beach parking tickets. Why can funds not be directed to offset the costs. Why not access marina’s more as they are direct benefiters.

45. My property backs onto Mud Creek (flood plain on creek) is that the same as river flood plain? I bought the property knowing it’s location and am well aware I may endure problems. I deal with sane and know that it required a lot of maintenance…my choice. People who bought on the river know the risks and should deal with them it should in no way be a burden on all the residents of PF!! Why were homes allowed to be on the flood plain rivers edge. What are we paying taxes…please remind me! Have other communities have had this issue and what have they done? Surely there are other possibilities!! Who makes the decision? And do we actually know they will work? Or will there be more studies (once this fail) and more money required? Where does it end?

46. If this Ice Management Cost Sharing effect comes in to being, will you also assess boaters indirectly through the Marinas since they are also benefiting from the dredging?

Comments related to assessing costs to the entire watershed, or through the Drainage Act. 1. If it goes ahead, payment should be allocated farther upstream to where the water

comes from (The Parkhill Dam) 2. I believe the cost sharing should include all of the watershed at the Ausable river.

The silt and flood waters come from all of the watershed. 3. Clear to me dredging is way. All the watershed properties or really should be Gov.

It is responsible to keep ice jams from flooding. 4. All water shed home owners in Lambton County should pay not just the 780

taxpayers listed. 5. I feel cost should be shared by all of the watershed area for maintaining proper ice

and water flow in the river. 6. We already pay extra taxes to have the river mouth open. The users of the

drainage ditch way up the river should share in the cost of maintenance in debris removal and the ongoing problem of keeping the mouth open.

7. The issue does not belong to the affected Port Franks residents who have received water damage as it is not just their water in the river. It is a total water shed issue and needs to be dealt with from taxes in the whole area. I support dredging only.

8. Ausable River does not just run through Lambton County, so why are we the only ones sharing this cost? The debris such as logs comes from all the way along the river, we just happen to be at the end of it. Yes it does create a problem at times when the ice and logs jam, but why should the financial burden to fix this problem be placed on Lambton Shores only?

9. We would be willing to share the cost of this maintenance of the river based on sharing with the community as well as those upstream including the farms that are

52

draining into the river. If all were to be included it would make it most affordable for the entire community to try to ensure no further ice jams as well as making boating and water play continue in the future. This could prevent hardships for those property owners that are financially strapped

10. The area to be dredged is covered under the Drainage Act as stated at the meeting. Therefore I believe that all landowners in the Ausable Water Shed should pay for clean out and maintenance of the river and river mouth at Port Franks as this dredging will benefit all.

11. What would results be if considered as municipal drain? Support the idea of boaters sharing cost if dredging occurs! Can’t imagine Plan 41 people going along with berm in front of homes.

12. Is the Drainage Act being taken into consideration? All contributing properties benefit.

13. Once last point that we would like to bring up, and as owners of a farm with a big municipal drain running thru, is WHY has this project not been looked at as a municipal drain which would in turn fall under the Municipal drain act and be maintained accordingly. We understand that it has been deemed a drain to at least the cut. Can’t imagine it would just end there. If this is correct as our neighbours indicated as per their dredging permit for their cut inland, why isn't it being maintained that way? By following the act all involved would share the cost keeping them minimal.

14. We believe work should be undertaken to maintain the river ie dredging and removal of trees so that it would decrease the chance of ice jams. Would opening up the original channel not help to give the ice somewhere else to travel in the event it jams at the mouth? It was announced at the meeting that this river is classified as a municipal drain, why then is it not being treated as such and be covered under the municipal drain act.

15. We also own farmland that has municipal drains. We are aware that whenever work is done on that drain, even if it's not on our actual property, we owe a certain amount. We are fine with that and feel that is fair.

16. We would be willing to share the cost of this maintenance of the river based on it being treated as a municipal drain, where as everyone that drains into it would share the costs. If it was shared at this level it would be minimal cost to everyone involved. If the cost of maintaining the river depth was put only to residents that "live" adjacent to the river, it would be hard to some that are financially strapped. There are a lot of people that enjoy the river ie boating, fishing. Looking at this number we feel it would be unfair to only put the cost to a small group.

17. It appears that the ‘benefitting properties’ identified are only the areas currently subject to flooding. Since the whole watershed and especially the agricultural areas of the former Lake Burwell area benefitted by the draining of the lake and subsequent conversion to agricultural uses, why have these areas not been identified as ‘benefitting properties’? I understand that the watercourse is regulated by both the Drains Act and Navigable waterways regulations and that the Drains Act essentially distributes costs associated with drains maintenance to all of the properties drained. Why would this act not be applicable in this case? If downstream properties are being flooded, clearly the ‘drain’ needs maintenance.

53

Why would the municipality want to come up with a scheme differing from accepted practice to fund the drain maintenance project? Should the maintenance of the navigable portions of the waterway not be considered at the same time as the maintenance to reduce the risk of flooding? There is considerable overlap in both benefit and the work required.

Comments related to Changing the Funding Model 1. Please take elevation into consideration! Our taxes have increased over 200%

since 1976 – we have no improvements. 2. Why would assessment be the ear mark? Shouldn’t it be by frontage or lot size

only? 3. You have taken a wide brush to include revenue areas. Look at elevation we live

on sand dunes as high as 65 ft above water level, full basements with no sump pumps. Solution – budget certain amounts every year to do localized dredging at trouble spots. Please note – looking at flood history it only happens every 4-5 years.

4. Whoever determined what properties were on flood plain needs to reevaluate. I think that they are stretching it to add numbers to who will share the cost.

5. Due to the elevations of our properties on the street, where buildings exist, we'd like a review of the Katharine Crescent properties being considered high risk.

6. How are proposed fees being calculated? Example: only a small percentage of our property is affected according to the map. Would we be charged a percentage or by property 'risk'.

7. Why should we share in the cost of flood control when we are not impacted at all. If you check our addresses & note our height of the land you will see that if water impacts us, all of Lambton Shores will be under water! We don’t live in a high risk area – we are in a NO RISK AREA! Totally unfair! Our elevation should be taken into consideration.

Comments related to lack of financial assistance for past personal property work. 1. Our breaking wall received major damage the spring after Ben Wiers were put in

$160,000.00 to replace neighbours, also received some to major damages – no financial assistance for us

2. In 56 years we have never experienced a problem with flooding. However, we only have access to our cottage by boat. We have to dredge in order to get to our cottage-thousands of $ have come out of my pocket & other cottagers’ in Armstrong East. We pay – no one helps us with costs. Flooding Not Our Issue – getting and maintaining access is.

3. In 1972 storms cost lakefront property owners $35k to $50k per property. In present dollars this would be more than $250K per property. Before taxing lakefront property to pay for lakebed property drainage the government should reimburse lakefront property owners.

4. Clear to me dredging is way. All the watershed properties or really should be Gov. It is responsible to keep ice jams from flooding.

5. I already spend $35,000 to build a wall on the river. No government funding. Why should I now pay for others? Will I get a credit?

54

6. As being part of Port Franks since “1955” I have never seen a flood yet that destroyed the Port. We were part of a stone wall installed along the mouth of the river at the cost of 13-15 thousand dollars each, we did not receive one cent from anyone. Also we each had to pay for permits. So there is no way that we would pay for someone else to protect their property when no one helped us. I feel that this meeting was a complete waste of time and money.

7. I have spent hundreds of thousands dollars to protect my property with no input from any other help from township or ABCA.

8. As stated at the meeting, the Conservation Authority sold the land knowing there would be flooding. The owners living in the flooded areas DO NOT want the berm built as the water has been going around and flooding homeowners now. Richmond Park homeowners spent thousands when water was high and took away the front of properties. Where was the Conservations to help at that time. Now we are to share in the property that should not have been sold by you in the first place.

9. I understand from the meeting that a 50% Grant was obtained through the ABCA from MNR for erosion control on the river at Armstrong West. In 1998, we asked for financial help when ourselves and our neighbours installed a stone wall and a steel wall at the river mouth and we were turned down. After paying the total cost for our project, I don’t feel we should have to pay for someone else’s river maintenance.

10. Note: my family and I lived in Walden North for 45 + years, twice our deck/dock area was flooded resulting in costs to repair including a $50,000 break wall being installed. I knew fully that I was living in a flood plain and any damages to my property was to my expense not to the neighbours unaffected.

Comments related to the need of Federal, Provincial, and External Funding 1. Work should be conditional on Federal and Provincial grants – best to continue with

as needed dredging 2. Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very disappointed

that mayor wasn’t on panel. Berms could be detrimental to other properties. 3. I don’t believe that there is an ice management problem in our area so I don’t see

that it is a necessary expense. Maximize grants and external funding. 4. Federal Government – build a dam for water coming down from Arkona. Ask for

funding Federally. Elevation should & should have been included in this study as Port Franks are various sand dunes. Every other home is not in flood zones as you presented.

5. Natural water courses Federal Government responsibility? Provincial responsibilities and conservation authorities have responsibilities . Where is it mandated that residents along these water financially responsible for the maintenance of them and are there any precedents for this form of cost sharing.

6. Pack ice at the mouth of the rover affects flooding upstream. Does not the Federal Government have some financial responsibility? Our property has never flooded. We will receive no benefit. Affected people should pay, not everyone who lives in the area. At who’s request – for who’s benefit – and who’s interest (gain) is this even an issue?

55

7. Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very disappointed that mayor wasn’t on panel.

8. Most of us in the area are seniors on a fixed income. We already support the Sarnia hospital and maybe even the tear down of the old hospital. We are also paying for emissions on vehicles while Grand Bend and Ipperwash do not. We need to put the rivers and lakes back into the Federal and Provincial hands.

9. Both my husband and I are retired, we do not have that kind of $’s. I believe that the river should be looked after by either our Federal government the Ausable association etc. Our taxes are high, what is being done with our $’s? As seniors the government encourages people to stay in our homes. Do we sell? Go somewhere where we cannot afford or someplace we do not enjoy, all because of the river? You allowed people to buy here, now it should be your responsibility. If flooded, what protection do we have???? The bern? No no – but, I think if that low ditch was to be filled in and make it level with the rest of the grounds, it certainly would help prevent water coming in so soon. The ditch is on each end of Plan 41. Good luck in your decisions and use our tax $’s wisely and do not cater to Grand Bend. Keep $’s here in Port Franks.

10. The exact cost needs to be determined including whether there will be provincial or federal funding available and how much. Then each property owner should be informed the total impact that amount will have on their taxes. There should then be a vote for those involved. This decision should not be made by council.

Comments Related to Affordability 1. Isn’t it worth trying debris removal to see if it works. If we are forced to pay for this it

would probably force us from our home because we couldn’t afford it. 2. I have a farm which the back 8 acres are classified as flood zone. I already have to

pay for 2 drains running through my land. Those back acres are bush which I can’t farm because you won’t let me cut down my own trees which are “almost” dead. My land has not flooded in over 30 years. I understand you need to fix this problem, but I am a 30 year old farmer trying to make it!

3. Most of us in the area are seniors on a fixed income. We already support the Sarnia hospital and maybe even the tear down of the old hospital. We are also paying for emissions on vehicles while Grand Bend and Ipperwash do not. We need to put the rivers and lakes back into the Federal and Provincial hands.

4. Both my husband and I are retired, we do not have that kind of $’s. I believe that the river should be looked after by either our Federal government the Ausable association etc. Our taxes are high, what is being done with our $’s? As seniors the government encourages people to stay in our homes. Do we sell? Go somewhere where we cannot afford or someplace we do not enjoy, all because of the river? You allowed people to buy here, now it should be your responsibility. If flooded, what protection do we have???? The bern? No no – but, I think if that low ditch was to be filled in and make it level with the rest of the grounds, it certainly would help prevent water coming in so soon. The ditch is on each end of Plan 41. Good luck in your decisions and use our tax $’s wisely and do not cater to Grand Bend. Keep $’s here in Port Franks.

56

5. Look into Federal help with dredging high spots in river. Put baskets on sand hills along the river back to stop erosion. This sand just ends up in the river and creates backage in the river and has to be removed each spring in front of park and marinas. This also stops logs and holds back ice jams. This is a big expense to the Township. Plus a lot of trucking to remove it. The basket at the Boy Scout camp has worked good for a lot of years. Please look into this and spend our dollars wisely. Thanks you. P.S. A berm will just create a nightmare.

6. We are retired and on a fixed income. If this project goes through we will have to sell our house and move. We cannot afford any extra expenses. Our taxes are already killing us!

7. How are you going to determine how much each household would pay? There is a lot of people in the area, are on fixed income. Everybody who bought homes in Flood Plain are aware of the risk!

8. Taxes are high enough and I might have to sell the house because of high taxes. I am a widow with a fixed income.

General Cost Comments 1. Since the two publicly owned marina’s are operating at a loss, I would suggest

selling them both to the private sector and deposit all proceeds into a reserve fund dedicated exclusively for river maintenance. Also, is the Cut Municipal drain that takes in other areas outside Lambton?

2. If no grant money is received, does this mean: a. 10% paid by Municipality b. 45% paid by the affected 780 “affected area” c. 45% added to taxes

Therefore – we (as 1 of 780) would be paying twice? 3. How were the projects ie: Beautification of Grand Bend and Thedford and sewers

for Forest funded? Perhaps a discussion would assist me in my decision as to how I feel about supporting the cost of Ice Management for Port Franks. Of the two proposals I feel building berms is not the answer.

4. A good revenue tool would be to increase fees accordingly for boat docking in the conservation (for some profit).

5. In my opinion any of the proposed actions will only directly benefit a small minority (61) of the 815 properties along the Cut. I would be willing to pay a small amount (less than the proposed costing formulas) to maintain channels and remove debris in order to keep the Cut a viable waterway for recreational boaters.

6. Scope of local dredging option did not take into account full costs - $50k/annual maintenance is indefinite

7. Of the 2 alternatives, the dredging alternative is the most reasonable option. Provincial funding should be required first before proceeding with projects. Assessment costs & allocations need to be very carefully removed before the assessments are made. Appears to be a number of errors.

57

CATEGORY 2: Comments Related to Preferred Solutions and Proposed Work Plan Comments Supporting some form of the Dredging Option 1. Berm may cause more problems for those have not previously been affected –

should be studied thoroughly. 2. Berms do not seem to be the most economical. 3. Work should be conditional on Federal and Provincial grants – best to continue with

as needed dredging 4. Dredging seems like a much better approach to “Ice Management”. Dredging not

only helps with ice management but also navigation in the Port Franks area which is a major attraction to the area, brings business and families to the area and assists in the appreciation of property values.

5. Dredging will benefit most people and will help recreation in the area that will benefit all.

6. Co-pay for dredging ONLY – NO BERMS! 7. Share cost of Dredging only. No Berms on Patrick. 8. You have taken a wide brush to include revenue areas. Look at elevation we live

on sand dunes as high as 65 ft above water level, full basements with no sump pumps. Solution – budget certain amounts every year to do localized dredging at trouble spots. Please note – looking at flood history it only happens every 4-5 years.

9. Ice management dredging – extremely important 10. Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very disappointed

that mayor wasn’t on panel. Berms could be detrimental to other properties. 11. Dredging should have already been done – going forward – dredging should have

been done in all areas. 12. I would support the targeted dredging at an estimated cost of 831K. 13. Dredging – keep mouth open and clear. 14. The mouth of the river needs to be dredged! Because of global warming it may

never happen again. Regular maintenance of the river has never been done! Why not remove the debris that causes the sand/gravel deposits? All the farms drain into the river – everyone should bear the cost of dredging!! Berm is a bad idea!!

15. Isn’t it worth trying debris removal to see if it works. If we are forced to pay for this it would probably force us from our home because we couldn’t afford it.

16. Just clean cut out – can’t change nature. 17. Clear to me dredging is way. All the watershed properties or really should be Gov.

It is responsible to keep ice jams from flooding. 18. Have you looked at dredging the old cut (re: area behind our cottage on Edward

Land) as an area where excess water to flow? 19. The first thing that should be done is to remove all of the dead trees, etc., that

allows ice to build up and possibly cause the flooding. Any dredging could or would destroy the spawning beds of fish, which has already happened in previous years. I would hope that the MNR will be notified before any work takes place.

58

20. I believe that spot dredging as needed in problem areas each year if needed is the best solution to the problem. I think the costs should be paid out of the general fund that we all contributed with our taxes. When the bendway weirs were installed, there wasn’t any cost sharing applied to other property owners other than those of us directly affected. I also think that now the river mouth is being property maintained (thank you) the problems up river will be reduced.

21. Look into Federal help with dredging high spots in river. Put baskets on sand hills along the river back to stop erosion. This sand just ends up in the river and creates backage in the river and has to be removed each spring in front of park and marinas. This also stops logs and holds back ice jams. This is a big expense to the Township. Plus a lot of trucking to remove it. The basket at the Boy Scout camp has worked good for a lot of years. Please look into this and spend our dollars wisely.

22. Perhaps you should look at this problem clearly. The river, creek and mouth opening to the lake need to be cleared, moved on a regular basis. The areas, Sunfish Bay, waterway behind the trailer park, L. Lake & such are stagnate, infested and covered in algae and other problems. Get someone in here to clear and keep moving on a regular basis. Visit the beach area at Brights Grove, check out their rock barriers implemented. Line the opening of the creek in a similar fashion and you might attain a substantial wall to direct waters out to the lake and avoid constant dredging or minimal dredging occasionally.

23. Has anyone looked at the idea of removing all the logs that are in the river as they help cause the jams. There is a fair number of them all through the river way. Would be where I started to see what difference it makes before spending a whole pile of money.

24. Dredging should be done to open up the old natural river behind Biddulph, Riverside and Edward. When dredging stopped there the water and ice had nowhere to go but out the man made cut. We all pay good taxes especially people on the water. Stop wasting money on studies and lets maintain our waterway!

25. If this project does proceed there needs to be provisions made for ongoing regular maintenance, otherwise this would be money unwisely spent.

26. As for funding, I feel it is difficult to draw an arbitrary line on a map and make one resident pay more than the person adjacent to him. It is a not a factual line. This pits residents against each other which is harmful to a community. At the information meeting you could see the different groups pointing fingers at each other. One comment was that farmers further up the river should pay because they contribute to excess drainage. It is my opinion that dredging should be carried out on an as needed basis funded by all the citizens of Lambton Shores from the general tax base. This work would not only help in ice management but also keep the river open for navigational purposes. The latter is for the benefit of all boaters and tourists. I look forward to hearing the results of the Comment Study.

27. As well we understand the reason behind this Ice management study but feel maybe it should have been labelled as Port Franks River Management. By managing the river properly and finishing and focusing on previous projects implemented, ie double slinging while dredging instead of single and leaving islands in the middle of the river, it would keep the river clear and free for the water, ice and

59

debris to move out to the lake. Also in doing so, maybe more Port Franks residents would realize that since they enjoy boating, fishing, etc on the river during the nice months that it is in fact a community project to look after the maintenance and wouldn't be so opposed to the costs to do so.

28. As far as dredging, I feel the river mouth should be dredged out to keep the channel open. Our neighbours dredge in front of their docking and rent docking to large boats. Where do they dump the river bottom they dredge out? You got it, in the middle of river causing shallow channels in the middle of the river and the large boars drag these spots all summer.

29. I believe the proposed $5,000 - $20,000 to maintain and clean the debris from the river would be a great help at preventing ice jams along the river and river mouth. This proposal would be money well spent.

30. Local dredging option seems best for relieving ice pressure. Berms option improves only 1 area and doesn’t appear to improve whole river problem. If local dredging option chosen, “Islanders” would be concerned that this action would not lead to their three docking lagoons being filled in or blocked. We just spent thousands (without LS help) to have these areas dredged because of low water.

31. We believe work should be undertaken to maintain the river ie dredging and removal of trees so that it would decrease the chance of ice jams. Would opening up the original channel not help to give the ice somewhere else to travel in the event it jams at the mouth? It was announced at the meeting that this river is classified as a municipal drain, why then is it not being treated as such and be covered under the municipal drain act.

32. Consider “Dredging” as best option. If draining maintenance occurs what effect(s) will this have on the wetlands in old Ausable river?

33. Of the 2 alternatives, the dredging alternative is the most reasonable option. Provincial funding should be required first before proceeding with projects. Assessment costs & allocations need to be very carefully removed before the assessments are made. Appears to be a number of errors.

Comments Opposing Dredging 1. As a concerned property owner I want to give you my opinion. Having farmed along

the cut and Ausable river for 40 years, I want you to be aware of the fact that the more you dredge and speed up the flow of the river the more erosion you cause upstream, thereby defeating the benefits of dredging. Over the past 40 years we have lost thoroughly erosion 30-40 ft along the cut and river. If you need anymore info you can contact me.

Comments Opposing the Berming Option 1. will the berm just create a problem somewhere else? 2. By putting a berm in front of Patrick Street is not going to help with the ice jams that

occur up past Bog Line Bridge and below. 3. I don’t believe the solutions offered by the consultants are realistic, I’m will to help

the community, but the solution has to be the long term. The berm idea is an isolated solution not one to fix the whole area, keep the mouth of the river open, ABCA do your job!

60

4. Co-pay for dredging ONLY – NO BERMS! 5. Share cost of Dredging only. No Berms on Patrick. 6. Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very disappointed

that mayor wasn’t on panel. Berms could be detrimental to other properties. 7. I do not agree to this plan. It is a money grab. If the boaters want this they should

pay for it. I live on the lake and we have never had a problem. You messed up Mud Creek – so you don’t know what you are talking about. If this goes ahead I will not pay for it! I am from Calgary and berms caused more problems – do not put in berms.

8. Berm is a dumb idea! Go with dredging, it allows residents permission to improve erosion protection on their own properties, at their own cost!

9. No berms. 10. No berm – limited dredging amortized over a reasonable number of years.

Provincial – windmills, drainage farmers/Federal – gazebo, navigatable water boaters

11. The mouth of the river needs to be dredged! Because of global warming it may never happen again. Regular maintenance of the river has never been done! Why not remove the debris that causes the sand/gravel deposits? All the farms drain into the river – everyone should bear the cost of dredging!! Berm is a bad idea!!

12. How were the projects ie: Beautification of Grand Bend and Thedford and sewers for Forest funded? Perhaps a discussion would assist me in my decision as to how I feel about supporting the cost of Ice Management for Port Franks. Of the two proposals I feel building berms is not the answer.

13. Both my husband and I are retired, we do not have that kind of $’s. I believe that the river should be looked after by either our Federal government the Ausable association etc. Our taxes are high, what is being done with our $’s? As seniors the government encourages people to stay in our homes. Do we sell? Go somewhere where we cannot afford or someplace we do not enjoy, all because of the river? You allowed people to buy here, now it should be your responsibility. If flooded, what protection do we have???? The bern? No no – but, I think if that low ditch was to be filled in and make it level with the rest of the grounds, it certainly would help prevent water coming in so soon. The ditch is on each end of Plan 41. Good luck in your decisions and use our tax $’s wisely and do not cater to Grand Bend. Keep $’s here in Port Franks.

14. Thanks you. P.S. A berm will just create a nightmare. 15. I don’t believe the solutions offered by the consultants are realistic, I’m will to help

the community, but the solution has to be the long term. The berm idea is an isolated solution not one to fix the whole area, keep the mouth of the river open, ABCA do your job!

16. As for as the cost sharing it should be absorbed by everyone living in Lambton Shores. I think putting burms in would be one of the worst thing it would only divert the water elsewhere not where you want it to go.

17. As stated at the meeting, the Conservation Authority sold the land knowing there would be flooding. The owners living in the flooded areas DO NOT want the berm built as the water has been going around and flooding homeowners now. Richmond Park homeowners spent thousands when water was high and took away

61

the front of properties. Where was the Conservations to help at that time. Now we are to share in the property that should not have been sold by you in the first place.

18. How do you think a berm will solve the problem when the mouth of the river is frozen 2 feet deep and the lake is the same, frozen with ice banks 10&20 feet high off shore up to ¼ mile.

19. I am willing to pay for damage to my house if and when there is flood damage to it. With high taxes we are paying and not getting any benefits for them, any ice management should come out of the taxes. Localized dredging would be my preference and not the berms. It should be looked into the permits for building, when our house was built, the builder wanted to raise the foundation one cement block, but was not permitted to do this. Why?

20. The issue does not belong to the affected Port Franks residents who have received water damage as it is not just their water in the river. It is a total water shed issue and needs to be dealt with from taxes in the whole area. I support dredging only.

21. Totally ridiculous are the suggested berms. I can only see negatives and am totally against that option.

22. Ice jams have been a problem in parts of the cut for years so if you had removed trees and debris on a regular basis this certainly would have helped with the jams. We were told that this has never been done. We all have banks on Canal St. so no need for berms. We also all paid for a pump for the flooding. If you do dredging every boater who rents a slip from a marina or township (conservation) needs to pay toward the cost. They are the ones who will benefit from dredging. We are not in favour – too much money in these hard times and it is not needed. First the reversing pump, then the sewer, now this. What will you think of next???!!

23. We do not agree with berming as doesn't fix anything just a bandaid. 24. I am fully opposed to building a birm in front of our cottage. Not only will it ruin the

whole riverfront and lower our property value, but as you know water and ice will find its own way and you will only channel the ice and water to other properties in this area

25. Also very disappointing with an option being a flood proofing berm which isn’t a solution to ice management to start which the residents turned it down and didn’t want it from the outset. If this is such an important project why has it gone for 130 years and now an issue when it should have been corrected many many years prior and not on the shoulders of the present day property owners. Again, if such an issue why was council not at the head table. Overall this is very disappointing and not well prepared in m opinion.

26. We are against putting a berm in area 41, this would be just a bandage not a solution and would not give any guarantees to stop flooding. We feel the municipality is putting themselves at risk of legality issues should homeowners along this berm experience flooding problems due to the berm.

Comments Supporting the Berm Option 1. The flooding is caused by drainage from property upstream. Also, properties in our

area that are above flood levels are not assessed the same as people in the low living areas. All taxpayers have been contributing taxes toward the school assessment and if we have no children it is at no benefit to us. I have no children of

62

school age and never have since moving here. I am will to pay a portion with the major cost being covered by property taxes. Berms (Levies) are the better solution

Comments Suggesting Alternative Options 1. Federal Government – build a dam for water coming down from Arkona. Ask for

funding Federally. Elevation should & should have been included in this study as Port Franks are various sand dunes. Every other home is not in flood zones as you presented.

2. Why are you not looking at a long term solution ie: the Arkona Dam – why not put pressure on Federal & Provincial Governments. Obviously dredging on an annual basis might have been beneficial – but it appears the Arkona Dam projects – appears most effective long term. *Seek Provincial & Federal funding – all of Ausable Watershed should bear most of the costs.

3. People who do not benefit from dredging/ice jamming methods should not have additional costs incurred. Unfortunately, from what I have heard direct answers were not given to a lot of questions. When you tell people write it on your comment sheet; only that individual will get an answer. I think you need to send a completed report on all questions, that you answer to all Port Franks residents. Very, very vague on solutions – it seems with all the studies done, better alternatives need to be addressed.

4. Any work should not be done until we can control the large amount of sand coming in from the lake and a proper channel is built to let the water and ice to flow out. I am willing to discuss it with you at any time.

5. These properties are in a flood plain. They have always been subject to flooding. Even if money is spent to attempt to reduce flooding, there is no guarantee that it will work (for example if the ice is jammed at the mouth of the river.) Further consideration should be given re: issuance of building permits in the affected area including but not limited to residential properties. Please note that as you are aware wind turbines are scheduled to be built in the area identified as a flood plain

6. The best solution would be to put the original opening back through Chicken Island…You can’t change nature!!!!!

7. Simple Solution – Plan 41 – Patrick St. Port Franks – A cost efficient solution. Over half of the river bank area is quite high enough. The river has never come over these banks. I have talked to John Russell, Lori Scott and Tom Prout about the low lying areas where the water comes over due to the ice jam only. Please come and see these areas. I will show you what I am talking about. Bring in clay rocks, reuse the river materials to build up these low areas. When dredging the Municipal marina – park area reuse this fill instead of trucking it away. This has been done before. I can show you at least three spots along the river where it was dredged and the existing river fill was placed along and on top of the river bank. Money was found for these project works at no extra expense to the tax payer. Please note a statement was made at the Ice Management meeting regarding the drag line working or not. I witnessed this. The drag line was set in place on the west side of the Municipal Marina. The bucket dropped a few times near the ice jam and away it went to the mouth of the river. It did work. Also, note the mouth has always held the ice no matter what the wind direction. The mouth has always been open due to

63

the river flow before the ice jams. The ice jams at the Municipal Marina park and cannot make it to the mouth. The mouth of the river is always open.

8. Have you looked at purchasing dredging equipment – perhaps sharing the cost with other are “parts” ex. Grand Bend, Goderich etc. – and maintaining the river mouths on a regular basis?

9. I live on Patrick St. and I have experienced the ice jamming many times over the years. The water enters in at the three parks and then travels down the road and enters into the properties. If we stop the water entering in at the parks the property would not flood. The problem is that by stopping the water entering at the parks with a berm or any other solution you just force the water to enter at a different location along the river. Controlling the flow of the water and addressing the jams of the ice when it occurs would stop the water entering into the parks and ultimately stopping the damage caused by a flood.

10. May I respectfully suggest that another alternative solution would be to take advantage of the natural reservoirs supplied by Mother Nature and not try to change what is already there. Revert Lake Smith and Lake Burwell back into wetlands. It would involve purchasing the fields back from the farmers but working with nature rather than against nature is always good practice.

General Comments Regarding the Proposed Work and Work Plan 1. The more we tamper with Mother Nature – the more problems we cause for the

future. 2. No ice in 2012 3. While we are NOT affected by ice jam flooding directly we have lost our water front

due to lack of river maintenance and dredging to keep the water flow. Our taxes are based on the water frontage that is no more than a breeding ground for mosquitos; while the elevation of our building is high above flooding concerns we feel dredging is an important part of ownership on a river waterway . This was taken care of for a number of years until funding only allowed the marinas to be dredged in late spring.

4. Very “unclear” to what is actually being done… 5. The winters are milder and there is no ice problem anymore – put the matter to a

vote 6. Existing taxes are extreme now. We don’t need any new projects which will

increase our taxes. We are not affected for this work. 7. I don’t believe that there is an ice management problem in our area so I don’t see

that it is a necessary expense. Maximize grants and external funding. 8. Will the silting be reduced by the two marinas on the curve of the river if upstream

dredging is done? 9. If the berm is built on Patrick Street, will that cause the ice to then come around to

our “creek”? (certainly not river as shown on your map) 10. Let the course of nature continue and those that infrequently have some water

issues manage them themselves as they see fit. This is not a overall Municipality issue.

11. Cannot control Mother Nature. So many ways we can spend money with no real benefit or guarantee.

64

12. Simply use the North Ridge to keep the mouth of the river open in the fall and hope Mother Nature cooperates. People know the risk when they move next to a river.

13. With no guarantee that dredging or blasting works, why pay? 14. From the meeting of Sept 7/13 I understood that this project is not a 100%

guarantee that this will stop future flooding in this area. Therefore, I do not want to see Government or personal peoples money wasted on a project that might not solve this problem. Don’t Gamble with other Peoples Money!

15. If the work gets done, what guarantees do we have that it will stop the flooding or is this just another way to dredge the rover so that the Marina’s who make money on their property have a deep boating route. Its an act of God. I am a part owner of 3 properties on Plan 41. The reports stated that over the years some dredging has been done. I have not seen any of this happen. There has been bank enhancement by 21 highway bridge only to protect bank erosion when water was high. All properties on Patrick St. know the risks of being on the water’s edge, yet they still build with permits that Lambton Shores and ABCA know about. So let’s stop saying that we didn’t know it would flood. Lets only do the work if it is a sure thing to work. We as tax payers can’t keep throwing money at things we think will work.

16. Ice jamming doesn’t occur every year. The mouth of the Ausable is where the jamming usually occurs. Global floods change the whole landscape immediately. Ice Management in my opinion is not a solution. The homeowner should take their own responsibility at their cost.

17. Problem area mainly Patrick St. area let them pay to flood proof themselves as I did 28 years ago such as build up property. Conservation should never have sold the property so cheap to get rid of liability and now ask others to protect others who knew each year could be flooded. Nature will do what it wants to do (water level). A good freeze up & ice scouring will do more than throwing money at it. Some maintenance could be done out of general revenue such as dead head removal.

18. I believe that it is important that the Northside continue to maintain and clean out the channel at the river mouth until late fall weather makes is unsafe to do so. This action will help keep an outlet open for the ice and water in the spring.

19. If dredging is going to be done at the river mouth as it exists, it should be done before ice breaks so Mother Nature may follow the dredged pathway.

20. Funding should be limited to proper monitoring of weather and ice conditions, maintenance and remedial work on an event basis as required. Proposed large projects seem to be unreliable and therefore wasteful.

21. I answered yes and no to question 1 because although our property is in Plan 41 area, our house is built well above any flood level. Our garage is on the lower level but was constructed with floods in mind – everything is raised above flood level inside. We do not support this project.

22. Lambton Shores should present a dredging option – what could be done now. 23. Local Dredging option:

Understanding from meeting, history and options presented

No dredging by Lambton Shores occurs annually and has not for some time – but could be significant benefit

65

Study did not take into account measures/dredging marinas, landowners currently undertaking annually now

Lambton Shores should look at what benefits/costs to tracking who doing what now

To answer could dredging & debris removal help with problems?

What costs annually?

The dredging option was not presented in a way that the $50k annual maintenance costs and $800k – 5.2M benefits warranted.

Floodproof berms option

People clearly do not want or see benefits

I believe Lambton Shores should have communicated with this group prior to getting to point of properties on a map & costs – that has created mistrust of municipal government and is unnecessary

24. I just received my notice from ABCA and Lambton Shores about the ways to alleviate the flooding problem. They mentioned 2 ways to handle it. 1. To dredge the Ausable cut. 2. Build berms in Pt Franks.

DREDGE THE CUT! Can they not remember the fiasco that the cut caused? It was proven that the rivers (all along the Lake Huron coast. wonder SOUTH. They will not stay straight unless controlled or canalized. I had a cottage on the island that as eventually lost because the cut began to widen and turn south, ultimately exposing my land to the vicious north winds where the sand was eroded and the cottage was undercut and destroyed. My thought would be to dredge the RIVER and especially the mouth and the slough where the weeds are high. "Don't fool with Mother Nature".

I will be out of the country at the time of the meeting. I just hope there will be people who remember the devastating results of "The Cut"

Not only did I repeat the catastrophic results of the demise of my house on Chicken Island, I continued by saying that the "Cut" will also close up with ice, just as the mouth of the river. The benefits of the changing of "Mother Nature" will be negligible to the flood-prone areas of Port Franks. Unless the mouth of the river and debris in the approach to the mouth are cleared, the ice will still block the passage of water. (The ABCA admitted that they have not dredged at the mouth). This is the place to start. My other point goes to the source of the problem. Port Franks people are willing and able to handle the possibility of flood OF THEIR OWN AMOUNT OF WATER. But, it is the huge volume of water draining from the vast number of acres in the basin upstream added to normal flow that causes the problem. Why should the people in Port Franks be taxed (and that is what it is.. a tax) for the effects of other people's water? It seems to me that the one-time cost of a Municipal or Provincial dam which can double as water storage and conservation could be a viable solution. Eliminate the cost of the Cut. Eliminate cost of the berm. Eliminate dynamite. Instead, do an initial debris removal and deeper

66

dredging at the mouth with smaller maintenance yearly. That would be the way to go. All the other approached are "band aids".

25. I am not supportive of any berms or dredging. Not the answer to this problem. CATEGORY 3: Comments Related to Individual Properties Comments relating to Property Not Affected by the Work. 1. There is no advantage to our property other then possibly value for entire village. If

the project would add to growth for the village of Port Franks then I would say we are in favor.

2. Existing taxes are extreme now. We don’t need any new projects which will increase our taxes. We are not affected for this work.

3. Does not affect my property! 4. I’m not in the flood pain and am not interested in paying any additional taxes! Look

at the seasonal boaters for extra $. They benefit from anything you do. 5. This area is in a “flood plain” and at one time building permits were not issued in our

area. Our property should not be included in the catchment area, we receive no benefit, if the project proceeds. We are not in favor of paying any costs towards this project. Water levels are down – leave as is.

6. History dictates that our property and those of our immediate neighbours is not situated on land low enough in elevation to be subject to any flood or ice damage from the Ausable River or its cuts.

7. We have been in the area for over 65 years and the flood plain lines seems to change yearly. It is an arbitrary line and not a real one. Trees on our property are probably over 75 years old and still standing yet we are considered to be in the flood zone.

8. We do not believe our property is flood prone. We do not see any possible benefit to our property.

9. Not in flood plain, should not be asked to share cost. No benefit to my property! 10. Our property is at least 70 to 80 metres above lake level. We will never be affected

by flooding of any kind, ice or otherwise. 11. We are at least 1 mile from the river. The ice jam is not going to flood near me.

What is happening with our tax money. What are the people to do who are on a fixed income.

12. My property is located on Port Franks Estate Drive – my elevation is approximately 40ft higher than the river level. Have not flooded in 47 years, don’t expect it in my lifetime.

13. Our property has a drop of 20’ to river level, so levels would have to rise a lot before we would be affected so I feel this is not a benefit to us. The banks have not overflowed in over 30 years.

14. I’m sorry – but it does not affect me! No! 15. This is a natural process – many counties are in the Ausable basin. Lake scouring

– filling in rivermouth. River ice is a natural process. It is our view our property is not deemed flood plain due to OMB hearing where it was deemed not flood plain.

16. Lakefront owners have never been compensated for property damage/maintenance resulting from lake water. Lakefront property owners already pay for too much

67

property tax. My property will never be flooded by an ice jam in the river. We are quite elevated and this can’t possibly be considered a flood zone.

17. My property is on high ground and not affected! I believe that those directly affected should contribute including businesses. Of greater concern may be the very low water levels.

18. 7707 Patrick St. is up on a hill overlooking the Riverside park. We have a basement and we have never had water in it. Why should we pay the same taxes as the ones down the street?

19. We are on a fixed income – both seniors over 80. Our home is at the top of Gillespie St. and never been flooded. This is not our problem. We do not have a dock or a boat. There should be another solution. Thank you

20. My property is not affected by flooding of any kind. My property at 8529 Lakeshore Rd (highway 21) in Lambton Shores has not experienced any floods and should not be forced to pay for anything in regards to this project.

21. Our property is partly flood zone, but not including the area on which the house stands. We do not feel that we will ever in Windsor Park be at risk of ice jam flooding. We suggest that any cost be shared by the whole tax base.

22. Our taxes are high enough and each year they increase, there is no increase in services provided to us. Our property is elevated along Mud Creek on a raised plat or ridge and includes all of the homes along Mud Creek Trail from Edward St to Raeburne.

23. I feel my home is outside of the effective area. 24. We are not affected stakeholders at our property at 9952 Simcoe St. We should not

have to pay because we do not benefit at all. 25. We have been on this property for 26 years and grandparents before that were the

3rd house built in Port Franks. We used to back onto a tributary of the river and were never flooded in all those years. It has now dried up so we definitely will never flood!!

26. While I believe there should be some action taken to protect properties prone to flooding in the immediate Port Franks area, I do not feel my property, nor any of the properties along the upper cut (Defore/LazyAcres) will directly benefit from any of the proposals. Despite the inclusion of this area as a flood risk – there has been little or no flooding of these properties even during recent ice jams in the vicinity. Properties in Defore/Lazy Acres are already protected by high berms and low water levels. And with the downward trend of water levels in Lake Huron expected to continue without recovery into the foreseeable future, there is only a negligible possibility of flooding in this area, even if Cut water levels were to rise significantly during sever ice jam conditions.

27. We have owned property on Armstrong West for twenty five years. We have never been directly affected by flooding. From the meeting on September 7, 2013, I understood that the last major flood was in 1984. I would like to see more study on the mouth of the river. It is my opinion that this has more cause and effect on spring flooding from ice build up than anything else. I do not pretend to know more about this than experts in the field, but I think these studies are only models and not totally proven.

68

28. We understand that our current property is listed as a critical area for flooding due to an ice jam. First off we disagree due to the elevation of the majority of our property. We must climb 36 steps upward to get to the bulk of our cottage area. Affected area is along the river bank only which of course has no buildings or construction. Not sure how or why our property would be deemed critical. Maybe elevation should have been considered of each property. We feel if the water reaches our cottage the majority of Port Franks will be under water.

29. Our family has owned the cottage at 7526 Riverside Drive since back in the 1960’s. To the best of our recollection, we have never been affected in all those years by flooding. We are much closer to the mouth than the “affected area” residents.

30. We own 3 properties in Port Franks. 7632 Riverside Drive, 7714 Patrick St and 7512 Riverside Drive. We have owned 7632 since 2008 and have not had any flooding problems. We have owned the last two for approximately 1 year and haven't had any flooding problems but have been made aware of some flooding in the past at 7714 Patrick St.

31. Flooding in no way will affect our property and consequently we do not feel that we should be asked to share in the cost. We did not choose to live along the water’s edge. From comments at this meeting I’m not sure if your solutions would even be a good “longterm” solution. I agree that boaters should be considered as well. It seems they would benefit the most.

32. Our property has never been flooded since we built in 1962. Our property, and other properties adjacent to ours, were changed to commercial property. We then had this changed to residential. Because of this study the Bosanquet Twp. purchased a hovercraft that was stored on a nearby property to be used in emergency situations. The hovercraft could only be operated by someone with a pilot’s licence. If a storm hit, they would have to get the hovercraft with the pilot to Port Franks that MIGHT be able to take two prone victims at a time out of harms way. To my knowledge, this hydro plane had never been used in a flooding situation and has since been sold. Also purchased at taxpayers expense was the Northside, with 3 pods, to blow the silt and make the river pliable for boaters.

Comments Related to Property Being Affected by Flooding. 1. This property is farmland. There is minimum damage from flooding. The reason it

has flooded in the past is related to the lack of maintenance of existing berms and culverts, which have been notified recently.

2. Water came over our breakingwall when the river mouth plugged with ice 3. Our breaking wall received major damage the spring after Ben Wiers were put in

160,000.00 to replace neighbours, also received some to major damages – no financial assistance for us

4. Good afternoon. We have a seasonal cottage at 7928 Katharine Cres in Port Franks. Prior to purchasing this cottage we owned one on Patrick St that was affected by the 2011 ice jam. We did not have any water damage or entry with that ice jam.

5. We have been here since 1955 (family). We have been flooded many times. We know this we have built our buildings so that they are above flood level. We have

69

never lost anything of value due to flooding. I invite you to come and see how we deal with this.

General Property Related Comments. 1. I do not agree to this plan. It is a money grab. If the boaters want this they should

pay for it. I live on the lake and we have never had a problem. You messed up Mud Creek – so you don’t know what you are talking about. If this goes ahead I will not pay for it! I am from Calgary and berms caused more problems – do not put in berms.

2. If the right of ways on Patrick St. (3) are owned by the Municipality or ABCA, should it not be their responsibility to fix those areas, not the residents? No one wants to look at a berm. But these areas are where the water is coming over. Check your records to see who actually owns these areas, then look at the options.

3. I would prefer to keep the river view as it is natural. Would river maintenance funds not come from docking fees and boat launch fees? We don’t own a boat or use the river and there are no structures on our property that are at risk of river flooding.

4. In 1985, due to a professor’s study based on Hurricane Hazel that hit the Humber Valley in Toronto in 1954, Bosanquet Twp. and the ABCA changed many of the properties to flood plains, including ours. Because of the protests from property owners, several OMB hearings were held, chaired by Mr. Thompson and the flood plains designation was reversed. I heard at that time that “they” wanted to make Port Franks the biggest small craft harbour between Tobermory and Sarnia.

70

CATEGORY 4: General Comments – No Category 1. Global warming is imminent 2. I attended with my mom, a property owner who is not directly affected by flooding. I

am shocked dismayed & disappointed at the lack of community spirit – these people belong to a community with all the attendant rights and responsibilities – would these same people not share the burden of cost of Fire Fighting when their house is not the one on fire? Despicable – I will never live in this community!

3. Great reading 4. Why pay for taxes when we get nothing repaired or replaced. eg – streetlight,

sidewalk, clean sidewalks 5. Another money grab 6. Makes no sense 7. Ask Patrick Street how much to lift each home. Survey not carried out properly.

Dragline should be used in (Red) areas only. Qualified people only. Only person making money is the surveyor. Nothing has been done in many years.

8. It is my feeling the residents should make the final decisions regarding any projects. I fee every taxpayer in Port Franks deserves full disclosure of the cost for the Ice Management Study. How much has it cost us? How are our tax dollars divided?

9. Meeting was a waste of time. How much was spent on the whole procedure? Money could have been better spend….on more “realistic” problems.

10. A lot of attendees did not understand what was being presented. Near the end you informed them that notices were sent to many people who would feel no financial impact. Acrimony would have been lessened if this had been stated at the beginning.

11. Please – No more debt, I’ve got to much! 12. A well facilitated meeting with professional presentations. 13. At the meeting Sept 7th, many basic concerns and questions from the public could

not be answered by the ABCA and AECOM speakers. 14. The following are my comments from the meeting held in Thedford re the study that

was conducted on the ice management study. As you will see I am not in favour how this study or lack of was conducted and the opinions presented at the meeting. To me it appeared the AECOM people present were ill prepared and took an easy way out with their assessment and their funding proposal. The amount of questions asked and not presented with answers other than put it on the comment sheet or it wasn’t considered was appalling.

15. Concerned that maps presented to public not current and inaccurate 16. Should have more resource people to answer questions at meeting 17. This is NOT ice management. 18. Need more information. Think another meeting needed for public with council as

well addressing questions. Public should have a vote in the decisions. How often are flood plains evaluated? Perhaps the whole area needs to be looked at with new eyes.

71

19. Please provide $ figure grant to ABCA in 2004. Identify what has been used for what and what balance is left over. Clear that Council by decision was unavailable to be questioned. Why did council feel it was appropriate to hide their decisions/ideas etc at a public information meeting. The public remains UNINFORMED and council appears suspect.

20. The reason for ice damming being a problem, in my humble opinion, arise from several causes,

the previous dredging and re-routing projects. Before the river was re-routed in 1870 and 1949, the water was released slowly from Lake Burwell and the ice melted in place, held by the meandering route to the river mouth. Water levels did vary, but flooding would not have been as severe in the river mouth areas. The current straight path allows for faster draining and the ice is not held in place while it thaws so it rushes downriver with the spring flood and jams up at wherever it encounters an obstruction.

The nature of the ‘new’ watercourse established in 1949 is still continuing to evolve, some of the processes move on a geological timescale and the river is still adjusting to its new course. One of these ‘adjustments’ is the erosion of the riverbanks and transportation of this sediment to other areas of the channel, we should expect that this will be an on-going process. (of course climate change, lake level, upstream development and socio-economic effects impact the watercourse as well)

The re-routing of the river and draining of Lake Burwell has resulted in increased silt transportation downriver. Any silt stirred up by floodwaters would have settled in the lake and would not have been carried downriver.

Tilling and farming in the (former) Lake Burwell area have greatly increased the amount of silt runoff into the watercourse.

The installation of field drainage tile in these farmed areas has again increased the amount of silt drained into the river.

I grew up cottaging on the river (and did a lot of swimming in it) and have been mostly away from the area for 35 years. I am now again living on the river and it is astounding to see how much more silt there is in the water.

The bends in the river near the mouth and the mouth itself are by their nature restrictive and more difficult for ice and water flows to negotiate. Removal of the restrictions to flow upstream that are current problem areas will most likely result in freer flow of ice and water to the mouth of the river, potentially resulting in increased risk of damming and flooding nearer the mouth. (my guess is that the area around the conservation area will become the biggest problem)

21. What are we doing to ensure that we are not creating a larger flooding problem downriver?

72

SECTION 3 – MASTER LISTING OF UNSORTED COMMENTS

we already pay taxes and this should be covered under the property taxes

boaters directly benefit from dredging and they should pay with higher fees

will the berm just create a problem somewhere else?

Judging by the Patrick St. speakers at the meeting, they have already taken

measures about the flooding. The only reason to dredge would then be for

boaters. They can pay through increased fees.

Should be shared among those who use the river and are directly affected only.

This includes those who have boats (seasonal).

Berm may cause more problems for those have not previously been affected –

should be studied thoroughly.

Berms do not seem to be the most economical.

Why would assessment be the ear mark? Shouldn’t it be by frontage or lot size

only?

The more we tamper with Mother Nature – the more problems we cause for the

future.

This property is farmland. There is minimum damage from flooding. The reason

it has flooded in the past is related to the lack of maintenance of existing berms

and culverts, which have been notified recently.

If it goes ahead, payment should be allocated farther upstream to where the

water comes from (The Parkhill Dam)

Water came over our breakingwall when the river mouth plugged with ice

Our breaking wall received major damage the spring after Ben Wiers were put in

160,000.00 to replace neighbours, also received some to major damages – no

financial assistance for us

73

No ice in 2012

Global warming is imminent

There is no advantage to our property other then possibly value for entire village.

If the project would add to growth for the village of Port Franks then I would say

we are in favor.

Please take elevation into consideration! Our taxes have increased over 200%

since 1976 – we have no improvements.

Work should be conditional on Federal and Provincial grants – best to continue

with as needed dredging

While we are NOT affected by ice jam flooding directly we have lost our water

front due to lack of river maintenance and dredging to keep the water flow. Our

taxes are based on the water frontage that is no more than a breeding ground for

mosquitos; while the elevation of our building is high above flooding concerns we

feel dredging is an important part of ownership on a river waterway . This was

taken care of for a number of years until funding only allowed the marinas to be

dredged in late spring.

I believe the cost sharing should include all of the watershed at the Ausable river.

The silt and flood waters come from all of the watershed.

Dredging seems like a much better approach to “Ice Management”. Dredging not

only helps with ice management but also navigation in the Port Franks area

which is a major attraction to the area, brings business and families to the area

and assists in the appreciation of property values.

Dredging will benefit most people and will help recreation in the area that will

benefit all.

Co-pay for dredging ONLY – NO BERMS!

Share cost of Dredging only. No Berms on Patrick.

You have taken a wide brush to include revenue areas. Look at elevation we live

on sand dunes as high as 65 ft above water level, full basements with no sump

pumps. Solution – budget certain amounts every year to do localized dredging at

74

trouble spots. Please note – looking at flood history it only happens every 4-5

years.

Ice management dredging – extremely important

Should consider higher levy for businesses along river (ie. Marina’s)

Very “unclear” to what is actually being done…

The winters are milder and there is no ice problem anymore – put the matter to a

vote

Existing taxes are extreme now. We don’t need any new projects which will

increase our taxes. We are not affected for this work.

If anyone buildes on flood plain, why expect anyone else to pay to protect your

property?

Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very

disappointed that mayor wasn’t on panel. Berms could be detrimental to other

properties.

Boaters should pay “sum” of the ice problem.

The costs should be shared by the homeowners directly affected (waterfront).

Sell the marina in Grand Bend & Conservation marina in Port Franks. Use these

funds to take care of the ice jams and keep the river flowing. No cost to

taxpayers.

Does not affect my property!

I’m not in the flood pain and am not interested in paying any additional taxes!

Look at the seasonal boaters for extra $. They benefit from anything you do.

Since we are in an area that is affected by ice jams considerable LESS than

other areas (ie. Once out of a total of 15 events in 80 years); I would be willing to

assume a share in the cost that is considerable LESS than that assumed by

those in higher risk areas. To be clear, our share of the costs should be minimal

compared to other areas (such as Lazy Acres/Defore, Plan 41 and even Port

Franks). Suggest we assume no more than 10% of the cost to DB landowners,

while higher percentages are allocated to those that are more directly affected.

75

In 56 years we have never experienced a problem with flooding. However, we

only have access to our cottage by boat. We have to dredge in order to get to

our cottage-thousands of $ have come out of my pocket & other cottagers’ in

Armstrong East. We pay – no one helps us with costs. Flooding Not Our Issue –

getting and maintaining access is.

I attended with my mom, a property owner who is not directly affected by

flooding. I am shocked dismayed & disappointed at the lack of community spirit

– these people belong to a community with all the attendant rights and

responsibilities – would these same people not share the burden of cost of Fire

Fighting when their house is not the one on fire? Despicable – I will never live in

this community!

This area is in a “flood plain” and at one time building permits were not issued in

our area. Our property should not be included in the catchment area, we receive

no benefit, if the project proceeds. We are not in favor of paying any costs

towards this project. Water levels are down – leave as is.

Dredging should have already been done – going forward – dredging should

have been done in all areas.

Local improvement costs to those only that are directly affected.

Fine to cost share but not willing to pay for something that is no benefit to me.

History dictates that our property and those of our immediate neighbours is not

situated on land low enough in elevation to be subject to any flood or ice damage

from the Ausable River or its cuts.

I don’t believe that there is an ice management problem in our area so I don’t see

that it is a necessary expense. Maximize grants and external funding.

I would support the targeted dredging at an estimated cost of 831K.

Federal Government – build a dam for water coming down from Arkona. Ask for

funding Federally. Elevation should & should have been included in this study as

Port Franks are various sand dunes. Every other home is not in flood zones as

you presented.

76

The government has money for everything. The cottagers already pay more than

their share in taxes. Why don’t Ausable Bayfied adopt more reasonable

approaches to rivers that are used by St. Clair Conservation.

I do not agree to this plan. It is a money grab. If the boaters want this they

should pay for it. I live on the lake and we have never had a problem. You

messed up Mud Creek – so you don’t know what you are talking about. If this

goes ahead I will not pay for it! I am from Calgary and berms caused more

problems – do not put in berms.

We have been in the area for over 65 years and the flood plain lines seems to

change yearly. It is an arbitrary line and not a real one. Trees on our property

are probably over 75 years old and still standing yet we are considered to be in

the flood zone.

I am not willing to share the cost of this study. No one shares the cost of my

flooding problems (not caused by ice floods). My property floods every time it

rains due to the water (rain) coming from the road and neighbours. I was told by

the Ausable Bayfield Con. that I can only add 1 truck load of soil on my property

or I would have to purchase a permit. No one ever purchased a permit to fill up

their property. I did purchase a permit but why? I also get water from the lake

(swamp) no one will help me with the problem and it has cost me a lot of money.

I have spoken to the township and ABCA.

Will the silting be reduced by the two marinas on the curve of the river if

upstream dredging is done?

Berm is a dumb idea! Go with dredging, it allows residents permission to

improve erosion protection on their own properties, at their own cost!

Why are you not looking at a long term solution ie: the Arkona Dam – why not

put pressure on Federal & Provincial Governments. Obviously dredging on an

annual basis might have been beneficial – but it appears the Arkona Dam

projects – appears most effective long term. *Seek Provincial & Federal funding

– all of Ausable Watershed should bear most of the costs.

We do not believe our property is flood prone. We do not see any possible

benefit to our property.

No berms.

77

Dredging – keep mouth open and clear.

No berm – limited dredging amortized over a reasonable number of years.

Provincial – windmills, drainage farmers/Federal – gazebo, navigatable water

boaters.

Natural water courses Federal Government responsibility? Provincial

responsibilities and conservation authorities have responsibilities . Where is it

mandated that residents along these water financially responsible for the

maintenance of them and are there any precedents for this form of cost sharing.

Since the two publicly owned marina’s are operating at a loss, I would suggest

selling them both to the private sector and deposit all proceeds into a reserve

fund dedicated exclusively for river maintenance. Also, is the Cut Municipal drain

that takes in other areas outside Lambton?

Great reading

It should only concern property owners in immediate access to river banks.

Please do not spread the cost to all!

What would results be if considered as municipal drain? Support the idea of

boaters sharing cost if dredging occurs! Can’t imagine Plan 41 people going

along with berm in front of homes.

Why pay for taxes when we get nothing repaired or replaced. eg – streetlight,

sidewalk, clean sidewalks

Not in flood plain, should not be asked to share cost. No benefit to my property!

I am not concerned with flooding on my street. Therefore I am not interested in

this program or funding it.

Our property is at least 70 to 80 metres above lake level. We will never be

affected by flooding of any kind, ice or otherwise.

Even though my property is not in affected area, will my takes increase due to

municipality involvement! If yes, will it be a 1 year payment or continued &

variable $/yr due to work done. If river mouth and channel into lake is dredges

on a regular basis can it be done properly – not dumped to the north and the

litoral sand drift is to the south so it fills up again the next day or week. It is a

78

make work project for person doing it if done wrong. Blower boat is better than

the previous method for channel. Excellent presentation!

We are at least 1 mile from the river. The ice jam is not going to flood near me.

What is happening with our tax money. What are the people to do who are on a

fixed income.

If we have to pay we need total access. Put walking trail all along riverfront for

people to enjoy their tax dollars. We are not all boaters or do we have riverfront

property. They were all aware of the risk of flooding why should we pay.

The mouth of the river needs to be dredged! Because of global warming it may

never happen again. Regular maintenance of the river has never been done!

Why not remove the debris that causes the sand/gravel deposits? All the farms

drain into the river – everyone should bear the cost of dredging!! Berm is a bad

idea!!

If given access to this river (public asset) I would support a tax assessment. If no

access, I oppose any tax increase for private land protection, berm or dredging

my current tax is already extremely high for very little service or minimal

infrastructure, we are paying $2,700.00 a year now.

Every person(s) living on river should PAY. Decide how to increase Municipal

Fee’s users. Take some monies from TAX (Lambton Shores complete)

Government – Municipal/Public Adventures.

My property is located on Port Franks Estate Drive – my elevation is

approximately 40ft higher than the river level. Have not flooded in 47 years, don’t

expect it in my lifetime.

Isn’t it worth trying debris removal to see if it works. If we are forced to pay for

this it would probably force us from our home because we couldn’t afford it.

Let the course of nature continue and those that infrequently have some water

issues manage them themselves as they see fit. This is not a overall Municipality

issue.

I have a farm which the back 8 acres are classified as flood zone. I already have

to pay for 2 drains running through my land. Those back acres are bush which I

can’t farm because you won’t let me cut down my own trees which are “almost”

79

dead. My land has not flooded in over 30 years. I understand you need to fix

this problem, but I am a 30 year old farmer trying to make it!

Our property has a drop of 20’ to river level, so levels would have to rise a lot

before we would be affected so I feel this is not a benefit to us. The banks have

not overflowed in over 30 years.

Another money grab

Makes no sense

Want nothing to do with this!

If my taxes go up, I demand assistance to maintain my erosion problems that

have been directly caused by the weirs that were done several years ago.

I’m sorry – but it does not affect me! No!

In 1972 storms cost lakefront property owners $35k to $50k per property. In

present dollars this would be more than $250K per property. Before taxing

lakefront property to pay for lakebed property drainage the government should

reimburse lakefront property owners.

Vertical elevation of property should be a factor in determining if property is at

risk. In as vertical elevation ever considered? Should it be? The cost should be

shared only by those at risk, and those who benefit.

This is a natural process – many counties are in the Ausable basin. Lake

scouring – filling in rivermouth. River ice is a natural process. It is our view our

property is not deemed flood plain due to OMB hearing where it was deemed not

flood plain.

The properties that would benefit directly should bear the cost.

Lakefront owners have never been compensated for property

damage/maintenance resulting from lake water. Lakefront property owners

already pay for too much property tax. My property will never be flooded by an

ice jam in the river. We are quite elevated and this can’t possibly be considered

a flood zone.

80

Elevation of residence should be considered. Consider funding from area

businesses (marinas, trailer park).

Pack ice at the mouth of the rover affects flooding upstream. Does not the

Federal Government have some financial responsibility? Our property has never

flooded. We will receive no benefit. Affected people should pay, not everyone

who lives in the area. At who’s request – for who’s benefit – and who’s interest

(gain) is this even an issue?

If no dredging has been done in the last 15 years – that should have been done –

why put this on tax payers – fix the problem. Why do we bother because you’re

going to do whatever you want anyway. Poor meeting – not many questions

answered.

People have purchased property in the flood area knowing the risk. Individual

liability remains their responsibility. Rarely do man made solutions – natural

resolution – many examples exist where berms/dredging failed due to multiple

natural factors which vary & change annually and cannot be controlled. Eg. The

cut made in the 40’s.

Just clean cut out – can’t change nature.

Clear to me dredging is way. All the watershed properties or really should be

Gov. It is responsible to keep ice jams from flooding.

All water shed home owners in Lambton County should pay not just the 780

taxpayers listed.

I believe there are a number of parties who are not fulfilling their obligation –

Municipality, ABCA, Prov., Fed. I believe that an addition & second building was

allowed on my property after the ABCA were giving approvals & if I’m in the

affected area. I don’t understand why except to collect additional taxes. Has the

municipality considered the impact on property values and eventually the tax

base.

People who do not benefit from dredging/ice jamming methods should not have

additional costs incurred. Unfortunately, from what I have heard direct answers

were not given to a lot of questions. When you tell people write it on your

comment sheet; only that individual will get an answer. I think you need to send

a completed report on all questions, that you answer to all Port Franks residents.

81

Very, very vague on solutions – it seems with all the studies done, better

alternatives need to be addressed.

Look for Federal & Provincial funding for maintenance dredging. Very

disappointed that mayor wasn’t on panel.

Ask Patrick Street how much to lift each home. Survey not carried out properly.

Dragline should be used in (Red) areas only. Qualified people only. Only person

making money is the surveyor. Nothing has been done in many years.

If the berm is built on Patrick Street, will that cause the ice to then come around

to our “creek”? (certainly not river as shown on your map)

Have you looked at dredging the old cut (re: area behind our cottage on Edward

Land) as an area where excess water to flow?

If no grant money is received, does this mean:

o 10% paid by Municipality

o 45% paid by the affected 780 “affected area”

o 45% added to taxes

Therefore – we (as 1 of 780) would be paying twice?

The homeowners who directly receive benefit ie those who get flooded should

pay the costs for any ice management projects. It is not fair for others to pay so

those affected are unjustly enriched by this.

Most of us in the area are seniors on a fixed income. We already support the

Sarnia hospital and maybe even the tear down of the old hospital. We are also

paying for emissions on vehicles while Grand Bend and Ipperwash do not. We

need to put the rivers and lakes back into the Federal and Provincial hands.

How were the projects ie: Beautification of Grand Bend and Thedford and

sewers for Forest funded? Perhaps a discussion would assist me in my decision

as to how I feel about supporting the cost of Ice Management for Port Franks. Of

the two proposals I feel building berms is not the answer.

The flooding is caused by drainage from property upstream. Also, properties in

our area that are above flood levels are not assessed the same as people in the

low living areas. All taxpayers have been contributing taxes toward the school

assessment and if we have no children it is at no benefit to us. I have no children

of school age and never have since moving here. I am will to pay a portion with

82

the major cost being covered by property taxes. Berms (Levies) are the better

solution.

The first thing that should be done is to remove all of the dead trees, etc., that

allows ice to build up and possibly cause the flooding. Any dredging could or

would destroy the spawning beds of fish, which has already happened in

previous years. I would hope that the MNR will be notified before any work takes

place.

If the right of ways on Patrick St. (3) are owned by the Municipality or ABCA,

should it not be their responsibility to fix those areas, not the residents? No one

wants to look at a berm. But these areas are where the water is coming over.

Check your records to see who actually owns these areas, then look at the

options.

My property is on high ground and not affected! I believe that those directly

affected should contribute including businesses. Of greater concern may be the

very low water levels.

Cannot control Mother Nature. So many ways we can spend money with no real

benefit or guarantee.

Simply use the North Ridge to keep the mouth of the river open in the fall and

hope Mother Nature cooperates. People know the risk when they move next to a

river.

I already spend $35,000 to build a wall on the river. No government funding.

Why should I now pay for others? Will I get a credit?

As being part of Port Franks since “1955” I have never seen a flood yet that

destroyed the Port. We were part of a stone wall installed along the mouth of the

river at the cost of 13-15 thousand dollars each, we did not receive one cent from

anyone. Also we each had to pay for permits. So there is no way that we would

pay for someone else to protect their property when no one helped us. I feel that

this meeting was a complete waste of time and money.

I would like to know who initiated this study (ABCA)? I don’t think anyone that

attended the meeting wants anything done and definitely do not want our taxes to

increase. It will be interesting to see if any of our input will make any difference.

83

When I bought my property I did my own research as for as flooding. There has

been no flooding in my area in at least 60 years. That’s why I bought there and

not on a flood plain. ** I will never pay any money for Ice Management **.

I believe that spot dredging as needed in problem areas each year if needed is

the best solution to the problem. I think the costs should be paid out of the

general fund that we all contributed with our taxes. When the bendway weirs

were installed, there wasn’t any cost sharing applied to other property owners

other than those of us directly affected. I also think that now the river mouth is

being property maintained (thank you) the problems up river will be reduced.

Most of the people who own property in the flooded area knew what they were

buying. As you stated this has been going on since 1935. They took the risk.

They should live with it or pay for it themselves.

With no guarantee that dredging or blasting works, why pay?

It is my feeling the residents should make the final decisions regarding any

projects. I fee every taxpayer in Port Franks deserves full disclosure of the cost

for the Ice Management Study. How much has it cost us? How are our tax

dollars divided?

7707 Patrick St. is up on a hill overlooking the Riverside park. We have a

basement and we have never had water in it. Why should we pay the same

taxes as the ones down the street?

Both my husband and I are retired, we do not have that kind of $’s. I believe that

the river should be looked after by either our Federal government the Ausable

association etc. Our taxes are high, what is being done with our $’s? As seniors

the government encourages people to stay in our homes. Do we sell? Go

somewhere where we cannot afford or someplace we do not enjoy, all because

of the river? You allowed people to buy here, now it should be your

responsibility. If flooded, what protection do we have???? The bern? No no –

but, I think if that low ditch was to be filled in and make it level with the rest of the

grounds, it certainly would help prevent water coming in so soon. The ditch is on

each end of Plan 41. Good luck in your decisions and use our tax $’s wisely and

do not cater to Grand Bend. Keep $’s here in Port Franks.

Look into Federal help with dredging high spots in river. Put baskets on sand

hills along the river back to stop erosion. This sand just ends up in the river and

creates backage in the river and has to be removed each spring in front of park

84

and marinas. This also stops logs and holds back ice jams. This is a big

expense to the Township. Plus a lot of trucking to remove it. The basket at the

Boy Scout camp has worked good for a lot of years. Please look into this and

spend our dollars wisely. Thanks you. P.S. A berm will just create a nightmare.

We are on a fixed income – both seniors over 80. Our home is at the top of

Gillespie St. and never been flooded. This is not our problem. We do not have a

dock or a boat. There should be another solution. Thank you.

I find it hard to believe there has been no dredging in the river cut since 1949. I

watched a large tree stuck in the river just upstream from the bridge at 21

highway remain in place for nearly two years while it formed an island with

sediment. Who is responsible for this kind of ongoing maintenance in the river

ABCA? Dredging would directly benefit boaters so there should be ways of

proportioning cost to them. Possibly on the ABCA fees at the marina.

Perhaps you should look at this problem clearly. The river, creek and mouth

opening to the lake need to be cleared, moved on a regular basis. The areas,

Sunfish Bay, waterway behind the trailer park, L. Lake & such are stagnate,

infested and covered in algae and other problems. Get someone in here to clear

and keep moving on a regular basis. Visit the beach area at Brights Grove,

check out their rock barriers implemented. Line the opening of the creek in a

similar fashion and you might attain a substantial wall to direct waters out to the

lake and avoid constant dredging or minimal dredging occasionally.

I don’t believe the solutions offered by the consultants are realistic, I’m will to

help the community, but the solution has to be the long term. The berm idea is

an isolated solution not one to fix the whole area, keep the mouth of the river

open, ABCA do your job!

Meeting was a waste of time. How much was spent on the whole procedure?

Money could have been better spend….on more “realistic” problems.

Has anyone looked at the idea of removing all the logs that are in the river as

they help cause the jams. There is a fair number of them all through the river

way. Would be where I started to see what difference it makes before spending

a whole pile of money.

From the meeting of Sept 7/13 I understood that this project is not a 100%

guarantee that this will stop future flooding in this area. Therefore, I do not want

85

to see Government or personal peoples money wasted on a project that might

not solve this problem. Don’t Gamble with other Peoples Money!

I have spent hundreds of thousands dollars to protect my property with no input

from any other help from township or ABCA.

A lot of attendees did not understand what was being presented. Near the end

you informed them that notices were sent to many people who would feel no

financial impact. Acrimony would have been lessened if this had been stated at

the beginning.

My property is not affected by flooding of any kind. My property at 8529

Lakeshore Rd (highway 21) in Lambton Shores has not experienced any floods

and should not be forced to pay for anything in regards to this project.

Our property is partly flood zone, but not including the area on which the house

stands. We do not feel that we will ever in Windsor Park be at risk of ice jam

flooding. We suggest that any cost be shared by the whole tax base.

As for as the cost sharing it should be absorbed by everyone living in Lambton

Shores. I think putting burms in would be one of the worst thing it would only

divert the water elsewhere not where you want it to go. Dredging should be done

to open up the old natural river behind Biddulph, Riverside and Edward. When

dredging stopped there the water and ice had nowhere to go but out the man

made cut. We all pay good taxes especially people on the water. Stop wasting

money on studies and lets maintain our waterway!

As a concerned property owner I want to give you my opinion. Having farmed

along the cut and Ausable river for 40 years, I want you to be aware of the fact

that the more you dredge and speed up the flow of the river the more erosion you

cause upstream, thereby defeating the benefits of dredging. Over the past 40

years we have lost thoroughly erosion 30-40 ft along the cut and river. If you

need anymore info you can contact me.

As stated at the meeting, the Conservation Authority sold the land knowing there

would be flooding. The owners living in the flooded areas DO NOT want the

berm built as the water has been going around and flooding homeowners now.

Richmond Park homeowners spent thousands when water was high and took

away the front of properties. Where was the Conservations to help at that time.

Now we are to share in the property that should not have been sold by you in the

first place.

86

If the work gets done, what guarantees do we have that it will stop the flooding or

is this just another way to dredge the rover so that the Marina’s who make money

on their property have a deep boating route. Its an act of God. I am a part owner

of 3 properties on Plan 41. The reports stated that over the years some dredging

has been done. I have not seen any of this happen. There has been bank

enhancement by 21 highway bridge only to protect bank erosion when water was

high. All properties on Patrick St. know the risks of being on the water’s edge,

yet they still build with permits that Lambton Shores and ABCA know about. So

let’s stop saying that we didn’t know it would flood. Lets only do the work if it is a

sure thing to work. We as tax payers can’t keep throwing money at things we

think will work.

Ice jamming doesn’t occur every year. The mouth of the Ausable is where the

jamming usually occurs. Global floods change the whole landscape immediately.

Ice Management in my opinion is not a solution. The homeowner should take

their own responsibility at their cost.

Please – No more debt, I’ve got to much!

All the residences on Seth Lane were threatened by high lake levels in the

1970’s. All but one owner took action to protect their cottage. That cottage

ended up in the lake. All walls and protective measures had to be financed by

the owner 100%. I feel that owners of property threatened by the river should

pay for their own protection as we did then.

Any work should not be done until we can control the large amount of sand

coming in from the lake and a proper channel is built to let the water and ice to

flow out. I am willing to discuss it with you at any time.

I feel cost should be shared by all of the watershed area for maintaining proper

ice and water flow in the river.

We are retired and on a fixed income. If this project goes through we will have to

sell our house and move. We cannot afford any extra expenses. Our taxes are

already killing us!

A well facilitated meeting with professional presentations.

87

How do you think a berm will solve the problem when the mouth of the river is

frozen 2 feet deep and the lake is the same, frozen with ice banks 10&20 feet

high off shore up to ¼ mile.

I feel we pay a lot of taxes and get nothing for it. Some of it should go to flood

control.

Our taxes are high enough and each year they increase, there is no increase in

services provided to us. Our property is elevated along Mud Creek on a raised

plat or ridge and includes all of the homes along Mud Creek Trail from Edward St

to Raeburne.

I pay waterfront taxes now – put money to keep debris out of the river.

I feel my home is outside of the effective area.

How are you going to determine how much each household would pay? There is

a lot of people in the area, are on fixed income. Everybody who bought homes in

Flood Plain are aware of the risk!

My house is on top of a sand hill many feet up from the river road. You can’t put

your boat in as they tell you it is private. Also don’t walk in their park. So why

should I a 82 year senior pay.

I would prefer to keep the river view as it is natural. Would river maintenance

funds not come from docking fees and boat launch fees? We don’t own a boat or

use the river and there are no structures on our property that are at risk of river

flooding.

Those affected directly if they are interested should pay based on elevation and

history.

If this project does proceed there needs to be provisions made for ongoing

regular maintenance, otherwise this would be money unwisely spent.

A program needs to address all areas, the river mouth in this proposal is not

even considered. I agree with some cost sharing but I do not agree with the

costs between the public and the town (Lambton Shores). The town (Lambton

Shores) and ABCA have been involved with the flood plain. They have allowed

for people to build in areas that are on the flood plain (with exceptions). Why

should other landowners pay for other peoples and the towns problems.

88

Ice jam flooding represents a problem with infrastructure. Infrastructure design

and maintenance is the responsibility of government. If needed, the municipal,

provincial and perhaps federal governments should combine their expertise to

address this problem. How dare you imply that your infrastructure problem is our

responsibility.

These properties are in a flood plain. They have always been subject to flooding.

Even if money is spent to attempt to reduce flooding, there is no guarantee that it

will work (for example if the ice is jammed at the mouth of the river.) Further

consideration should be given re: issuance of building permits in the affected

area including but not limited to residential properties. Please note that as you

are aware wind turbines are scheduled to be built in the area identified as a flood

plain.

I am willing to pay for damage to my house if and when there is flood damage to

it. With high taxes we are paying and not getting any benefits for them, any ice

management should come out of the taxes. Localized dredging would be my

preference and not the berms. It should be looked into the permits for building,

when our house was built, the builder wanted to raise the foundation one cement

block, but was not permitted to do this. Why?

We already pay extra taxes to have the river mouth open. The users of the

drainage ditch way up the river should share in the cost of maintenance in debris

removal and the ongoing problem of keeping the mouth open.

By putting a berm in front of Patrick Street is not going to help with the ice jams

that occur up past Bog Line Bridge and below.

The issue does not belong to the affected Port Franks residents who have

received water damage as it is not just their water in the river. It is a total water

shed issue and needs to be dealt with from taxes in the whole area. I support

dredging only.

Totally ridiculous are the suggested berms. I can only see negatives and am

totally against that option.

Port Franks is also part of Lambton Shores and should also be included as such

when improvements and maintenance are needed.

89

Ice jams have been a problem in parts of the cut for years so if you had removed

trees and debris on a regular basis this certainly would have helped with the

jams. We were told that this has never been done. We all have banks on Canal

St. so no need for berms. We also all paid for a pump for the flooding. If you do

dredging every boater who rents a slip from a marina or township (conservation)

needs to pay toward the cost. They are the ones who will benefit from dredging.

We are not in favour – too much money in these hard times and it is not needed.

First the reversing pump, then the sewer, now this. What will you think of

next???!!

Problem area mainly Patrick St. area let them pay to flood proof themselves as I

did 28 years ago such as build up property. Conservation should never have

sold the property so cheap to get rid of liability and now ask others to protect

others who knew each year could be flooded. Nature will do what it wants to do

(water level). A good freeze up & ice scouring will do more than throwing money

at it. Some maintenance could be done out of general revenue such as dead

head removal.

We are not affected stakeholders at our property at 9952 Simcoe St. We should

not have to pay because we do not benefit at all.

Marinas and properties on the river are the affected stakeholders who would

benefit and therefore pay any and all costs.

At the meeting Sept 7th, many basic concerns and questions from the public

could not be answered by the ABCA and AECOM speakers.

Affected stakeholders are the marinas and properties on the river – they should

pay.

A good revenue tool would be to increase fees accordingly for boat docking in

the conservation (for some profit).

Homeowners having a problem purchased at the water knowing that the water

was there with a risk factor involved. We do not feel that we should feel

responsible for preventing the problem. The water was there first. Our property

is surrounded by large old trees. No one helps with our cleanup after high winds

and ice storms. Environment takes strange turns at times and when you

purchase property any environmental risks must be taken into account as your

own responsibility. We are not in flood plain. No benefit to us.

90

Whoever determined what properties were on flood plain needs to reevaluate. I

think that they are stretching it to add numbers to who will share the cost.

We have been on this property for 26 years and grandparents before that were

the 3rd house built in Port Franks. We used to back onto a tributary of the river

and were never flooded in all those years. It has now dried up so we definitely

will never flood!!

Ausable River does not just run through Lambton County, so why are we the only

ones sharing this cost? The debris such as logs comes from all the way along the

river, we just happen to be at the end of the it. Yes it does create a problem at

times when the ice and logs jam, but why should the financial burden to fix this

problem be placed on Lambton Shores only?

The best solution would be to put the original opening back through Chicken

Island…You can’t change nature!!!!!

What about the boaters that use the marinas in Port Franks? They will benefit

from this too with absolutely no cost burden to them.

The exact cost needs to be determined including whether there will be provincial

or federal funding available and how much. Then each property owner should be

informed the total impact that amount will have on their taxes. There should then

be a vote for those involved. This decision should not be made by council.

Due to the elevations of our properties on the street, where buildings exist, we'd like a review of the Katharine Crescent properties being considered high risk.

Is the Drainage Act being taken into consideration? All contributing properties benefit.

How are proposed fees being calculated? Example: only a small percentage of our property is affected according to the map. Would we be charged a percentage or by property 'risk'.

While I believe there should be some action taken to protect properties prone to flooding in the immediate Port Franks area, I do not feel my property, nor any of the properties along the upper cut (Defore/LazyAcres) will directly benefit from any of the proposals. Despite the inclusion of this area as a flood risk – there has been little or no flooding of these properties even during recent ice jams in the vicinity. Properties in Defore/Lazy Acres are already protected by high berms and low water levels. And with the downward trend of water levels in Lake Huron expected to continue without recovery into the foreseeable future, there is only a negligible possibility of flooding in this area, even if Cut water levels were to rise significantly during sever ice jam conditions.

91

In my opinion any of the proposed actions will only directly benefit a small minority (61) of the 815 properties along the Cut. I would be willing to pay a small amount (less than the proposed costing formulas) to maintain channels and remove debris in order to keep the Cut a viable waterway for recreational boaters.

We have owned property on Armstrong West for twenty five years. We have

never been directly affected by flooding. From the meeting on September 7,

2013, I understood that the last major flood was in 1984. I would like to see more

study on the mouth of the river. It is my opinion that this has more cause and

effect on spring flooding from ice build up than anything else. I do not pretend to

know more about this than experts in the field, but I think these studies are only

models and not totally proven.

As for funding, I feel it is difficult to draw an arbitrary line on a map and make one

resident pay more than the person adjacent to him. It is a not a factual line. This

pits residents against each other which is harmful to a community. At the

information meeting you could see the different groups pointing fingers at each

other. One comment was that farmers further up the river should pay because

they contribute to excess drainage. It is my opinion that dredging should be

carried out on an as needed basis funded by all the citizens of Lambton Shores

from the general tax base. This work would not only help in ice management but

also keep the river open for navigational purposes. The latter is for the benefit of

all boaters and tourists. I look forward to hearing the results of the Comment

Study.

I do agree with the proposals and that something needs to be done. It is in the

collective benefit of all residents of Lambton Shores that we continue to upgrade

our infrastructure for all purposes whether it be transportation, commercial,

recreational, educational etc. What perplexes me is the cost sharing model in

which for this project, i.e. just those who “directly benefit” from the project share

the cost rather than the entire tax base.

For example, some of my taxes go to the board of education to fund schools, but my children have all finished. I get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to rebuild roadways or bridges that I will never use. I get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to pay for community centers in communities in which I do not belong. I get no “direct benefit”. Some of my taxes go to maintain and improve recreational facilities and lands that I don’t use, Again no “direct benefit”. So I do not understand why in this case the rules are essentially changed. If this is the model then I would like to begin to apply this to everything and choose what my taxes get spent on so that it benefits me directly. Of course this is not

92

reasonable nor is it viable to manage such a system. Therefore I would strongly recommend that these costs be shared by the entire tax base as all other major infrastructure projects (to my knowledge) are. If this model is adopted I think the precedent it will set is very dangerous and it will become increasingly difficult for council to manage.

Good afternoon. We have a seasonal cottage at 7928 Katharine Cres in Port

Franks. Prior to purchasing this cottage we owned one on Patrick St that was

affected by the 2011 ice jam. We did not have any water damage or entry with

that ice jam.

We understand that our current property is listed as a critical area for flooding

due to an ice jam. First off we disagree due to the elevation of the majority of our

property. We must climb 36 steps upward to get to the bulk of our cottage area.

Affected area is along the river bank only which of course has no buildings or

construction. Not sure how or why our property would be deemed critical. Maybe

elevation should have been considered of each property. We feel if the water

reaches our cottage the majority of Port Franks will be under water.

As well we understand the reason behind this Ice management study but feel

maybe it should have been labelled as Port Franks River Management. By

managing the river properly and finishing and focusing on previous projects

implemented, ie double slinging while dredging instead of single and leaving

islands in the middle of the river, it would keep the river clear and free for the

water, ice and debris to move out to the lake. Also in doing so, maybe more Port

Franks residents would realize that since they enjoy boating, fishing, etc on the

river during the nice months that it is in fact a community project to look after the

maintenance and wouldn't be so opposed to the costs to do so.

We do not agree with berming as doesn't fix anything just a bandaid.

We would be willing to share the cost of this maintenance of the river based on

sharing with the community as well as those upstream including the farms that

are draining into the river. If all were to be included it would make it most

affordable for the entire community to try to ensure no further ice jams as well as

making boating and water play continue in the future. This could prevent

hardships for those property owners that are financially strapped.

Once last point that we would like to bring up, and as owners of a farm with a big

municipal drain running thru, is WHY has this project not been looked at as a

municipal drain which would in turn fall under the Municipal drain act and be

maintained accordingly. We understand that it has been deemed a drain to at

least the cut. Can’t imagine it would just end there. If this is correct as our

93

neighbours indicated as per their dredging permit for their cut inland, why isn't it

being maintained that way? By following the act all involved would share the cost

keeping them minimal.

As a resident on Patrick St. for over 50 years we have experienced the ice

jamming and some flooding during the ice breakup. We knew when we bought

the property that these incidents could occur. The few times in these 50+ years.

Have not caused any damage to our cottage. Most of the residents on Patrick

St. have their cottages & permanent homes raised high enough to avoid the river

water from entering the main structure. I am fully opposed to building a birm in

front of our cottage. Not only will it ruin the whole riverfront and lower our

property value, but as you know water and ice will find its own way and you will

only channel the ice and water to other properties in this area. As far as

dredging, I feel the river mouth should be dredged out to keep the channel open.

Our neighbours dredge in front of their docking and rent docking to large boats.

Where do they dump the river bottom they dredge out? You got it, in the middle

of river causing shallow channels in the middle of the river and the large boars

drag these spots all summer. When it comes to erosion, the summer boaters are

as guilty as the natural erosion caused during high water and on shore winds

bringing the river higher temporarily. We have been preserving our banks since

day one and feel the more you want change the course of the river the more

problems you will cause. I feel we are being taxed high enough for all the benefit

we get from the Municipality and should not be forced to pay for these changes

being forced on us. Please be fair and give us a chance to vote on any changes

before going ahead with these outrageous costs. Also please do not schedule

public meetings during the winter months when most seasonal and snowbird

residents are not here to defend themselves.

In speaking to Tom Prout at the meeting and then after the meeting on a one-to-

one basis, I became aware that he had made up his mind and I am hopeful the

others on Lambton Shores council payroll have not done likewise. I am

concerned about the suggestion of allocating all or most of the cost of dredging

and berm expense through taxes on Plan 41 residents. My family and I have

lived on Lot 5, Plan 41 7736 Patrick St. during summer and at times during the

winter and spring river break-up for some 61 years. I was one of the earliest

twenty (20) year lessees and then owner of said property when sold to us in 1989

and additional piece of land to river sold to us in 1994. We have experienced the

flooding during this time in our area when the ice jams and the river overflows.

This has happened 4 or 5 times during our residency. We have not had severe

damage or any flooding in our cottage. We were made aware of the possibility of

flooding when we purchased the property and with that in mind took action to

94

raise our cottage sufficiently to avoid damages. The true causes of ice jamming

and river flooding are:

o 1. The failure of water being able to flow freely into Lake Huron at the

mouth and required dredging to keep this channel open.

o 2. Many of the marinas close to the lake have failed to remove all parts of

docks and obstacles at the end of the boating season therefore causing

ice jams.

There are three to four hundred boat slips in the Conservation area, private marinas and property owners rented out yearly and these boat owners are using our waterways and not paying any money for keeping our river navigable. Clearly these boaters are causing a lot of erosion due to speed and no consideration of a “No Wake” ruling yet to be applied to this area of the river. Low water for the last 15-20 years due to weather and everyone using water from the great lakes has caused a lot of the sudden ice jamming and flooding in the river. We do not want a berm built on our property. It is not the answer to spend all that money into such a project. You will ruin the property and chances are it will not work. If dredging is implemented I feel all of Lambton Shores tax payers and seasonal boaters should be responsible for keeping the river channel open. We already pay more taxes than other areas. Please divide any new expenses equally among all. Also keep us informed of all meetings regarding this subject and do not hold when a large percentage of land owners are away during the winter months. Have photos if required to support above information.

1. The area to be dredged is covered under the Drainage Act as stated at the

meeting. Therefore I believe that all landowners in the Ausable Water Shed

should pay for clean out and maintenance of the river and river mouth at Port

Franks as this dredging will benefit all.

2. I believe that it is important that the Northside continue to maintain and

clean out the channel at the river mouth until late fall weather makes is unsafe to

do so. This action will help keep an outlet open for the ice and water in the

spring.

3. If dredging is going to be done at the river mouth as it exists, it should be

done before ice breaks so Mother Nature may follow the dredged pathway.

4. I believe the proposed $5,000 - $20,000 to maintain and clean the debris

from the river would be a great help at preventing ice jams along the river and

river mouth. This proposal would be money well spent.

5. I understand from the meeting that a 50% Grant was obtained through the

ABCA from MNR for erosion control on the river at Armstrong West. In 1998, we

asked for financial help when ourselves and our neighbours installed a stone wall

and a steel wall at the river mouth and we were turned down. After paying the

95

total cost for our project, I don’t feel we should have to pay for someone else’s

river maintenance.

6. Part of erosion problem is the wake from all types of watercraft. Possibly

a fee through docking and launching could be collected to help in the cost

sharing of river maintenance.

The following are my comments from the meeting held in Thedford re the study

that was conducted on the ice management study. As you will see I am not in

favour how this study or lack of was conducted and the opinions presented at the

meeting. To me it appeared the AECOM people present were ill prepared and

took an easy way out with their assessment and their funding proposal. The

amount of questions asked and not presented with answers other than put it on

the comment sheet or it wasn’t considered was appalling. Firstly, how and why

only a certain number of properties were chosen and not effected by ice damage

has me in a quandary when we all pay our taxes to Lambton Shores where

everyone should be involved if this process goes through or even necessary to

begin with which includes businesses such as marina’s and farmers as

mentioned in the meeting. Also very disappointing with an option being a flood

proofing berm which isn’t a solution to ice management to start which the

residents turned it down and didn’t want it from the outset. If this is such an

important project why has it gone for 130 years and now an issue when it should

have been corrected many many years prior and not on the shoulders of the

present day property owners. Again, if such an issue why was council not at the

head table. Overall this is very disappointing and not well prepared in m opinion.

Simple Solution – Plan 41 – Patrick St. Port Franks – A cost efficient solution.

Over half of the river bank area is quite high enough. The river has never come

over these banks. I have talked to John Russell, Lori Scott and Tom Prout about

the low lying areas where the water comes over due to the ice jam only. Please

come and see these areas. I will show you what I am talking about. Bring in clay

rocks, reuse the river materials to build up these low areas. When dredging the

Municipal marina – park area reuse this fill instead of trucking it away. This has

been done before. I can show you at least three spots along the river where it

was dredged and the existing river fill was placed along and on top of the river

bank. Money was found for these project works at no extra expense to the tax

payer. Please note a statement was made at the Ice Management meeting

regarding the drag line working or not. I witnessed this. The drag line was set in

place on the west side of the Municipal Marina. The bucket dropped a few times

near the ice jam and away it went to the mouth of the river. It did work. Also,

note the mouth has always held the ice no matter what the wind direction. The

96

mouth has always been open due to the river flow before the ice jams. The ice

jams at the Municipal Marina park and cannot make it to the mouth. The mouth

of the river is always open.

Taxes are high enough and I might have to sell the house because of high taxes.

I am a widow with a fixed income.

Note: my family and I lived in Walden North for 45 + years, twice our deck/dock

area was flooded resulting in costs to repair including a $50,000 break wall being

installed. I knew fully that I was living in a flood plain and any damages to my

property was to my expense not to the neighbours unaffected.

Local dredging option seems best for relieving ice pressure. Berms option

improves only 1 area and doesn’t appear to improve whole river problem. If local

dredging option chosen, “Islanders” would be concerned that this action would

not lead to their three docking lagoons being filled in or blocked. We just spent

thousands (without LS help) to have these areas dredged because of low water.

We consider ourselves as long time residents and therefore feel very strong that

any costs should be distributed amongst all who live and enjoy our Lambton

Shores community. We had a brief discussion on the above with Elizabeth at the

meeting. If there needs to be any action to reduce or avoid flooding from ice

jams it should be paid on tax basis for all residents of the community of Lambton

Shores. The river and lake are for the enjoyment of all people. Funding should

be limited to proper monitoring of weather and ice conditions, maintenance and

remedial work on an event basis as required. Proposed large projects seem to

be unreliable and therefore wasteful.

Our family has owned the cottage at 7526 Riverside Drive since back in the

1960’s. To the best of our recollection, we have never been affected in all those

years by flooding. We are much closer to the mouth than the “affected area”

residents.

Ultimately, should the council decide to proceed, my father and I have a serious

concern about how this major project is to be funded. What perplexes us is the

cost sharing model in which for this project, i.e. just those who “directly benefit”

from the project share the cost rather than the entire tax base.

In the past, our taxes go to the board of education to fund schools, rebuild

roadways or bridges, pay for community centers in communities etc. Many of

these disbursements from the current tax base would provide us “No Direct

Benefit”, as we use our Port Franks property as a summer cottage. We agree

97

that infrastructures and other items need to be maintained and that is the

purpose of property taxes.

However, we feel that any project of this magnitude should be considered like other major expenditures, and be levied across the entire tax base for Lambton Shores, not the few that may have direct impact by flooding. We may not necessarily agree with the project, but sharing it across everyone in the entire tax base makes sense. So we do not understand why in this case the rules are essentially changed. If your proposed model is adopted I think the precedent it will set is very dangerous and it will become increasingly difficult for council to manage.

Should you decide to proceed, any project of this size should be considered

across the entire tax base, not just “those directly affected”. It is very hard for me

to justify a huge tax burden when our taxes are already quite high. We use our

property for the summer only.

We own 3 properties in Port Franks. 7632 Riverside Drive, 7714 Patrick St

and 7512 Riverside Drive. We have owned 7632 since 2008 and have not had

any flooding problems. We have owned the last two for approximately 1 year and

haven't had any flooding problems but have been made aware of some flooding

in the past at 7714 Patrick St.

We believe work should be undertaken to maintain the river ie dredging and

removal of trees so that it would decrease the chance of ice jams. Would opening

up the original channel not help to give the ice somewhere else to travel in the

event it jams at the mouth? It was announced at the meeting that this river is

classified as a municipal drain, why then is it not being treated as such and be

covered under the municipal drain act.

We also own farmland that has municipal drains. We are aware that whenever

work is done on that drain, even if it's not on our actual property, we owe a

certain amount. We are fine with that and feel that is fair.

We would be willing to share the cost of this maintenance of the river based on it

being treated as a municipal drain, where as everyone that drains into it would

share the costs. If it was shared at this level it would be minimal cost to everyone

involved. If the cost of maintaining the river depth was put only to residents that

"live" adjacent to the river, it would be hard to some that are financially strapped.

There are a lot of people that enjoy the river ie boating, fishing. Looking at this

number we feel it would be unfair to only put the cost to a small group.

We are against putting a berm in area 41, this would be just a bandage not a

solution and would not give any guarantees to stop flooding. We feel the

98

municipality is putting themselves at risk of legality issues should homeowners

along this berm experience flooding problems due to the berm.

I answered yes and no to question 1 because although our property is in Plan 41

area, our house is built well above any flood level. Our garage is on the lower

level but was constructed with floods in mind – everything is raised above flood

level inside. We do not support this project.

Question 2 - Waste of $ with no guarantee

Questions 3 – chose no because I don’t believe you have a solution

My family has owned a cottage on Patrick St. for 30 years – we knew about the

possibility of flooding on the street when we bought it. It actually flooded the first

year we owned it. We have never had any significant damage to our property.

I do not believe the people who ran the meeting actually know what causes the flooding and why and how Patrick St. floods – the water does not come over the riverbank – it comes up the street. I believe it is the responsibility of each property owner on Patrick St. to do their own preventative measures to protect their own property.

Cost sharing schemes need to include all users – marinas, recreational boaters.

The cost sharing proposals are unfair. Lambton Shores taxpayers are already

paying – those affected areas would pay twice.

Scope of local dredging option did not take into account full costs - $50k/annual

maintenance is indefinite

Lambton Shores should present a dredging option – what could be done now.

Concerned that maps presented to public not current and inaccurate

Should have more resource people to answer questions at meeting

Local Dredging option

o Understanding from meeting, history and options presented

No dredging by Lambton Shores occurs annually and has not for

some time – but could be significant benefit

99

Study did not take into account measures/dredging marinas,

landowners currently undertaking annually now

o Lambton Shores should look at

What benefits/costs to tracking who doing what now

To answer could dredging & debris removal help with problems?

What costs annually?

The dredging option was not presented in a way that the $50k annual maintenance costs and $800k – 5.2M benefits warranted. Floodproof berms option

o People clearly do not want or see benefits

o I believe Lambton Shores should have communicated with this group prior

to getting to point of properties on a map & costs – that has created

mistrust of municipal government and is unnecessary

Cost Sharing – I support

It is how we get work done for public good and happens now as part of

taxes paid to Lambton Shores. I am concerned that Lambton Shores has

thwarted discussion of options for cost sharing by having only 2 options to

consider. 500 people out to a public meeting is excellent – even when

concerns are raised. Keep the momentum send an update and what next

steps are.

This is NOT ice management.

In all the years that we have been at Port Franks, we have paid taxes and

received little benefit from them. Many thousands of dollars have been

paid by Armstrong East to arrange for dredging, that we have needed.

Now you are asking us to pay for a protection for some other community –

both capital and yearly maintenance. We love the land and are good

stewards of our community, but the limited objective and financial burden

seem poor conceived and unfair financially. We are most disappointed.

I just received my notice from ABCA and Lambton Shores about the ways

to alleviate the flooding problem. They mentioned 2 ways to handle it. 1.

To dredge the Ausable cut. 2. Build berms in Pt Franks.

DREDGE THE CUT! Can they not remember the fiasco that the cut caused? It was proven that the rivers (all along the Lake Huron coast. wonder SOUTH. They will not stay straight unless controlled or

100

canalized. I had a cottage on the island that as eventually lost because the cut began to widen and turn south, ultimately exposing my land to the vicious north winds where the sand was eroded and the cottage was undercut and destroyed. My thought would be to dredge the RIVER and especially the mouth and the slough where the weeds are high. "Don't fool with Mother Nature". I will be out of the country at the time of the meeting. I just hope there will be people who remember the devastating results of "The Cut" Not only did I repeat the catastrophic results of the demise of my house on Chicken Island, I continued by saying that the "Cut" will also close up with ice, just as the mouth of the river. The benefits of the changing of "Mother Nature" will be negligible to the flood-prone areas of Port Franks. Unless the mouth of the river and debris in the approach to the mouth are cleared, the ice will still block the passage of water. (The ABCA admitted that they have not dredged at the mouth). This is the place to start. My other point goes to the source of the problem. Port Franks people are willing and able to handle the possibility of flood OF THEIR OWN AMOUNT OF WATER. But, it is the huge volume of water draining from the vast number of acres in the basin upstream added to normal flow that causes the problem. Why should the people in Port Franks be taxed (and that is what it is.. a tax) for the effects of other people's water? It seems to me that the one-time cost of a Municipal or Provincial dam which can double as water storage and conservation could be a viable solution. Eliminate the cost of the Cut. Eliminate cost of the berm. Eliminate dynamite. Instead, do an initial debris removal and deeper dredging at the mouth with smaller maintenance yearly. That would be the way to go. All the other approached are "band aids".

I maintain my property to the best of my ability. People that bought along

the river have the responsibility to maintain their property! Some of these

people rent docking space to boaters. Let them use this money to repair

and prevent any flooding. We that do not live along the water and cannot

even walk down the river or sit and enjoy rivers. If taxes or any cost of

living here rises i will not be able to afford to live in my home. I have only

my government cheque to live on (monthly).

101

Questions/comments looking for answers Wayne Nelson – 10121 Victoria Street, Port Franks

1. Mike Gregory of AECOM stated that the “Proposed Cost Sharing Formula” would

be shared by the “Municipality”, where “all taxpayers in Lambton Shores” will

share the cost at 0.45 (TPC-G) is this true? Or just those in the “Study Area”?

2. Will there be a plebiscite to decide to proceed or NOT?

Pat Edgerton – 7686 Edward Lane Port Franks If approximately 10% of my land is in the “flood zone” does that mean that my cost allocation would reflect that (in the dredging option)? Have you looked at purchasing dredging equipment – perhaps sharing the cost with other are “parts” ex. Grand Bend, Goderich etc. – and maintaining the river mouths on a regular basis? Carol Brooks – 7696 Edward Lane, Port Franks When we bought our property we were not on flood plain. Why am I now? Maybe meters at all the Marina’s would help out for the cost of maintaining the river – the seasonal boaters should be paying – user pay. If I am now considered a flood plain, does this affect my Insurance? Mark & Nancy Murdock – 10131 Port Franks Estate Dr, Port Franks Flooding in no way will affect our property and consequently we do not feel that we should be asked to share in the cost. We did not choose to live along the water’s edge. From comments at this meeting I’m not sure if your solutions would even be a good “longterm” solution. I agree that boaters should be considered as well. It seems they would benefit the most. This presentation was not that helpful. Presenters were not even listening to concerned residents at times. Even laughing as people were trying to speak. Very rude!! Please confirm the degree to which our property is affected. Our cell (519) 872-7228. Scott & Alice Kelley – 9983 Goosemarsh Trail, Grand Bend Need more information. Think another meeting needed for public with council as well addressing questions. Public should have a vote in the decisions. How often are flood plains evaluated? Perhaps the whole area needs to be looked at with new eyes. Please make sure we are on your mailing list as didn’t receive notice of this meeting, even though all our neighbours did. Beate (Betty) Urbanski – 7747 & 7787 Riverside Drive, Port Franks Our seasonal trailer park has not been affected by an ice jam to my knowledge, but by flooding. Ice jams can also cause flooding. We have mud creek in the back which needs attention as well. Not just for our property as well as others along the creek. Please contact us 243-2461.

102

Howard Beaudoin – 7757 Alfred Street, Port Franks Are my properties considered as being in the benefitting area? I am not supportive of any berms or dredging. Not the answer to this problem. Woods – 7564 Gilnochie Walkway, Port Franks (Chicken Island) Given the location of this property, believe that municipal levy is already contributing to ice management and harbour maintenance not to mention contribution to Bendway Weirs. Is this property in the flood plain or beside the flood plain? How many residents were mailed this letter – 780? Brad Boyd – 9977 Richmond Lane, Port Franks Please confirm and contact me that I would not be in scope for this. My property is on a very high hill in Richmond Park – 226-785-9189. Thanks to everyone for the detailed history and presentation. Frank – 9905 Prince Phillip, Thedford (Walden South)

1. Are you guaranteeing no more flooding?

2. Are you saying my property value will rise?

3. Will I still be required to get ABCA approval?

Doris & Jim Kaempf – Farmland off “B” concession Consider “Dredging” as best option. If draining maintenance occurs what effect(s) will this have on the wetlands in old Ausable river? Berm? or Berms? Will we as owners share the cost of all at the exclusion of other parties, eg. Province of Ontario (Pinery) and other public organizations. What bases will be used for cost sharing? What part if any will the Provincial Park be responsible for? Why was Mud Creek & Golden Creek not part of this study? Land by Highway 21 & Camp Ipperwash is flooded almost every year & is a close area. Doris Kaempf 519-786-4551. Barbara Flannigan – 9937 Ontario Street, Port Franks Would my property be subject to any tax increase for this project? Ron Stratton – 7764 Patrick St., Port Franks We have been here since 1955 (family). We have been flooded many times. We know this we have built our buildings so that they are above flood level. We have never lost anything of value due to flooding. I invite you to come and see how we deal with this. Who is most concerned about this? Property owners? Boater? Doris Simone – 7445 Sanderson Road, Port Franks Doesn’t affect my property. I have a well that is completely empty. There has been flooding. Please call to tell me how this is going to affect my property 243-0196. I bought a very expensive property that doesn’t flood.

103

Dwayne Montgomery – 10127 Port Franks Estate Drive, Port Franks Please would like to know how my property is in the flood zone? It is on top of a sand dome forty feet above water, 2 blocks away. I get no benefit from this project. Please take elevation of property into consideration. Bonnie Densmore Geens – 10006 Urlin Cres, Port Franks Port Franks has a marina that generates revenue. We also generate revenue via beach parking tickets. Why can funds not be directed to offset the costs. Why not access marina’s more as they are direct benefiters. By increased potential revenue. Is 10006 Urlin considered flood plain? Les Anderson – 10015 Urlin Cres., Port Franks My home is on the highest elevation. Why did I get a letter? Please reply. Gail & Norm Harris – 7571 Biddulph St, Port Franks Question would like answered – one question is our residence is Biddulph deemed flood plain. Question asked indicated OMB hearing said NO it is not. Is it or is it not? I suspect not and do not see why I should be paying for something of no value to my property. Deb & Mark Lake – 7388 Dolway Drive, Port Franks Why should we share in the cost of flood control when we are not impacted at all. If you check our addresses & note our height of the land you will see that if water impacts us, all of Lambton Shores will be under water! We don’t live in a high risk area – we are in a NO RISK AREA! Totally unfair! Our elevation should be taken into consideration. I need to hear from you regarding our specific address. [email protected] L. Morrison – 7407 Sanderson Road, Port Franks My property backs onto Mud Creek (flood plain on creek) is that the same as river flood plain? I bought the property knowing it’s location and am well aware I may endure problems. I deal with sane and know that it required a lot of maintenance…my choice. People who bought on the river know the risks and should deal with them it should in no way be a burden on all the residents of PF!! Why were homes allowed to be on the flood plain rivers edge. What are we paying taxes…please remind me! Have other communities have had this issue and what have they done? Surely there are other possibilities!! Who makes the decision? And do we actually know they will work? Or will there be more studies (once this fail) and more money required? Where does it end? Bill Veitch – 7617 Biddulph Street, Port Franks Of the 2 alternatives, the dredging alternative is the most reasonable option. Provincial funding should be required first before proceeding with projects. Assessment costs & allocations need to be very carefully removed before the assessments are made. Appears to be a number of errors. How can I find out whether our property is in the

104

assessment area or not? The map is not fine. 45% of the project costs are proposed from the general tax base. Will there be notification of this? How will ongoing maintenance be allocated? Please reply to: [email protected] . Nancy Densmore – 9943 Nipigon St. Port Franks Please provide $ figure grant to ABCA in 2004. Identify what has been used for what and what balance is left over. Clear that Council by decision was unavailable to be questioned. Why did council feel it was appropriate to hide their decisions/ideas etc at a public information meeting. The public remains UNINFORMED and council appears suspect. Jim McCulloch - I attended the presentation and had the following comments but didn’t manage to get a comment sheet.

1. Do I own property that has been affected? Yes, I have owned the property for only 3 years and it has not flooded since I owned it. The January 2011 ice jam reached the top of the bank but did not reach the house.

2. Yes, work should be undertaken. 3. Am I willing to share the cost …based on the formula presented? No? I am

willing to share the cost, but I don’t believe that this is an appropriate formula. Am I willing to pay anything? Yes, of course.

4. Comments? The reason for ice damming being a problem, in my humble opinion, arise from several causes,

the previous dredging and re-routing projects. Before the river was re-routed in 1870 and 1949, the water was released slowly from Lake Burwell and the ice melted in place, held by the meandering route to the river mouth. Water levels did vary, but flooding would not have been as severe in the river mouth areas. The current straight path allows for faster draining and the ice is not held in place while it thaws so it rushes downriver with the spring flood and jams up at wherever it encounters an obstruction.

The nature of the ‘new’ watercourse established in 1949 is still continuing to evolve, some of the processes move on a geological timescale and the river is still adjusting to its new course. One of these ‘adjustments’ is the erosion of the riverbanks and transportation of this sediment to other areas of the channel, we should expect that this will be an on-going process. (of course climate change, lake level, upstream development and socio-economic effects impact the watercourse as well)

The re-routing of the river and draining of Lake Burwell has resulted in increased silt transportation downriver. Any silt stirred up by floodwaters would have settled in the lake and would not have been carried downriver.

Tilling and farming in the (former) Lake Burwell area have greatly increased the amount of silt runoff into the watercourse.

105

The installation of field drainage tile in these farmed areas has again increased the amount of silt drained into the river.

o I grew up cottaging on the river (and did a lot of swimming in it) and have been mostly away from the area for 35 years. I am now again living on the river and it is astounding to see how much more silt there is in the water.

The bends in the river near the mouth and the mouth itself are by their nature restrictive and more difficult for ice and water flows to negotiate. Removal of the restrictions to flow upstream that are current problem areas will most likely result in freer flow of ice and water to the mouth of the river, potentially resulting in increased risk of damming and flooding nearer the mouth. (my guess is that the area around the conservation area will become the biggest problem)

What are we doing to ensure that we are not creating a larger flooding problem downriver? It appears that the ‘benefitting properties’ identified are only the areas currently subject to flooding. Since the whole watershed and especially the agricultural areas of the former Lake Burwell area benefitted by the draining of the lake and subsequent conversion to agricultural uses, why have these areas not been identified as ‘benefitting properties’? I understand that the watercourse is regulated by both the Drains Act and Navigable waterways regulations and that the Drains Act essentially distributes costs associated with drains maintenance to all of the properties drained.

Why would this act not be applicable in this case? If downstream properties are being flooded, clearly the ‘drain’ needs maintenance. Why would the municipality want to come up with a scheme differing from accepted practice to fund the drain maintenance project?

Should the maintenance of the navigable portions of the waterway not be considered at the same time as the maintenance to reduce the risk of flooding? There is considerable overlap in both benefit and the work required. Sorry for the ling-winded comments, please give me a call should you wish to discuss, Thanks, Jim 519 243-3327

Lisa DeCaluwe – 7774 Patrick St., Port Franks Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for responding to the questions asked. My first question is, why was the ABCA hired, what problem were they trying to solve? Is it the water entering our properties? Is it the ice jamming at the Plan 41 and Lazy acres? Is it the mouth of the river jamming? I live on Patrick St. and I have experienced the ice jamming many times over the years. The water enters in at the three parks and then travels down the road and enters into

106

the properties. If we stop the water entering in at the parks the property would not flood. The problem is that by stopping the water entering at the parks with a berm or any other solution you just force the water to enter at a different location along the river. Controlling the flow of the water and addressing the jams of the ice when it occurs would stop the water entering into the parks and ultimately stopping the damage caused by a flood. Hiring the ABCA to come up with a solution they must be gives the issues at hand. Jamming of ice is not the issue it is the result. Just like the flooding is not the issue it is the result. The issue the ABCA must deal with is the water not being able to flow into the lake. Therefore if the water can enter the lake it will not flood the properties. My next questions is about dredging what has been done at the mouth of the river and on the river this year, what purpose does this have? What has been the cost of dredging? What has been the result of this dredging? Is there a budget in place for dredging? If these questions cannot be answered by the Ice Management Team please forward to the appropriate person. Thank You Again for your time. Cathy Jones – 7563 Biddulph St., Port Franks In 1985, due to a professor’s study based on Hurricane Hazel that hit the Humber Valley in Toronto in 1954, Bosanquet Twp. and the ABCA changed many of the properties to flood plains, including ours. Because of the protests from property owners, several OMB hearings were held, chaired by Mr. Thompson and the flood plains designation was reversed. I heard at that time that “they” wanted to make Port Franks the biggest small craft harbour between Tobermory and Sarnia. Our property has never been flooded since we built in 1962. Our property, and other properties adjacent to ours, were changed to commercial property. We then had this changed to residential. Because of this study the Bosanquet Twp. purchased a hovercraft that was stored on a nearby property to be used in emergency situations. The hovercraft could only be operated by someone with a pilot’s licence. If a storm hit, they would have to get the hovercraft with the pilot to Port Franks that MIGHT be able to take two prone victims at a time out of harms way. To my knowledge, this hydro plane had never been used in a flooding situation and has since been sold. Also purchased at taxpayers expense was the Northside, with 3 pods, to blow the silt and make the river pliable for boaters. Questions:

What was the purpose of the 1985 OMB hearing if it was going to be ignored?

When did the property revert back to floodplains? and why were we not advised?

107

If this Ice Management Cost Sharing effect comes in to being, will you also assess boaters indirectly through the Marinas since they are also benefiting from the dredging?

Before going ahead with any plans, will you notify us in dollars and cents as to how much it will cost individually?

In 1986, after the Paragon Engineering Limited investigation into methods to alleviate flooding and erosion problems, the ABCA and the township proposed works that would involve removing natural constrictions in the river channel which increase the risk of ice jam formation, and the raising of localized depressions in the banks along the Cut to prevent flood waters from overflowing the main channel area. Has this ever been conducted?

In 1988, MacLaren Engineering in a report to ABCA concluded that the flood elevations within the study area under major runoff conditions could not be determined by back-water modelling, as the area is essentially a large natural reservoir. Can this area be utilized in the prevention of flooding?

In November of 2006, construction was completed at Armstrong West erosion control. We had purchased property on Shipwreck Walk prior to 1962. Most of this property was submerged. Thankfully we did not build on it. We did not go to the municipality or the ABCA to be reimbursed for this or to arrest the erosion of our property. We suffered the loss.

Because of the elevation near, around our property, if there was a major flood, we would be hit by Mud Creek before being hit by the Ausable. What is being done with Mud Creek? Was that taken into consideration of the Ice Management?

May I respectfully suggest that another alternative solution would be to take advantage of the natural reservoirs supplied by Mother Nature and not try to change what is already there. Revert Lake Smith and Lake Burwell back into wetlands. It would involve purchasing the fields back from the farmers but working with nature rather than against nature is always good practice.

108

109

110

111

112

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 143 – 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Dredging Equipment Purchase – Cost Benefit Analysis RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 143-2013 regarding “Dredging Equipment Purchase – Cost Benefit Analysis” be received; and THAT that Lambton Shores continue to contract annual spot dredging work rather than purchase dedicated equipment and deliver this service in-house.

REPORT Summary This report presents a cost benefit analysis relating to the possible purchase of dredging equipment for municipal use. The purchase is not supported based on this analysis. Background During review of the 2013 ABCA budget, and in relation to the proposed ice management program, Council passed the following motion:

12-1203-28 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis Dagg Seconded by: Councillor Underwood

That as a result of the anticipated money coming from WECI and our investment in a special levy for ice management, Lambton Shores Council direct staff of the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority to do an investigation on the potential of investing in dredging equipment in partnership with other municipalities that would have sand build up problems. Carried

A cost and benefit analysis has been completed to determine if there will be an overall benefit from this service delivery approach. As a part of the analysis, information was collected to determine the existing local demand for dredging work, and to determine if this demand is met by the current supply of contract services. Information on the demand for work was collected from two sources. First, a survey was sent to 31 publicly owned and operated marinas in Ontario. Thirteen responses were received, and it was determined that only the only public marinas requiring work within a reasonable drive from Lambton Shores are Bayfield and Kincardine.

113

Missing from this survey was information related to privately operated marinas in nearby locales such as Goderich and Sarnia. To capture this information, the ABCA requested information from their local counterparts related to the number of dredging permits that are issued on an annual basis in locations that are within an hour drive of Lambton Shores. In addition, information was requested to determine which contractors were completing the work to determine if there was an opportunity to break into those markets. Based on the results of the two surveys it appears as though there is a limited market for available local work each spring within an hour drive of Lambton Shores. In addition, the current market appears to be fully served by private contractors who are able to keep up with the demand for work. To benefit from this market, the Municipality would have to compete directly with private service providers. Perhaps most importantly, a key factor affecting any decision is the permitted regulatory windows allowed for dredging. The primary window of opportunity for dredging occurs annually in the first two weeks of may just prior to the boating season. The ABCA advises that the majority of dredging work in the area occurs in this window. It is within this timeframe that Lambton Shores completes its own dredging program, with the work typically taking the full two weeks. As a result, Lambton Shores would not be able to offer or share services with other locations during the time when it is most needed. Based on these market factors, the cost benefit analysis was completed with the assumption that the purchase of dredging equipment would be solely for Lambton Shores purposes, and that no additional revenue or cost avoidances would be gained by selling services to other locations or sharing the equipment with another local marina. The complete analysis is attached as Appendix 1. Presented in the analysis are two separate scenarios of benefits with and without an active ice management program. The following is a summary of the costs and benefits:

Total expected 10-year costs: = $1,810,000 Total expected 10-year benefit if there is no ice management included: = $600,000

Total expected 10-year benefit if there if annual ice management included: = $1,100,000

The analysis shows that the program will not pay for itself if brought in house by the Municipality. At the present time it is more cost effective for Lambton Shores to continue to contract out this work. Alternatives to Consider No other alternatives were considered outside of purchasing equipment, versus not purchasing equipment. The analysis attached to this report presents Council’s directed option of the possibility of purchasing dredging equipment in partnership with a local municipality. As noted above, the ability to share is limited by the regulatory period when work can occur, so it is not likely that a sharing arrangement would work. 114

Recommended Action Staff recommends that Lambton Shores continue to contract annual spot dredging work rather than purchase dedicated equipment and deliver this service in-house. Financial Impact Lambton Shores budgets approximately $48,000 - $60,000 on an annual basis to complete spot dredging in the municipal harbours. On the basis of the recommendation this annual cost will continue to be budgeted subject to Council approval. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Attachments:

1. Business Case Assessment – Municipal Purchase of Dredging Equipment 115

Business Case Assessment

Municipal Purchase of Dredging Equipment Problem Statement: Council has directed that municipal staff and the ABCA review the opportunity for the municipality to purchase dredging equipment for the purposes of completing the municipality’s annual spot dredging program, and to offer services to other local marinas that complete dredging. Constraints: Legislation – Applicable legislation limits all in-water maintenance work considered for this program to the approved equipment, which for Lambton Shores is an excavator from shore or from a barge. Fisheries legislation also results in an approximate effective program timing window of May 5-19, and July 1-September 30 each year with the approved window fluctuating dependent upon fish species spawning patterns. The ABCA has provided comment that the majority of work in the area occurs during the May timing window. Work Force – The type of work equipment is restricted to clam buckets, drag lines, and excavators which requires specialized equipment operators. In addition, current staff levels are insufficient to tackle any new program without negatively affecting existing service expectations. As a result of this constraint it is assumed that one new operator would have to be hired to accommodate this new program. Market Analysis: Before completing a cost benefit analysis it is important to review the existing local demand for dredging work, and to determine if this demand is met by the current supply of contract services. Information on the demand for work was collected from two sources. First, a survey was sent to 31 publicly owned and operated marinas in Ontario. Thirteen responses were received, with the following locations indicating that they complete dredging at least on a semi-regular basis ranging from annually to every few years:

Municipality of Kincardine

Municipality of Bluewater

County of Prince Edward

Town of Kingsville

Town of the Blue Mountains

Town of Cobourg

Town of Whitby

Town of Saugeen Shores

116

Missing from this survey was information related to private marinas located nearby like Goderich and Sarnia. To capture this information, the ABCA requested information from their local counterparts related to the number of dredging permits that are issued on an annual basis in locations that are within an hour drive of Lambton Shores. In addition, information was requested to determine which contractors were completing the work to determine if there was an opportunity to break into those markets. The following table summarizes the findings:

Conservation Authority # Permits Issued Each Year Contractors Completing the Work

Ausable Bayfield 3 – Bayfield, Port Franks, and Grand Bend Marinas

­ Huron District Contracting ­ Overholt Excavating ­ Higgs Excavating

Saugeen Valley 1 – Kincardine Port Elgin and South Hampton are also dredged, but are federally operated so no permits required.

­ Willy’s Contracting Co.

St. Clair Region 10 – Various locations including Sarnia

­ Pete’s Marine ­ Huron District Contracting

Lower Thames Valley 2/3 – Lighthouse Cove, Rondeau Bay

­ Colby Marine ­ Pete’s Marine ­ Goodreau Contracting ­ Crow’s Construction ­ Shank’s Construction

Kettle Creek 1 – Port Stanley ­ Unknown

Based on the results of the two surveys it appears as though there is a limited market of available local work each spring within an hour drive of Lambton Shores. In addition, the current market of work appears to be fully served by private contractors who are able to keep up with the demand for work. In addition, the primary window of opportunity for dredging occurs in the May 5-19 window prior to the boating season. The ABCA has offered that the majority of dredging work in the area occurs in this window. It is within this timeframe that Lambton Shores completes its own dredging program, with the work typically taking the full two weeks. As a result, Lambton Shores would not be able to offer services to other locations in this time frame, and would only be available to complete work in the summer approval period during which little work occurs. In addition, this timing window would not allow for the equipment to be shared with another local municipality as both would need the equipment at the same time. Based on these market factors, the cost benefit analysis presented below with the assumption that the purchase of dredging equipment would be solely for Lambton Shores purposes, and that no additional revenue will be generated from selling services to other locations. 117

Cost Benefit Analysis: The cost benefit analysis below has been completed over an assumed 10 year replacement life of the equipment. A discussion of the identified costs, and benefits is presented. Costs Please note, the approach to this analysis has been to identify the known direct costs of the program as they relate to equipment and purchasing. What is not fully understood and included at this time are ancillary costs such as environmental site controls, costs of training, costs for expanding the program beyond the current spring dredging, etc. Equipment Purchase – Staff has collected prices for a used excavator and a used barge from local dredging contractors that have recently made this purchase. The estimated capital cost for equipment purchase is $375,000. Annual Equipment Operation & Maintenance – Costs relating to operation and maintenance of the equipment will need to be accounted for each year. This involves repairs, fuel, insurance, et cetera. To forecast this cost staff determined the current operating costs of existing heavy equipment as a percentage of their capital replacement costs. This percentage was generalized and extrapolated to this exercise, and an annual operations and maintenance cost representing 7.4% of the capital cost of equipment was calculated, or approximately $28,000 annually for an excavator and a barge. Insurance – Staff have collected the cost of equipment insurance from a local dredging contractor, and the estimated cost is $6,000. Lifecycle Replacement Costs – Due to PSAB accounting rules the Municipality is required to recognize and account for annual lifecycle maintenance costs. For this case these were calculated based on straight line depreciation over the assumed 10 year life cycle of the equipment, or $37,500 per year. Staffing Costs – As noted above, due to current staff levels and the need for a specialized operator the municipality would have to hire additional staff to operate the new equipment, and there would additional staff allocated to the program for safety reasons, administration, and planning. The annual estimated cost for staffing is $60,000. Equipment Rental Costs – The dredging program requires a dedicated dump truck throughout the duration of the work program. The work takes 14 days to complete, and is permitted 8 hours per day for a total of 112 hours. The Municipality’s current rate for a tandem dump truck and an operator is $107/hour so this would represent an annual cost of $11,984, say $12,000. This cost does not include expanding the dredging program into the summer permitting period. If the program is expanded, this cost will increase approximately $900 with each day of additional dredging. 118

Benefits Scenario 1 – No Active Ice Management Work Annual Cost Avoidance of Contracted Dredging Work – In 2013 Lambton Shores budgeted approximately $60,000 for spot dredging work. If the Municipality purchased equipment this cost would be avoided. Scenario 2 – Active Ice Management Work Annual Cost Avoidance of Contracted Dredging Work - If Council decides to move forward with an active ice management program there is an estimated additional $50,000 per year of dredging work that is required in addition to the $60,000 currently budgeted. This would represent a total cost avoidance of $110,000. Benefits Not Considered – As noted previously, there appears to be limited to no ability to break into the contracted dredging services market based on the current level of demand and available supply of services. As such, the cost benefit analysis assumes that no additional revenue will be generated by way of selling services. Also, additional cost avoidances that would be gained thought possibly using an excavator for other services have not been considered. The analysis is strictly for the program of dredging only. That is not to say that if the municipality purchased an excavator that it could not be used for other functions such as ditching, however this extended use of the equipment would incur additional, and significant, capital costs such as the purchase of a tractor trailer truck and a float to move the equipment from site to site. To include this in the analysis a further detailed analysis of these costs and benefits would be required. For the purpose of this program review, only the costs and benefits of the dredging program are presented. The following table presents the summary of the costs and benefits: 119

Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total

Equipment Purchase $375,000 $375,000

Annual operation and maintenance $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $280,000

Lifecycle Replacement Costs $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 $375,000

Insurance $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $60,000

Staffing Costs $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $600,000

Equipment Rental Costs $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $120,000

Total $518,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $143,500 $1,810,000

Total Program Costs

Benefits - Scenario 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total

Annual contractor cost avoidance $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $600,000

Total Program Benefits (Scenario 1)

Benefits - Scenario 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total

Annual contractor cost avoidance $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $1,100,000

Total Program Benefits (Scenario 2)

$1,810,000

$600,000

$1,100,000

120

Conclusion This study has found that there is a limited market of available local work each spring within an hour drive of Lambton Shores. In addition, the current market of work appears to be fully served by private contractors who are able to keep up with the demand for work. To break into this market the Municipality would have to compete directly with private service providers, which is not recommended The primary window of opportunity for dredging occurs in the May 5-19 window prior to the boating season. Because Lambton Shores would need to dredge its own locations during this timeframe, Lambton Shores would not be able to offer services to other locations in this period and would only be available to complete work for other locations during the summer approval period during which little work occurs. In addition, this timing window would not allow for the equipment to be shared with another local municipality as both would need the equipment at the same time. Based on these market factors, the cost benefit analysis was completed with the assumption that the purchase of dredging equipment would be solely for Lambton Shores purposes, and that no additional revenue will be generated from selling services to other locations. On this basis, the program will not pay for itself if brought in house by the Municipality, with or without active ice management work. At the present time it is more cost effective for Lambton Shores to continue to contract out this work.

121

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

PL Report No. 48-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner RE: Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council receive the 5th Draft of the Lambton Shores Official Plan for discussion; and

THAT in order to keep the public informed and engaged, it is recommended that Council approve the following actions:

1. That Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be

placed on the Municipal Website;

2. That the public be advised on the Municipal website that Compact Disk copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan are available from the Planner upon request;

3. That the public be advised on the Municipal website that any comments or questions respecting Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be forwarded in writing to the Planner;

4. That a copy of the anticipated schedule for the Official Plan review process as approved by Council on October 3, 2013 be placed on the Municipal website.

5. That printed copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be placed in all Lambton Shores Municipal offices and libraries.

REPORT

Summary

This report:

presents the 5th Draft of the Lambton Shores Official Plan to Council for receipt and discussion;

recommends that the 5th Draft of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be placed on the Municipal website; 122

recommends that certain actions be taken in order to keep the public informed and engaged in the Official Plan review process;

outlines the planning framework on which the guiding principles of the Official Plan are based;

provides for clarification and discussion on some Provincial Policy Statement definitions.

Background Receipt of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan and Public Engagement In keeping with the time frame recommended by Staff and approved by Council on October 3, 2013 for the advancement of the 5th Draft of the Lambton Shores Official Plan, on October 17, 2013 Council was provided a copy of the following information:

A copy of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan

The Official Plan Steering Committee Agendas and Minutes

Correspondence received to date for the Draft Official Plan

Population and Land Inventory Reports

Residential Land Inventory

Due to the amount and complexity of the information, it was provided in advance of the November 7th meeting to allow Council time to review the information. Staff, now recommend that:

Council receives for discussion, Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan. Further, in order to keep the public informed and engaged, Staff recommends that:

Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be placed on the Municipal Website;

That the public be advised on the Municipal website that cd copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan are available from the Planner on request;

That the public be advised on the Municipal website that any comments or questions respecting Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official plan be forwarded in writing to the Planner;

That a copy of the anticipated schedule for the Official Plan review process as approved by Council on October 3, 2003 be placed on the Municipal website.

That copies of Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan be placed in all Lambton Shores Municipal offices and libraries.

123

Planning Framework

Over the past few months, staff has prepared a number of presentations and reports on Planning intended to provide a framewok for Council to conduct an Official Plan review. We have discussed the Ontario Planning Act, The Provincial Policy Statement, the subdivision approval process, and the Official Plan review process to date. We have discussed the policy direction set by the Province for planning in Ontario and the need for planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Prior to the Official Plan review process being initiated, Council established a number of guiding principles for the new Official Plan. The guiding principles were based on a number of documents and issues including Council’s Strategic Plan, identified issues with development and the current Official Plan and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and Planning Act. At that time, the Lambton Shores Strategic Plan stated:

The Official Plan and Zoning By-law for Lambton Shores is revised to ensure the protection of vital natural areas, agricultural areas and tourism assets and to guide and direct future growth in a sustainable way.”

Jointly, Council and staff identified a number of Official Plan issues including:

Development staging

Environmental policies

Development on septic tank

Port Franks, West Bosanquet, Ipperwash

Land use designations along Highway 21 (mixed commercial/residential)

Concept on access to Highway 21

Development standards

Agricultural severance Policy

As a result, the following guiding principles were established for the new Lambton Shores Official Plan:

To Protect the Natural Environment

To Protect Agricultural Lands

To provide for Development which is the extension of Existing Urban(settlement) Areas

To Permit New Development only on Municipal Water and Sanitary Sewers

The Lambton Shores Official Plan is a consolidation of the 5 municipalities which amalgamated in 2001 to create the Municipality of Lambton Shores. While not perfect, the current official plan has provided adequate policy direction for planning decisions since amalgamation. However, as Council is aware, it does not reflect some of the planning policies embraced in the 2005 PPS and it needs to better reflect the nature of our amalgamated municipality and its attributes. The current plan does not address the Community as a whole.

124

The population projections prepared as a basis for OP review, projected a population increase over the 20 year life of the New Official Plan, of approximately 3,150 people. From that projection, a residential land requirement calculation was completed and assuming development will be on full municipal services, it was determined that approximately 1,375 new lots or 200 acres of land was necessary for development over the 20 year life of the Official Plan. At the present time, Lambton Shores has a significant surplus of residential land including approximately 1,115 lots in registered/draft approved plans of subdivision and more than 7,320 potential lot/units on lands currently designated for residential uses. Since only 1,375 new lots are required over the next 20 years, no new residential land is designated in the Plan. At their September 23, 2011 meeting, the Official Plan Steering Committee discussed the Planning framework explained above, including the following clarifications:

No new designation of residential land due to significant land surplus;

Growth directed to urban settlement areas;

Highway 21 Gateway is designated future development but will be allowed one new dwelling per existing lot;

Other minor infilling on existing lots, no new lot creation in Port Franks, Northville and Ipperwash;

Municipal water and sewage are being planned within a 20 year planning time frame for West Bosanquet. No new development until municipal services provided, only infilling on existing lots;

Municipal sanitary sewage not being considered within the 20 year planning time frame for Port Franks and Ipperwash;

Council’s direction that the Committee not make a recommendation on wastewater services in zones 3 and 4, so these items will be forward to Council as written;

and passed a motion accepting the Planning Framework as noted above.

Provincial Policy Statement Clarifications Before we proceed with discussion at the November 7th meeting on the major changes proposed in the Draft 5 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan, it is necessary to clarify some misunderstanding or confusion respecting some of the definitions and policies in the Provincial Policy Statement, particularly as they relate to community structure, areas for growth and servicing. The following is intended to clarify for Council, how some of the PPS policies and definitions apply to Lambton Shores and how they impact the New Official Plan. 125

Community Structure There has been some reference made that Lambton Shores is considered to be a rural area under the PPS. This is actually not the case. The PPS defines Rural Areas as follows:

Rural areas: means lands in the rural area which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas.

A “Settlement Area” is defined in the PPS as follows:

Settlement areas: means urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets) that are:

a. built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; and

b. lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long term planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2. In cases where land in designated growth areas is not available, the settlement area may be no larger than the area where development is concentrated.

“Prime Agricultural Areas” are defined in the PPS as follows:

Prime agricultural area: means areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. This includes: areas of prime agricultural lands and associated Canada Land Inventory Class 4-7 soils; and additional areas where there is a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture. Prime agricultural areas may be identified by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food using evaluation procedures established by the Province as amended from time to time, or may also be identified through an alternative agricultural land evaluation system approved by the Province.

“Prime agricultural land” is defined in the PPS as follows: Prime agricultural land: means land that includes specialty crop areas and/or Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, and 3 soils, in this order of priority for protection.

In the Canada Land Inventory System there are seven capability classes. Soils descend in quality from Class 1, which is highest, to Class 7 soils which have no agricultural capability for the common field crops. The map below shows the land classifications in Lambton Shores.

126

Lands in Lambton Shores are predominately Class 1 and 2. All lands in Lambton Shores lie within the CLI Classifications 1 to 7 and as such, Lambton Shores is a prime agricultural area as defined by the PPS. The balance of the land outside of the prime agricultural areas are generally built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; or are lands that have been designated in the Official Plan for development over the long term or are natural heritage or hazard lands. There is little if any land in Lambton Shores that would be considered to be a rural area under the PPS.

Settlement Areas Some reference has been made that the PPS does not require development to be located in settlement areas. Section 1.1.3 of the PPS “Settlement Areas” states:

1.1.3.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.

127

Servicing

Reference has been made to the substantial number of options provided by the Provincial Policy Statement for servicing. Section 1.6.4.1 of the PPS states:

Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be integrated with planning for growth so that these are available to meet current and projected needs.

Further, Section 1.6.4 “Sewage and Water” of the PPS states:

Planning for sewage and water services shall: a. direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that promotes the efficient

use of existing: 1. municipal sewage services and municipal water services; and 2. private communal sewage services and private communal water services, where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not available;

b. ensure that these systems are provided in a manner that: 1. can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely; 2. is financially viable and complies with all regulatory requirements; and 3. protects human health and the natural environment;

c. promote water conservation and water use efficiency;

d. integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning

process; and

e. subject to the hierarchy of services provided in policies 1.6.4.2, 1.6.4.3 and 1.6.4.4, allow lot creation only if there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity within municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services. The determination of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity shall include treatment capacity for hauled sewage from private communal sewage services and individual on-site sewage services.

The PPS defines “Reserve Sewage System Capacity” as follows:

means design or planned capacity in a centralized waste water treatment

facility which is not yet committed to existing or approved development. For

the purposes of policy 1.6.4.1(e), reserve capacity for private communal sewage

services and individual on-site sewage services is considered sufficient if the

hauled sewage from the development can be treated or disposed of at sites

approved under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water

Resources Act, but not by land-applying untreated, hauled sewage;

128

And “Reserve Water System Capacity” as follows:

means design or planned capacity in a centralized water treatment facility which is not yet committed to existing or approved development.

The Hierarchy of servicing referred to above is defined in the following Sections of the PPS.

Section 1.6.4.2 of the PPS states: Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas. Intensification and redevelopment within settlement areas on existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services should be promoted, wherever feasible.

Further, Section 1.6.4.3 of the PPS states:

Municipalities may choose to use private communal sewage services and private communal water services, and where policy 1.6.4.4 permits, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services, where: a) municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not provided; and

b) the municipality has established policies to ensure that the services to be provided

satisfy the criteria set out in policy 1.6.4.1.

The PPS defines ‘Private Communal Sewage Services” as follows:

means a sewage works within the meaning of Section 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act that serves six or more lots or private residences and is not owned by a municipality, and

“Private Communal Water Services” as:

means a non-municipal drinking-water system within the meaning of Section 2 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 that serves six or more lots or private residences.

Further,” Individual On-site Sewage Services” and “Individual On-site Water Services”, are defined in the PPS as follows;

Individual On-site Sewage Services: means individual, autonomous sewage disposal systems within the meaning of s.8.1.2, O.Reg. 403/97, under the Building Code Act, 1992 that are owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located.

Individual on-site water services: means individual, autonomous water supply systems that are owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located.

129

Section 1.6.4.4 of the PPS states:

Individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services shall be used for a new development of five or less lots or private residences where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided and where site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. Despite this, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used to service more than five lots or private residences in rural areas provided these services are solely for those uses permitted by policy 1.1.4.1(a) and site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services.

Individual on-site sanitary and water servicing are permitted for new development of 5 lots or less. Lots supporting private on-site sewage and water services are generally at least 1 acre in size in sandy soil areas and 2 areas in size in clay soil areas. It is difficult to be consistent with the direction in Section 1.1,1, 1.12 and 1.1.3 of the PPS and promote efficient use of lands and intensification where lots sizes are required to be this large. This form of serving can continue to be used to service existing lots where municipal or communal serves are not provided. The last form of servicing addressed in the servicing hierarchy of the PPS is “Partial Services”: “Partial Services” are defined in PPS as follows;

“Partial Services: means a. municipal sewage services or private communal sewage services and individual on-site water services; or b. municipal water services or private communal water services and individual on-site sewage services.

Section 1.6.4.5 of the PPS starts that:

Partial services shall only be permitted in the following circumstances: a. where they are necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services in existing development; and b. within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and rounding out of existing development on partial services provided that:

1. the development is within the reserve sewage system capacity and reserve

water system capacity; and

2. site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services.

130

I would conclude that the PPS is clear that partial services are not encouraged. Again and for the same reason that private onsite sewage and water services are not encouraged, lots serviced by partial services are generally at least ½ to 1 acre in size in sandy soil areas and 2 acres in size in clay soil areas. It is difficult to be consistent with the direction in Section 1.1,1, 1.12 and 1.1.3 of the PPS and promote efficient use of lands and intensification where lots sizes are required to be this large. The PPS directs development to serviced settlement areas where it is possible to allow development which is consistent with Sections 1.1,1, 1.12 and 1.1.3 of the PPS and promote efficient use of lands and intensification because lot sizes and densities can be higher due to municipal and communal servicing being provided. The 5th draft of the Lambton Shores Official Plan directs development to settlement areas where municipal sewage and water can be provided. This form of servicing can continue to be used to service existing lots where municipal or communal services are not provided such as in Zones 3 and 4 and West Bosanquet. In conclusion, I hope that this provides Council with a greater understanding of how the PPS apples to Lambton Shores and how it has shaped the Draft Official Plan. Respectfully submitted,

Patti L. Richardson, Senior Planner

131

October 2013 Bluewater Recycling Association Meeting Highlights

2014 Budget

The increase for 2014 for the recycling component of the budget has been set at 1.0%. Co-collection rates are based on the CPI as of September 2013 expected to be 1.6%. Commodity revenue for 2014 is based on our current (September) prices which are at the low end at an average of $102 per tonne. Prices had started to rise at the beginning of the year before steadily declining again as a result of a soft demand. With the slow economic outlook throughout the world we were not confident in projecting anything higher. WDO grants are expected to remain about the same because of the higher provincial costs and our increase in tonnes recovered. The only other large unknown for 2014, other than commodities, are fuel prices. We continue to budget fuel at $1.00 per litre, which is low, but we will be helped with the conversion to CNG in 2014. Under processing we are expecting a reduction since there will no renovations in 2014.

Bluewater Recycling Association 2013 Budget

2013 Projection

2014 Budget $ Diff. %

Sales

Commodity Revenue 1,447,000 1,705,000 1,563,000 -142,000 -12.8%

Municipal Levy 3,614,000 3,615,000 3,665,000 50,000 1.4%

Co-Collection Revenue 2,945,000 2,967,000 3,040,000 77,000 2.6%

Grants 1,225,000 1,443,000 1,477,000 34,000 2.4%

Containerized Services 640,000 650,000 640,000 -10,000 -1.5%

Other 525,000 560,000 565,000 5,000 0.9%

Total Sales 10,196,000 10,940,000 10,950,000 10,000 0.0%

Total Cost of Goods Sold 915,000 1,010,000 1,030,000 20,000 2.0%

Gross Profit 9,481,000 9,930,000 9,920,000 -10,000 -1.9% Operating Expenses

Total Administration Expenses 705,000 742,000 730,000 -12,000 -1.6%

Total Collection Expenses 4,653,000 4,769,000 4,793,000 24,000 0.5%

Total Processing Expenses 1,331,000 1,641,000 1,608,000 -33,000 -2.0%

Total Operating Expenses 6,689,000 7,152,000 7,131,000 -21,000 -0.3%

Operating Income 2,792,000 2,778,000 2,789,000 11,000 0.4%

Total Nonoperating Expense 1,977,000 1,977,000 1,980,000 3,000 0.2%

Net Change in Cash Position 815,000 801,000 809,000 8,000 1.0% Share Price $53.86 $53.86 $54.40 $0.54 1.0%

132

Breath of Blue Box Program

The table below summarizes the number of households that receive collection of items beyond the five basic Blue Box materials (newspaper, glass, aluminum cans, steel cans and PET).

Material

Ontario Households

Having Access to Recycling

2012 Household

%

Accepted by the

Association Corrugated Containers 5,040,679 99.9% √ Boxboard 5,009,692 99.3% √ Gable Top Containers 4,742,935 94.0% √ Aseptic Cartons 5,020,402 99.5% √ Aluminum Foil 4,387,908 87.0% √ Empty Aerosol Cans 3,433,878 68.1% √ Empty Paint Cans 4,043,673 80.1% √ HDPE Containers 4,514,529 89.5% √ Other Containers 3,576,372 70.9% √ LDPE/HDPE Film 4,093,330 81.1% √ Tubs & Lids 4,337,593 86.0% √ Polystyrene Crystal 3,613,090 71.6% √ Polystyrene Foam 1,573,735 31.2% X Ontario sees significant decline in paper collection

Residents in Ontario last year put far less paper into recycling bins than they did in 2011, according to the recently released municipal recycling statistics. Waste Diversion Ontario Municipal Datacall numbers show the province's residential curbside recycling collection program brought in roughly 545,000 tons of printed paper in 2012, which represents a 2.8 percent drop from 2011. Mixed paper collection numbers saw a steeper decline, at 17.2 percent. Printed paper accounts for more than 55 percent of the total weight of the collected material, so even a drop of just a few percentage points has large repercussions on the overall volume. The decline in paper collection led to the overall volume of collected recyclables in the province falling 1.3 percent from 2011 to 2012. That decrease came despite significant volume uptick in several other materials, including aluminum and plastics. Lower tonnages of fiber entering the recycling stream is hardly unique to Ontario. Falling circulation numbers of newspapers and other traditionally printed products due to the rise of digital media has meant significantly less paper in the market. Ontario, however, did see increases in printed paper totals from 2009 to 2010 and then again from 2010 to 2011.

133

While paper volumes fell last year in Ontario, several other materials saw notable rises. Aluminum collection was up 8.7 percent, plastics increased 7.4 percent and polycoat containers, which includes gable top containers and aseptic cartons, rose 14.1 percent (but still represents less than 1 percent of total recyclables volume). Glass collection, meanwhile, fell 1.3 percent. "Packaging is moving toward lighter materials such as aluminum and plastics," a Waste Diversion Ontario spokesperson told Resource Recycling. "That’s why the glass collection numbers are down. One reason for the increase in aluminum collected could be the introduction of new beverages into the market that are being sold in aluminum cans, like energy drinks and coffees." The Ontario statistics are based on self-reporting that is required of all municipalities that receive funding and coordination through the province's curbside recycling initiative. According to the report, the program serves more than 99 percent of Ontario's population and more than 400 of the 444 municipalities in the province. The number of households participating in curbside recycling collection programs increased by 32,901 in 2012, reaching 5,046,082.

Clean Energy Becomes the Distributor of Transportational Fuel Made from Waste

Clean Energy Fuels Corp., North America’s largest provider of natural gas for transportation, announced that it will be the first company to commercially distribute a renewable natural gas vehicle fuel, called Redeem, made from waste streams such as landfills, large dairies and sewage plants directly to fleets around the country and at the 35 public Clean Energy stations throughout California. Thousands of cars, taxis, shuttles and industrial fleets in California are now using Clean Energy’s Redeem, which is up to 90% cleaner than diesel and 100% renewable. Clean Energy is staking a leadership position in the renewable fuels market through its significant investment in a natural gas fueling infrastructure, including 400 fueling stations throughout the nation, and in the development of multiple biomethane production facilities that will produce Redeem. According to California Air Resource Board estimates, Redeem sourced from landfill gas can enable up to a 90% reduction in carbon emissions when displacing diesel or gasoline in CNG. A fleet that consumes 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 9,700 metric tons by switching to Redeem, which is the equivalent of taking 1,940 passenger cars off the road per year. Redeem by Clean Energy is a renewable natural gas vehicle fuel, often referred to as biomethane. It is derived from biogenic methane or biogas, which is methane that is naturally generated by the decomposition of organic waste. Clean Energy captures and extracts methane gas from its landfills and other waste streams. The methane gas is then processed, purified and sent into the interstate natural gas pipeline and made available exclusively to Clean Energy customers. Today, Clean Energy is producing Redeem at biomethane production facilities in Dallas, Texas; Canton, Mich.; and is constructing a third facility in Millington, Tenn. with plans to develop other production facilities across the country.

134

123.0  121.4  117.7  

124.0  127.6  

132.0  130.2  124.2  

118.1  117.0  117.2  122.8  

127.4  

60.0  

70.0  

80.0  

90.0  

100.0  

110.0  

120.0  

130.0  

140.0  ¢/l  

Diesel  Price  (Retail  incl.  Tax)  

90   90  101   104   106   108  

120   119  108   105   104   101   102  

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

Sep-­‐12  

Oct-­‐12  

Nov-­‐12  

Dec-­‐12  

Jan-­‐13  

Feb-­‐13  

Mar-­‐13  

Apr-­‐13  

May-­‐13  

Jun-­‐13  

Jul-­‐13  

Aug-­‐13  

Sep-­‐13  

$/tonne  

Commodity  Prices  

135

M I N U T E S

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority BoardroomMorrison Dam Conservation Area

DIRECTORS PRESENTDave Frayne, Paul Hodgins, Burkhard Metzger, Don Shipway, Joe Steffler, Lorie Scott, Ute Stumpf,Mike Tam, Janisse Zimmerman

STAFF PRESENTAndrew Bicknell, Bev Brown, Geoff Cade, Brian Horner, Kate Monk, Judith Parker, Tom Prout,Rachael Scholten, Alec Scott

CALL TO ORDERChair Dave Frayne called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and welcomed all those in attendance.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

MOTION #BD 83/13 Moved by Paul HodginsSeconded by Ute Stumpf

“RESOLVED, THAT the agenda for the September 19, 2013 Ausable BayfieldConservation Authority Board of Directors meeting be approved.”

Carried.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTThere were no disclosures of pecuniary interest declared at this meeting or from the previous meeting.

DISCLOSURE OF INTENTION TO AUDIO/VIDEO RECORD MEETINGThere were no disclosures.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

MOTION #BD 84/13 Moved by Lorie ScottSeconded by Janisse Zimmerman

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

136

Page 2 September 12, 2013

“RESOLVED, THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on July18, 2013 and the motions therein be approved as circulated.”

Carried.

BUSINESS OUT OF THE MINUTES

Municipality Tax Analysis and Wage/Benefit RatesBrian Horner, Financial Services Supervisor presented a follow-up report from the July 18 Boardth

meeting asking for the member municipality’s wage and benefit increases in 2013. Information wasalso gathered on the tax rate increase from 2012 to 2013, including municipal growth. All membermunicipalities responded and the average results (including the growth rate) were:

2013 wage and benefit increase - 1.59%2013 available funding increase - 5.78%

The directors appreciated the information in anticipation of the upcoming 2014 budgeting process.

PROGRAM REPORTS

1. a) Development ReviewAndrew Bicknell, Regulations Coordinator prepared and presented the Development Review reportpursuant to Ontario Regulation 147/06 Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations toShorelines and Watercourses. Through the application process, proposed developments withinregulated areas are protected from flooding and erosion hazards. Staff granted permission for fourApplications for Permission and five Minor Works Permit.

1. b) Violation/Appeals UpdateNo updates.

MOTION #BD 85/13 Moved by Joe StefflerSeconded by Lorie Scott

“RESOLVED, THAT the Board of Directors affirm the approval of applicationsas presented in Program Report #1 - Development Review.”

Carried.

2. Tender Opening for Cameron Gillies Diversion RepairsAlec Scott, Water & Planning Manager presented the results of the tender call for repairs to theCameron Gillies Diversion Channel. Tenders were received from Robinson Farm Drainage Ltd.,VanDriel Excavating Inc. and A.G. Hayter Contracting Ltd. The lowest tender was submitted byRobinson Farm Drainage. However, they are unable to start the project until at least mid November2013. Due to the condition of the diversion channel control structure and the fact that high flows could

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

137

Page 3 September 12, 2013

result in a failure of that control structure causing flooding of downtown Parkhill, it is recommended toaccept the second lowest tender submitted by Van Driel Excavating.

MOTION #BD 86/13 Moved by Lorie ScottSeconded by Paul Hodgins

“RESOLVED, THAT the tender submitted by Van Driel Excavating Inc, at aprice of $65,484.39 including HST be accepted, and

FURTHER, THAT staff proceed to sign the agreement for the work and completethe project.”

Carried.

3. Carbon Offset ProgramKate Monk, Stewardship & Conservation Lands Supervisor gave a presentation on an initiative thatwas funded by the County of Huron to develop a program whereby eco-minded citizens, organizationsand businesses can voluntarily donate funding towards planting trees to compensate the environmentfor greenhouse gas emissions. The steering committee for the project includes staff from HuronCounty, Ausable Bayfield and Maitland Valley conservation authorities and Kuzuka (an Exeter basedcompany specializing in issues of carbon and sustainability). The carbon-offset program will beadministered by the conservation authorities and donations will fund tree planting projects on landsowned and controlled by the conservation authorities. A demonstration was given of the onlinecalculator being developed on the Footprints to Forests website. The number of trees required tooffset a business, organization or individual’s carbon footprint is calculated and a payment process willhelp reduce the amount of staff time to administer.

MOTION #BD 87/13 Moved by Lorie ScottSeconded by Don Shipway

“RESOLVED, THAT the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority include theCarbon Offset Program in the 2014 workplan and budget, and

FURTHER, THAT the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority include moniesin its 2014 draft budget to offset its motor pool emissions.”

Carried. 4. Port Franks Ice Management Project Public Meeting Alec Scott gave an update on the public meeting held on September 7, 2013 for residents in the PortFranks area ice management study area. The meeting was arranged by the Municipality of LambtonShores and ABCA staff facilitated. Around 550 interested residents attended to hear a cost sharingproposal for ice management and flood proofing measures to be divided between the ABCA, LambtonShores and property owners who would directly benefit through a special assessment.

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

138

Page 4 September 12, 2013

5. Watershed ViewsTom Prout brought to the directors attention, the Conservation Ontario blog: Watershed Views. Thisinstallment was entitled Flooding Happens: it’s only a matter of time! and was authored by MikeWalters, Source Water Protection Manager, Integrated Watershed Management Director forConservation Ontario.

6. Conservation Authorities’ White PaperTom Prout updated the Board on the Conservation Ontario 2012 White Paper: Watershed ManagementFutures for Ontario. A letter was sent to the member municipalities in December 2012 to advise themof this provincial initiative. Since that date, Conservation Ontario has met with senior staff at theMinistries of the Environment, Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier’sOffice, the Federation of Agriculture and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

7. Conservation Authority Per Diem/Honourarium SurveyFor the director’s information, Tom Prout presented a survey conducted by Niagara Region CA of theconservation authorities’ per diem, mileage and honourarium rates.

MOTION #BD 88/13 Moved by Don ShipwaySeconded by Janisse Zimmerman

“RESOLVED, THAT the program reports #4-7 be received as presented.”

Carried.

PRESENTATIONHope Brock, Healthy Watersheds Technician gave a visual presentation on the Yellow Fish RoadProgram. Trout Unlimited Canada developed the environmental education program in 1991 to helpCanadians understand that storm drains are doorways to streams, rivers and lakes. Communitiesparticipate by painting a yellow fish that says ‘Rainwater Only’ beside storm drains. The ABCA hassigned an agreement to participate in the program. There are two parts to delivering the program:painting the yellow fish and hanging door hangers to educate the residents. The ABCA is responsibleto obtain permission from a municipality to paint on the road adjacent to the storm drain and overseeloaning out the painting kits and supplies to the participating groups. Trout Unlimited Canada suppliesthe painting kits and door hangers. The municipality supplies a letter of permission and can supplypylons on the painting day for safety of the volunteers. Potential projects in the ABCA watershed arein the communities of Clinton, Bayfield and Parkhill. The benefits to those communities will be cleanwater awareness and developing healthy habits; creating a partnership with the community;environmental education and being deemed an action item in deliverables for grants. The directorsrequested that a copy of the Yellow Fish Road presentation be sent to the CAO’s of the membermunicipalities.

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

139

Page 5 September 12, 2013

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTTom Prout provided a written report with a brief update on the progress of various projects, stafftraining and development, upcoming meetings, events or activities throughout the previous month.Note was made of staff attending the National Manure Expo which was enlightening on theadvancements in the precision spreading equipment relative to soil science and water quality.

MOTION #BD 89/13 Moved by Paul HodginsSeconded by Janisse Zimmerman

“RESOLVED, THAT the General Manager’s Report be received.”

Carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

MOTION #BD 90/13 Moved by Janisse ZimermanSeconded by Don Shipway

“RESOLVED, THAT the minutes of the Ausable Bayfield ConservationFoundation meeting held on July 15, 2013 and the motions therein be approved as presented.”

Carried.

MOTION #BD 91/13 Moved by Mike TamSeconded by Lorie Scott

“RESOLVED, THAT the draft minutes of the Joint Management Committeemeeting held on July 30, 2013 and the motions there be approved as presented.”

Carried.CORRESPONDENCE

a) Reference: Thank YouFile: A.5.1Brief: A note of thanks from the Vicki Siemon and family in appreciation of support shownafter the passing of the late Bill Siemon.

b) Reference: Land DispositionFile: L.4.145Brief: Confirmation of approval for the disposition of agriculture lands in the Parkhill area wasreceived from the Minister of Natural Resources.

c) Reference: Minister’s Award for Environmental Excellence File: A.5.8Brief: Application form was received for the Ministry of Environment’s 2013 Award for

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

140

Page 6 September 12, 2013

Environmental Excellence. The application deadline is October 18, 2013.

d) Reference: Not-for-Profit Corporations ActFile: A.8.33Brief: The Ontario Not for Profit Act is expected to be proclaimed in 2014. ConservationAuthorities and Foundations are considered “Public Benefit Corporations” under thislegislation and would be compelled to enact a by-law under this statute. Conservation Ontariois gathering more information and will forward when available.

e) Reference: MNR RestructuringFile: A.5.3Brief: Letter from the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources announcing organizationalrestructuring of the Ministry of Natural Resources as part of provincial budget restraints.

f) Reference: Conservation Areas WorkshopFile: P.7.1Brief: Notice of the annual Conservation Areas Workshop to be held October 23-25 in Orillia.

g) Reference: Feed In Tariff ProgramFile: A.7.2.25Brief: Announcement from the Minister of Energy directing the Ontario Power Authority tomake changes to the FIT Program including removing large projects from the program andproviding a new competitive procurement process that considers input from stakeholders,municipalities and Aboriginal communities to help identify appropriate locations and sitingrequirements for these projects.

h) Reference: Canadian Water NetworkFile: W.11.14.5Brief: Dr. Wanhong Yang, University of Guelph research partner with the WEBBE projectadvised that the proposal submitted to the Canadian Water Network entitled Developing anopen source GIS based integrated modelling interface for watershed evaluation of BMPs wassuccessful for funding over the next two years.

NEW BUSINESS

Notice of RetirementChairman Dave Frayne brought forth a letter of resignation from General Manager/Secretary-TreasurerTom Prout. After a 40 year career in conservation work which includes 32 years as General Manager atAusable Bayfield Conservation Authority, he will be retiring at the end of the year.

MOTION #BD 92/13 Moved by Mike TamSeconded by Paul Hodgins

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

141

Page 7 September 12, 2013

“RESOLVED, THAT the Board of Directors accept the resignation of Tom Proutwith regrets and commence the process for hiring a General Manager/Secretary Treasurer.”

Carried.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

MOTION #BD 93/13 Moved by Lorie ScottSeconded by Joe Steffler

“RESOLVED, THAT the Board of Directors go into Committee of the Whole at11:25 a.m. to discuss personal matters, with Tom Prout and Judith Parker remaining inattendance.”

Carried.

MOTION #BD 94/13 Moved by Lorie ScottSeconded by Don Shipway

“RESOLVED, THAT the Board of Directors rise and report that the personalmatter presented be approved as discussed.”

Carried.

ADJOURNMENTThe meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Dave Frayne Judith ParkerChair Corporate Services Coordinator

Copies of Program Reports are available upon request. Contact Judith Parker, Corporate Services Coordinator.

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Established 1946 Board of Directors

142

143

General Manager’s ReportOctober 17, 2013

Prepared for the Board of Directors by Tom Prout

IntroductionI am pleased to provide the Board of Directors with a brief update on ABCA projects, programs, newpartnerships, funding opportunities and activities over the past month. This report also includesinformation about Conservation Ontario and some of its activities on behalf of Ontario’s 36 conservationauthorities. If you have any questions please call me. Note: This is not an inclusive list – only somehighlights.

Conservation Ontario1. Ontario’s VISION is one of Healthy Great Lakes for a stronger Ontario– Great Lakes that are

drinkable, swimmable and fishable. The draft Great Lakes Protection Strategy identifies six goals:• Empower communities • Protect water • Improve wetlands, beaches, and coastal areas • Protect habitats and species • Enhance understanding and adaptation • Ensure environmentally sustainable economic opportunities and innovationOntario’s Conservation Authorities care about the Great Lakes and help protect them through localstrategies and programs— we encourage you to learn more about the Great Lakes and Ontario'svision by reading the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act and Strategy.

2. Watersheds are the geographic boundaries used by Conservation Authorities to manage the naturalresources. A watershed is an area of land that drains to one water body (marsh, lake, etc).Everything is connected in a watershed and what happens upstream impacts conditions downstream.Watersheds vary significantly in size, however what happens upstream impacts the down streamwater quality and quantity. Whether you live in an urban or rural area your use of the landcontributes to the quality and quantity of the downstream watershed.

Projects, Programs and Studies1. ABCA participates in the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network and the Fall Sampling has

been complete. 2. The timber harvest at ABCA Sharrow Tract is underway. This property is at the the southeast

corner of Kirkton Road and Corbett Line and will be closed to other uses for the duration of thetimber harvest activities.

3. The ABCA Board of Directors has approved its participation in the Carbon Footprints to Forestscarbon compensation program. The Carbon Footprints to Forests is a joint project with the ABCA,Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and Huron County. On Sept. 27, the project waswell-received at a meeting of the Huron County Water Protection Steering Committee.

4. Tim Cumming has been working on the Rural Stormwater Management Model Project to create factsheet, postcard, videos and other products to promote our work in addressing water running overland during storm events to limit impacts on local creeks, drains, rivers, and Lake Huron.

5. Tracey McPherson, Aaron Clark and Rob Carnegie continue to trouble shoot daily computer andnetwork issues, update data, continue 3D interpretation to improve our watershed mapping.

144

6. Staff continue working on the development of a new Watershed Management Strategy which isscheduled to be completed by the end of 2014. This document will provide direction to ABCAwhich will follow the guidance provided in the new Conservation Strategy prepared by members ofthe watershed community.

7. Orders for the fall tree program have closed and Ian Jean will finalize arrangements for the deliveryof the trees to the ABCA workshop later this month. For those landowners who missed this fall’stree program, they should apply now for trees that will be available in the spring of 2014.Landowners may be eligible for financial assistance; to find our contact Ian Jean at 519-235-2610.

8. Mary Lynn and Donna Clarkson have completed the threats verification process for the DrinkingWater Source Protection Program. This process has confirmed fewer threats than originallyidentified and will greatly assist the municipalities with the Risk Management Planning process.

Staff Training and Development1. Geoff Cade and Ross Wilson participated in a webinar regarding duty to consult First Nations

during an EA process. 2. Alec Scott, Davin Heinbuck and Ross Wilson attended the Provincial Flood Forecasting and

Warning Workshop at Black Creek on September 18 and19.3. Kate Monk attended a training seminar on Ministry of Labour site inspections. ABCA strives to

ensure that it is aware of current legislation and practices. 4. Tim Cumming and Mari Veliz attended a Provincial Watershed Report Card meeting to review the

recent release of watershed report cards across and to initiate planning for the next series of ReportCards in five years.

Meetings and Special Events1. Ian Jean and Kate Monk met with Lois Sinclair, the local program representative from the Ontario

Soil and Crop Improvement Association to review stewardship incentive programs for farmers. Theway farmers apply for funds, funding rates and eligible projects have changed. ABCA staff want tohave the latest information so that they can provide landowners with the correct information.

2. Jenna Allain is arranging and preparing for a series of municipal meetings to discussimplementation of the Drinking Water Source Protection Plans, and preparing for Source ProtectionCommittee (SPC), meeting to discuss Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) comments onproposed Source Protection Plans. As well, discussions have been held with the representativesfrom the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

3. Judith Parker along with Kate Monk, Tracey and Greg McPherson, Ian Jean and Tony Drinkwalterassisted Haskett Funeral Home with the Commemorative Woods Tree Dedication Service atMorrison Dam on Sept 15th. Approximately 275 people attended the event.

4. The office will be closed on October 14 , Thanksgiving.th

5. Angela VanNiekerk as Conservation Ontario’s representative to the Ontario Land Trust Alliance, aswell as Don Farwell and Roger Lewington will representative the Huron Tract Land TrustConservancy at the annual meeting of the Ontario Land Trust Alliance.

6. The Board of Directors have started the budget process by dedicating its October 10 meeting toth

reviewing the draft 2014 budget. Staff have prepared a list of ongoing and new projects for theBoard to review and consider for funding. There are lots of good projects for the Board to consider.The levy increase is top of mind for the Board. It was helpful for the Board to know that the averageincrease in municipal funding (growth plus increases in the tax), in 2013 was 5.8 percent. TheABCA, like other agencies, has increased costs to satisfy legislated rules as well as every increasingexpectation of the public for information and services. ABCA hopes to have a draft budget in placeby December so that its Board Member can advice council of the conservation activities proposedfor 2014.

145

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 1

1

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, October 17, 2013

6:00 p.m.

Member Present: Mayor Bill Weber

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg Councillor Dave Maguire Councillor Lorie Scott Councillor Ken McRae Councillor Martin Underwood Councillor Doug Cook Councillor John Russell

Member Absent: Councillor Doug Bonesteel Staff Present: Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Williams

Clerk Carol McKenzie Treasurer Janet Ferguson Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon Drainage Superintendent Al Little Grand Bend Fire Chief Jerry VanBruaene

Others Present Engineer Mike DeVos, Spriet Associates

1. Call to Order

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

The Mayor asked members to declare any pecuniary interest that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and none were declared.

3. Consent Agenda

3.1 Bluewater Recycling Association September 2013 Meeting Highlights;

3.2 St. Clair Conservation Authority September 19, 2013 Meeting Highlights;

_____________________________________________________________________

146

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 2

2

3.3 Local Food Fund Announcement from OMAFRA; 3.4. CL Report No. 96-2013 - Re: Applications heard by the Committee of

Adjustment on September 26, 2013 and Applications to be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on October 24, 2013

13-1017-01 Moved By: Councillor Cook

Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

That the following items on the consent agenda be received and filed: 3.1 Bluewater Recycling Association September 2013

Meeting Highlights;

3.2 St. Clair Conservation Authority September 19, 2013 Meeting Highlights;

3.3 Local Food Fund Announcement from OMAFRA; 3.4 CL Report NO. 96-2013 - Re: Applications heard by

the Committee of Adjustment on September 26, 2013 and Applications to be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on October 24, 2013.

Carried

4. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

4.1. Regular Council Meeting - October 3, 2013

13-1017-02 Moved By: Councillor Cook Seconded By: Councillor Scott

That the minutes of the October 3, 2013 Council meeting be accepted as presented.

Carried

5. Delegations, Public Meetings & Presentations

5.1. 6:00 p.m. - Consdieration of the James Creek Drain 2013

13-1017-03 Moved By: Councillor Cook Seconded By: Councillor Scott

That the meeting to "Consider" the James Creek Drain 2013 open at 6:00 p.m.

Carried

147

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 3

3

Engineer Mike DeVos presented information pertaining to the James Creek Drain 2013 including information on the addendum to the original report dated June 28, 2013. Mr. DeVos noted that the property owners are satisfied with both the original report and addendum. Mayor Weber called for questions from members of Council and Councillor Scott asked if water was still flowing thirough this drain and Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg asked for clarification on the assessed property owners attendance at the site meeting. Mayor Weber called for questions from members of the public and there were none.

13-1017-04 Moved by: Councillor Scott Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg That the Consideration for the James Creek Drain 2013 close at 6:09 p.m.

Carried 5.1.1. CL Report No. 93-2013 - Re: Consideration of the James Creek

Drain 2013 Report

13-1017-05 Moved By: Councillor Maguire Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT Council receive and "consider" the James Creek Drain Report, prepared by Spriet & Associates (in accordance with the requirements of Section 78 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990), dated June 28, 2013, and revised September 3, 2013; and THAT the revised James Creek Drain 2013 report is adopted; and THAT By-law 91 of 2013, being a by-law to provide for the drainage works, be received and read a first and second time; and THAT notice of the "Court of Revision" meeting be mailed to assessed property owners and all required agencies and organizations.

Carried 5.2. 7:00 p.m. - Public Meeting to Discuss Building Permit Fees The public meeting to discuss building permit fees was deferred.

148

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 4

4

6. Correspondence & Petitions Correspondence – For Council Information

6.6. Sylvia Jones, MPP for Dufferin - Caledon - Re: Private Member's Bill, the Aggregate Recycling Promotion Act

13-1017-06 Moved By: Councillor Underwood

Seconded By: Councillor Maguire

THAT the following items of correspondence be received and filed: 6.1 Eugene Dorey, Chairman, Centre Ipperwash Community Association - Re: Motions made by Council at the July 4th Council Meeting; 6.2 Jeff Leal, Minister of Rural Affairs - Re: Economic Development; 6.3 David Zimmer, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs - Re: Economic Development for Lambton Shores and the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nations; 6.4 Anne Lannan, Ontario Community Newspapers Association - Re: Ontario Junior Citizens of the Year Awards; 6.5 Monte McNaugton, MPP - Re: Letter to the Honourable Glen R. Murray, Minister of Transportation concerning `Connecting Link" in Grand Bend; 6.6 Sylvia Jones, MPP for Dufferin - Caledon - Re: Private Member`s Bill, the Aggregate Recycling Promotion Act.

Carried

Correspondence - For Council Direction 6.7. Ted Arnott, MPP - Wellingotn-Halton Hills - Re: Connecting Link

Cancellation Hurts Local Municipalities

13-1017-07 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT a letter be sent to the Ministry of Transportation, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition advising them that Council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores agrees with Ted Arnott, MPP for Wellington-Halton Hills that the

149

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 5

5

cancellation of the Connecting Link program hurts local municipalities.

Carried 6.8. Glen VanValkenburg, Chair of the Lambton Shores Business

Improvement Area - Re: Signage on Highway 402

13-1017-08 Moved By: Councillor McRae Seconded By: Councillor Maguire

THAT Council supports the Forest Business Improvement Area (BIA) in applying to the Ministry of Transportation for signage of "Downtown Forest" to be located on Highway 402 at Exit 34.

Carried 13-1017-09 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg That staff prepare a report on the signage options available within Lambton Shores.

Carried

13-1017-10 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT Council directs the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee to return with recommendations within 6 months of parameters and priorities for signage of Lambton Shores.

Carried

7. Consideration of Committee Minutes and Staff Reports

7.1. Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Regular Board Meeting held August 14, 2013

13-1017-11 Moved By: Councillor Scott

Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT the minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area regular board meeting be received and filed.

Carried

Planning 7.2. PL Report No. 44-2013 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application

ZO-07/2013 for Rice Development Company Inc. for North of Main Street, East in Grand Bend

150

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 6

6

13-1017-12 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg Seconded By: Councillor Cook

THAT Council approve the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-07/2013.

Carried 7.3. PL Report No. 45-2013 - Re: Deeming By-law for Brian & Georgina

Finch - 10100 Huron Drive

13-1017-13 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Maguire

THAT Council approve a by-law deeming Lot 5, Registered Plan 25, (BO), Municipality of Lambton Shores, not to be a lot in a registered plan of subdivision.

Carried

Community Services 7.4. DCS Report No. 134-2013 - Re: Proposed Roads Capital

Repair/Rehabilitation Policy

13-1017-14 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

THAT D.C.S. Report No. 134-2013 regarding the proposed roads capital repair/rehabilitation policy be deferred.

Defeated 13-1017-14 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT Report DCS 134-2013 regarding the 'Proposed Roads Capital Repair/Rehabilitation Policy" be received; and THAT the draft roads Repair/Rehabilitation plicy presented in DCS Report 134-2013 be adopted; and That the Municipal Roads Needs Study be updated on an "every 6 years basis"; and THAT one sixth (1/6) of the study costs be budgeted each year and set aside in reserve for completion of the Roads Needs Study Update.

Carried

7.5. DCS Report No. 136-2013 - Re: Clarification of Council Direction Re: Boat Dock Facilities in Grand Bend

151

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 7

7

13-1017-15 Moved By: Councillor Underwood

Seconded By: Councillor Scott THAT Report DCS 136-2013 regarding "Clarification of Council Direction Re: Boat Dock Facilities in Grand Bend" be received; and THAT Council provides the following clarification to motion #13-0801-35; All materials that were placed on Municipal property in compliance with the Municipality's current requirements be permitted to remain until the Municipality has finalized its new mooring agreement; All materials that contravene the Municipality's current requirements are required to be removed; Step Downs" constructed on the side of Municipal docks be permitted to remain, and all must be inspected by the Chief Building Official prior to the 2014 boating season and removed by the dock renter if they are found to be unsafe.

Carried

Finance and Administration 7.6. TR Report No. 82-2013 - Re: Draft Year to Date Operating and Capital

Statements - September 30, 2013

13-1017-16 Moved By: Councillor Cook Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT the September 30, 2013 Draft Year to Date Operating and Capital Statements be received as outlined in Treasurer's Report TR-82-2013.

Carried

7.7. TR Report No. 83-2013 - Re: 2014 Fire Department Capital - Grand Bend Fire Pumping Apparatus

13-1017-17 Moved By: Councillor Cook

Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT the Treasurer's Report TR-83-2013 regarding the Grand Bend Fire Pumping Apparatus be received; and THAT Council approves the purchase of the Fire Pumper from Darch Fire Inc. for $456,357.00 including HST; and

152

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 8

8

THAT Council approves allowing staff to investigate possible cost savings for selecting a unit currently being built; and THAT the 2014 Capital Budget for this item only be approved and incorporated into the 2014 Fire Department Capital Budget presented to Council.

Carried 7.8. TR Report No. 84-2013 - Re: Grand Bend Area Sewer Treatment Plant

Costs and Allocations

13-1710-18 Moved By: Councillor Cook Seconded By: Councillor Maguire

THAT Treasurer's Report TR-84-2013 regarding the Grand Bend Area Sewer Treatment Plant Costs to date is received.

Carried

7.9. TR Report No. 86-2013 - Re: Small, Rural and Northern Municipal Infrastructure Fund

13-1017-19 Moved By: Councillor Underwood

Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT Treasurer's Report TR-86-2013 regarding the Small, Rural and Northern Municipal Infrastructure Fund be received; and THAT Council selects the Broadway Street Reconstruction Project as an Expression of Interest under this funding program by resolution; and THAT the information in the EOI is factually accurate; and THAT the Municipality will have a comprehensive asset management plan that includes all of the information and analysis described in Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans in place by December 31, 2013; and THAT the comprehensive asset management plan will be publicly available, including online, by May 30, 2014; and That the project put forward in this application will be completed by December 31, 2015

Carried

153

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 9

9

7.10. CL Report No. 92-2013 - Re: Building Permit Statistics and Planning Application Information - Up to the end of September, 2013

13-1017-20 Moved By: Councillor Maguire Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT CL Report No. 92-2013 providing information on building and planning activities to the end of September be received and filed.

Carried 7.11. CL Report No. 95-2013 - Re: Amendments to the Comprehensive

Parking By-law to Establish a New Bus Loading - Unloading Zone at the Gill Road Lot

13-1017-21 Moved By: Councillor Scott

Seconded By: Councillor Maguire THAT CL Report No. 95-2013 regarding a "Bus Loading - Unloading" zone in the Gill Road Parking lot be received, and THAT By-law 99-2013 amending the Comprehensive Parking By-law to establish the zone and restrict parking in the vicinity of the zone be approved.

Carried

8. By-laws & Resolutions

8.1. By-law 91-2013 - Re: Provide for Drainage Works - James Creek Drain 2013 (See CL Report No. 93-2013)

13-1017-22 Moved By: Councillor Cook

Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT the following by-law be read a first and second time: - By-law 91-2013 - Re: Provide for Drainage Works - James Creek Drain 2013; and THAT the following by-laws be read a first, second and third time, passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and Clerk and engrossed in the bh-law book: - By-law 99-2013 - Amend Consolidated Parking By-law 20-2002; - By-law 101-2013 - Deeming Lots - Finch; - By-law 102-2013 - Confirming Resolutions to Date

154

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 10

10

- By-law 103-2013 - Zone Amendment - Rice Development.

Carried

9. Accounts

9.1. TR Report No. 85-2013 - Re: September, 2013 Cheque Listing

13-1017-23 Moved By: Councillor Scott

Seconded By: Councillor Maguire

THAT the Municipal cheque listing for the month of September, 2013 in the amount of $5,364,694.23 be accepted as presented.

Carried

10. Notice of Motion

10.1. Notice of Motion from Councillor McRae - Re: Eliminating the Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification on Decisions of Council Section of the Agenda

13-1017-24 Moved By: Councillor McRae

Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT the opportunity for the public to seek clarification on decisions made by Council on those items in the Agenda be eliminated and that interested members of the public be urged to contact members of Council on an individual basis for clarification on Council decisions.

Recorded Mayor Weber Yes Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

No

Councillor Maguire No Councillor Scott No Councillor McRae Yes Councillor Underwood Yes Councillor Cook Yes Councillor Russell No Results 4 4

Defeated Councillor Underwood provided notice of the following motion for consideration at the November 7, 2013 Council meeting:

155

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 11

11

WHEREAS the Great Lakes are a connected water system; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million North Americans; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes Basin is home to 90% of Ontario's population; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes contribute an estimated $180 billion to Canada-U.S. trade; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes support 45% of Canada's industrial capacity; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $100 million commercial fishing industry; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $350 million recreational fishing industry; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council, on January 29, 2013, requested further information and consultation which has not been forthcoming, nor has a consultative approach been taken regionally, through the Joint Water Boards; AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Lambton Shores is concerned that the proposal for nuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario may set a precedent for possible future expansion of Deep Geological Repositories (DGR) for high level nuclear waste, without full engagement and consultation with Great Lakes Basin municipalities; AND WHEREAS the Clean Water Act of Ontario demands that Municipal Councils uphold a high standard of care in order to protect water quality; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in order to protect the great Lakes and its tributaries, urges that neither this proposed nuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario, nor any other underground nuclear waste repository, be constructed in the Great Lakes Basin, in Canada, in the United States, or on any First Nations property. Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg provided notice of the following motion for consideration at the November 7, 2013 Council Meeting: WHEREAS Council is aware, the Pinery Park was allocated capacity for an average daily flow of 470 m3 for their sewage collection system when their system was designed for 253 m3. As well, there are reliable reports that in 2012 the Park used less than an average of 50 m3 per day during the year. Original plans to extend the Park's collection system have since been abandoned and the MNR staff are seriously considering a greywater recycling system. WHEREAS Lambton Shores Council inquired about redirecting this unused capacity to other developments, they were asked to allow 2 years for data collection before revisiting the Park's sewage allocation in the lagoons/STF. The Park's collection system has been operating since 2011 and the two years of heavy seasonal flow will be

156

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 12

12

completed by the 2013 Thanksgiving weekend. The Pinery sewage travels to the lagoons on the Goosemarsh Line and as I understand, the Goosemarsh Line is used almost exclusively for Park Sewage. I HEREBY MOVE that Council direct our CAO to make contact with Pinery managers, MNR and Ontario Parks Board of Directors and inquire about the 2013 flows and their openness to discussing a release of the Park's unused capacity allocation. AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to provide an update to our previous Goosemarsh Line Report providing information on (1) the Pinery's contribution of money to date on the total cost of the Goosemarsh Line, (2) the status of the debt associated with the Goosemarsh Line (including whether the debt is still floating or now fixed) and (3) a report on discussions with MNR staff to date regarding capacity requirements. This information would return to Council before the end of November. 11. New Business There were no emergent issues for Council to deal with.

12. Councillor Reports Councillor Russell reported the Bluewater Recycling Association would begin converting the company trucks to liquid natural gas starting in 2014. Councillor McRae reported that he and Councillor Underwood would be attending the CABI Conference in Toronto October 21st to the 23rd, highlighting the diversity of Incubation and Acceleration for businesses. Councillor Maguire reported that the Farmers' Market in Grand Bend the past weekend had been a great success, that the Emergency Medical Services in Grand Bend did not have a generator and that the My Team Trumph Road Race is planned for this weekend at the Pinery Provincial Park. Mayor Weber reported that he had attended the Mayor and Council hike, that the annual Fall Fantasia was to be held this coming weekend at the Lambton Heritage Museum, that he had attended the Grand Bend Chamber of Commerce Mixer that past weekend, that he had attended a regional seniors' luncheon in Grand Bend and that Remembrance Day was fast approaching and Council should be aware of attending the appropriate cenotaphs on that day.

13. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification Richard Matzka asked for clarification on TR Report 84-2013 regarding a miscellaneous expense of $209,000. Jordie Speake asked for clarification on the proper protocol in dealing with questions during Section 13 of the Councillor agenda.

157

Minutes of the October 17, 2013 Council Meeting 13

13

Bob Sharen asked for clarification on sewage capacity designation for the Rice Development. 14. Confidential Business

13-1017-24 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT the Council meeting goes into a "Closed Session" at 8:00 p.m. to discuss minutes of the October 3, 2013 Closed Session and D.C.S. Report No. 135-2013 held under Section 239 (2) c of the Municipal Act regarding the acquisition and disposition of land by the Municipality.

Carried Council rose from the “Closed Session” at 8:15 p.m. and made direction to report the following motion in the open session:

13-1017-25 Moved By: Councillor McRae Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores declares the Municipal property located at 115 Main Street (Thedford, Ontario) to be surplus to the Municipal needs and authorizes the disposal of the lands, in accordance with Provincial and Municipal requirements by way of sealed bids.

Carried 15. Adjourn

13-1017-26 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT the October 17, 2013 Council meeting adjourn at 8:16 p.m.

Carried

158

159

WHY ADOPT A SMOKE-FREE

OUTDOOR SPACES BY-LAW?

If this information is required in an alternative format please contact: Community Health Services Department - Health Promotion & Program Support at 519-344-2062 Ext. 2205

SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES BY-LAW TOOLKIT

Since 2004, our community has readily accepted and supported the implementation of a by-law to regulate smoking in public places and workplaces. Further steps are needed to safeguard people of all ages from involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke. Smoke-free outdoor spaces by-laws demonstrate a community's commitment to the health and well-being of its members. Benefits of a smoke-free outdoor spaces by-law include:

Reflecting the community's support of smoke-free public outdoor spaces.

Protecting people, especially children, from second-hand smoke.

Promoting positive role modelling for children and youth in public settings.

Supporting the decision of those

who wish to quit smoking.

Reducing the litter of cigarette butts

which are toxic to children, pets and

wildlife.

Figure 1 shows the results from a survey of 817 County of Lambton residents. Support for smoke-free bylaws ranged from about 68% - 89% for the following public spaces:

Doorways to public spaces: 89%

Doorways to workplaces: 88%

Public playgrounds: 79%

Public sport fields/spectator areas: 76%

Outdoor public patios: 70%

Public beaches: 68%

All public outdoor areas: 58%

SECOND-HAND SMOKE: A MAJOR

HEALTH CONCERN Whether you are indoors or outdoors, the science is conclusive that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

1 It

irritates the eyes, throat, nose and respiratory system and causes headaches, asthma, nausea and dizziness. Second-hand smoke is more than irritating, it is dangerous. It contains more than 4,000 chemicals; at least 69 are known to cause cancer. Young children are especially vulnerable to second-hand smoke because they breathe more air relative to their body weight, their immune system is less protective, and they are less able to remove themselves from exposure. Second-hand smoke can induce asthma attacks and increase the risk of bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

2,3

PUBLIC SURVEY

"NO SMOKING IN PARKS AND PUBLIC SPACES WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA. I AM

ASTHMATIC, AND HAVE TO GO OUT OF MY WAY TO AVOID SMOKERS

OUTDOORS. EVEN A SMALL AMOUNT OF TOBACCO SMOKE WILL TRIGGER AN

ATTACK. IT IS HARD FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME TO NAVIGATE A PARK WHEN

SMOKERS SIT THERE, PUFFING AWAY." - LAMBTON COUNTY RESIDENT

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SMOKE-FREE

LIVING

160

OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHO HAVE

ADOPTED SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES

BYLAWS

Many municipalities in Ontario have enacted by-

laws regulating smoking in outdoor public spaces.

Restrictions on smoking range from "100% smoke-

free selected spaces" to "No smoking within 9

metres of selected spaces". By-law adoption in

Ontario continues to grow and within the past two

years the following municipalities have developed

smoke-free by-laws:

Blind River, Bonnechere Valley, Cavan Monaghan, Cobourg Township, East Gwillimbury, Englehart, Essa, Georgina Township, Gravenhurst, Hamilton, Kingston, Kirkland Lake, Lakeshore, London, Mapleton Township, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, North Bay , Ottawa, Parry Sound, Peel Region, Perth, Peterborough, Prince Edward County, Puslinch, Severn Township, Smiths Falls Township, Sudbury, Tillsonburg, Timmins, Trent Hills, Tweed, Vaughan, White River

Over 90 municipalities have adopted one or

more smoke-free by-laws restricting

smoking in outdoor spaces

Over 30 municipalities have a 100% Smoke-

free Specific Spaces by-law

Over 70 municipalities have a by-law

specifying Smoke-free Buffer Zones

Source: Non-Smokers' Rights Association - Smoke-free Laws

Database

SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES BY-LAW TOOLKIT

161

Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces By-Law Options

The list below reflects four available options presented in order from least restrictive to most restrictive of smoking in public outdoor spaces.

OPTION 1 - NO SMOKING WITHIN NINE (9) METRES OF

COST IMPLICATIONS

PROS

CONS

No smoking within nine (9) metres of:

a) All public playgrounds and arenas, including but not limited to swimming pools, splash pads, sports and recreation playing fields, outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and recreation areas for children such as petting zoos, trails, and public gardens.

b) All public places and workplaces entrances/doorways (public places and workplaces, as defined in current Bylaw 10-2004).

More signage

required at

various

locations on a

property (e.g.,

playgrounds) to

indicate the 9 m

distance.

9 m signs required for entrances.

Staffing (impacts time required for Enforcement Officer to educate and enforce)

Moves exposure to second-hand smoke out of danger zone for the listed settings.

Most people believe existing law requires a buffer of 9 m from all entrances.

Several public settings not included.

A defined distance (9 m) creates confusion with a setting since the property boundary may be unclear.

Creates confusion re: "How far is 9 metres?"

Places increased demands on enforcement staff.

Does not address role modelling or social norms concerns. Children still view the smokers.

Not reflective of trends for outdoor bylaw development in other communities. Bad image for our communities.

Safety concerns - adults attempting to smoke 9 m from child/setting can no longer actively supervise.

162

OPTION 2 - 100% SMOKE-FREE IN SELECTED SPACES

COST IMPLICATIONS

PROS

CONS

A complete smoking ban in:

a) All outdoor areas used for public

enjoyment and recreation areas for children, including but not limited to parks, playgrounds, playing fields, swimming pools, splash pads, petting zoos, trails, public gardens, festivals, etc.)

b) All municipally-owned and/or

operated recreational properties* No smoking within 9 m of all public places and workplaces entrances/doorways (public places and workplaces, as defined in current Bylaw 10-2004).

Application process required for Designated Smoking Areas at public outdoor events and festivals used for public enjoyment and recreation where the audience is adult.

* Exemptions for long-term care homes, marinas, campgrounds, beaches, and golf courses - current legislation to apply.

General signage required at outdoor areas to indicate no- smoking zone.

9 m signs required for entrances.

Staffing (impacts time required for Enforcement Officer to educate and enforce)

Added promotion, processing and enforcement of Designated Smoking Area applications.

Increased protection from second-hand smoke.

Complete ban is easier to understand and obey; easier to enforce.

Festival option for designated smoking area addresses concerns of organizers of events whose audience is adult. Requires consultation with Enforcement Officers which provides an opportunity to explain the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and ensure increased compliance.

Less litter.

Attempts to address role modelling and social norms related to child focused settings.

Reflects recent trend for outdoor bylaw development.

Does not include beaches, or golf courses.

While exemptions may increase perception of co- operation with festival and event organizers, residents and workers/volunteers would potentially be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

Festival organizers required to apply for a designated smoking area.

163

OPTION 3 - 100% SMOKE-FREE IN SELECTED SPACES INCLUDING PATIOS

COST IMPLICATIONS

PROS

CONS

A complete smoking ban in:

a. All outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and children recreation areas (including parks, playgrounds, playing fields, swimming pools, splash pads, petting zoos, trails, public gardens, festivals and public beaches)

b. Municipally-owned and/or operated recreational properties*

c. All outdoor seating areas - bar and

restaurant patios No smoking within 9 m of all public places and workplaces entrances/doorways (public places and workplaces, as defined in current Bylaw 10-2004).

Application process required for Designated Smoking Areas at public outdoor events and festivals used for public enjoyment and recreation where the audience is adult.

* Exemptions for long-term care homes, marinas, campgrounds, and golf courses - current legislation to apply.

General signage required at outdoor areas to indicate no- smoking zone.

9 m signs required for entrances.

Staffing (impacts time required for Enforcement Officer to educate and enforce)

Added promotion, processing and enforcement of Designated Smoking Area applications.

As above and: Enforcement

simplified. Protects staff and

patrons who work/dine outdoors on patios equally with

those who work/dine indoors.

Protects children who frequent outdoor patios.

Simplifies compliance requirements for restaurant and bar proprietors. Equitable for all restaurants and bar operators.

Includes beaches.

Does not fully respond to

social norms and role

modelling issues.

164

OPTION 4 - 100% SMOKE-FREE IN ALL OUTDOOR SPACES

COST IMPLICATIONS

PROS

CONS

A complete smoking ban in all outdoor areas including:

a. Areas used for public enjoyment and recreation (including parks, playgrounds, playing fields, swimming pools, splash pads, petting zoos, trails, beaches, public gardens, marinas, etc.).

b. Outdoor venues

c. Outdoor seating areas - restaurant and bar patios

d. Outdoor workplaces

e. Outdoor public events

f. Areas considered miscellaneous (see definition)

General signage required at outdoor areas to indicate no- smoking zone.

Staffing (minimal impact on time required for Enforcement Officer to educate and enforce)

Less expense to develop educational and support materials.

As in Option 2 and 3 and:

Best for the health of the

community.

Protecting everyone from

second-hand smoke.

Fully addresses role modelling and social norms issues

Includes full property of all golf

courses, marina

Potential for an increase in attendance and visitor satisfaction at festivals similar to the experience of restaurants and bars.

Imposes on private living

spaces at marinas and

campgrounds.

DEFINITIONS:

Outdoor areas

Includes but not limited to - parks, playgrounds, wading or swimming pools, splash pads, sports fields, (e.g. but not limited to, soccer fields, football fields, baseball/softball diamonds, basketball courts, skateboard parks, tennis courts, lawn bowling greens, golf courses, horseshoe pits, ice surfaces, toboggan hills).

Outdoor venues:

Includes but not limited to - stadiums, grandstands, watercraft, public areas adjacent to water, beaches, docks, marinas, seawalls, piers, boardwalks, horticultural display areas or ornamental gardens, walking/hiking trails, campgrounds, bike paths.

Outdoor seating areas:

Includes but not limited to - restaurant and bar patios (regulations in place, but doesn’t protect bar servers), buffer zone of a specific number of metres around the perimeter of the patio, entranceways and air intakes; buffer zone makes patios truly smoke-free.

Outdoor workplaces

Includes but not limited to - restaurant/bar patios, open air markets, sidewalk sales, ferries, tour boats, double-decker buses,

construction sites, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces that house animals, such as zoos, farms, humane societies, veterinarians’ offices, etc.).

Outdoor public events

Includes but not limited to - festivals, fairs and spectator events – including tents that may be erected on the grounds – such as concerts, sporting events and parades.

Specific streets, e.g., in a main shopping area or within a school zone, including the sidewalk, street, lane, thoroughfare, curb, retaining wall, boulevard, etc.

Miscellaneous Includes but not limited to - movie and bank machine lineups, parking lots, transit shelters and transit stops, including taxi stands.

165

Successful implementation of a Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces By-law requires a comprehensive strategy involving three components; education, signage and appropriate enforcement. 1. Education: A well-planned communication strategy will provide information about the by-law and how to comply with it. This may include:

Advertisements in parks and recreation guides

Information material at community locations: libraries, visitor booths, arenas, early years centres, trail associations, community agencies

Municipal websites

Flyers, newsletters, Frequently Asked Questions page to Sports and Recreation organizations

School newsletters, daycare newsletters

Media coverage leading up to the enactment date of the by-law: media releases, radio and cable television interviews, radio call-in shows

2. Signage: Strategically placed and clearly stated signage is important for a successful smoke-free by-law. Signage would help maximize education and compliance and therefore assist residents to self-enforce the outdoor smoke-free by-law. See Figure 2 - Sample Signage. 3. Enforcement: Due to the strong public support of smoke-free outdoor spaces, it is anticipated that adequate signage will support compliance. Community Health Services Department currently employs Enforcement Officers who are trained and experienced in the enforcement of non-smoking laws. The Enforcement team is available to assist with the smooth introduction and implementation of the a Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces by-law including education, resource support, and enforcement.

PUBLIC COMPLIANCE

Many jurisdictions throughout Canada, around the world, and notably in Ontario, have successfully regulated outdoor smoking.

Studies of some existing by-laws demonstrate that enforcement has not been difficult and compliance is not a significant issue.

4,5,6

Municipalities reported either no increase in complaints, or minimal complaints that required a response after the implementation of a smoke-free by-law.

7

Municipalities also reported no decrease in the use of city recreational facilities.

7

IMPLEMENTING A SMOKE-FREE BY-LAW

SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES BY-LAW TOOLKIT

FIGURE 2: SAMPLE SIGNAGE

166

Q3: Do you think children take their cues from adults and other role models when it comes to smoking?

A3: Children and young adults are likely to copy the behaviours they see among adults. Smoking restrictions help decrease the social acceptability of smoking and will help challenge a child's perception that "everybody smokes". If exposure to smoking behaviour is reduced, children and youth will be less likely to think of smoking as a lifestyle choice. Since most people start smoking before the age of 18, this is an important component of creating smoke-free municipal outdoor spaces.

Q4: Have other municipalities enacted by-laws restricting smoking in open areas? A4: There are approximately 90 municipalities in Ontario that have enacted smoke-free outdoor spaces bylaws.

SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES BY-LAW TOOLKIT

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Useful Websites:

Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco www.ocat.org

Non-Smokers' Rights Association www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms

Play, Live, Be Tobacco-Free www.playlivebetobaccofree.ca

The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit www.otru.org

Smoke-free Outdoors: The Woodstock Story http://www.city.woodstock.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=465

Smoke-free Outdoor Public Spaces: A Community Advocacy Toolkit, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Smoke- free%20outdoor%20spaces%20advocacy%20- sept2010.pdf

Q1: Why worry about second-hand smoke outdoors?

A1: Evidence tells us there is no safe level of second-hand smoke. The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit has reported that the level of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke, even within a few metres of one person smoking outdoors, can be as high as exposure in an enclosed space. Other research indicates that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke has adverse effects on health. Q2: Do you think smoking bans lead to less tobacco use? A2: Studies clearly indicate that smoke-free legislation, by-laws, and policies lead to an increase in the number of smokers who try to quit, an increase in the number of smokers who successfully quit, and an increase in the number of smokers who reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke.

References:

1 Building On Our Gains, Taking Action Now: Ontario’s Tobacco Control Strategy for 2011 - from the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group to the Minister of Health Promotion and Sport. October 18, 2010; http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-free/TSAG%20Report.pdf

2 Forsythe J. Smoke‐Free Outdoor Public Spaces: A Community Advocacy Toolkit. Physicians for a Smoke‐Free Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. September 2010

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2011 August 19]

4 Klein, Elizabeth G, Jean L. Forster, Brittany McFadden and Corliss W. Outley. “Minnesota ‐free park policies: Attitudes of the general public and park officials”. Nicotine and

Tobacco Research. January 2007; 1 (S1):S53 5 Kennedy, R.D., Fong, G.T., Thompson, M.E., Kaufman, P.K., Ferrence, R., Schwartz, R.,

“Evaluation of a Comprehensive Outdoor Smoking Bylaw - A Longitudinal Study of Smokers and Non-Smokers in the Canadian City of Woodstock”, poster presentation 6th National Conference on Tobacco or Health, November 2009. 6 Thinkwell Research. (2010) “Smoke free Nova Scotia Bridgewater smoke free spaces survey”.

Accessed at www.smokefreens.ca/current-initiatives/outdoor-spaces-resources 7 Smoking and Second-hand Smoke in Outdoor Municipal Recreational Areas in Hamilton.

Submitted by Elizabeth Richardson, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Medical Officer of Health, Public Health Services Department. City of Hamilton, Public Health Services Division, February 28, 2011

167

168

169

Tourism Services for Lambton Shores

Primary Economic Driver

170

Economic Value of Tourism

GOVERNMENT DATA

• 2 million visitors to Lambton County spend $178-million annually

• Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport’s “Economic Impact Model” based on years of StatsCan data and complex algorythmic formulas

• http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/treim/treim.shtml

VISITOR SPENDING IN LAMBTON SHORES

• 600,000 Pinery Park visitors = $13.7-million

• 60,000 Motorplex visitors = $10.8-million

• 41,000 Huron Country Playhouse patrons = $14-million

• 11,642 visitors to Welcome Centre = $1.5-million

Economic value of Tourism Services to Lambton Shores is HUGE 171

Tourism Services Provided to Lambton Shores

Regional – Southwest Ontario Tourism

• Est. 2011 • “Shaped by

Nature” • Leadership, linkage

& research role • Priorities: Winery

/culinary, motor-cycling, festivals, waterfront

• Government funded

• Focus: Region

County – Tourism Sarnia Lambton

• Est. 2000 • “Navigate to Great

Times in Lambton County”

• Lead & assist tourism partners

• Get people to the County, to stay longer, spend more & come back

• Government & Advertising funded

• Focus: County

Municipal – Chamber of Commerce

• Est. 1957 • “It starts at the

beach” • Leverage the

beach to promote breadth of attractions in Lambton Shores

• Membership Dues, Government & Advertising funded

• Focus: Lambton Shores

All levels of Government invest in Tourism Services 172

What’s Done Elsewhere?

Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce

• $57 Municipal funding

1. Welcome Centre

2. Website with online accommodation checker

3. Visitor inquiries

4. Visitor guide

(Note: Prince Edward County is a Municipality)

Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce

• $21,350 Municipal funding 1. Welcome Centre 2. Website with online

accommodation checker & mobile-friendly geo-mapping capability

3. Visitor inquiries 4. Visitor guide 5. Advertising & Promotion 6. Marketing support to community

groups 7. Monthly e-Newsletter 8. Represent Lambton Shores at TSL

& HTA

Multi-year, service-for-fee contracts the norm where Tourism Services provided by non-government organizations

173

What’s Done Elsewhere 2

Goderich • Population: 7,521 • Budget: @$400k annually ($196k for

tourism administration and another $121k for specific events)

• Focus: Promotes Goderich via Tourism Goderich

• Staff: 2 full-time staff & summer students

• Details: budgets separately for Tourism Administration and Events - Winterfest, Triathlon, Canada Day, Festival of Lights, Children’s’ Festival, Farmers’ market, Shakespeare to the Shoreline

• Economic Development has separate a budget of $1 million with a net cost of $50k

• BIA budget $198k

Owen Sound • Population: 21,950

• Budget: @$523k annually ($176k for tourism, $180k for specific events)

• Focus: Promotes Owen Sound

• Staff: 2 full-time staff & summer students

• Details: budgets separately for Tourism and Events

• Economic Development has separate a budget of $170k

Based on figures quoted and adjusting for population size, Lambton Shores potential Tourism budget could be at least $238k

174

Organizational Capabilities

Municipality of Lambton Shores

• No staff on-board at this time with required skill-set

• Organization’s knowledgebase is community services, facilities, safety and infrastructure

• Elected Mayor & Council and Staff have established workloads and responsibilities

Chamber of Commerce • Manager has 24+ years of

marketing & communications experience

• Long-term local volunteers • Board of Directors with

established, successful businesses reflective of the industry-mix in Lambton Shores

• Proven Tourism & Visitor Services experience & track record

• Demonstrated Commitment

It’s not important WHO does tourism services for Lambton Shores, It’s important that it’s done!

175

Proposal

• Continue to provide the current level of Tourism & Visitor Services without additional load on the taxpayer

• Link the activity of Tourism & Visitor Services to the Return-On-Investment of parking revenues

• Money spent from parking revenue is an investment that ensures continued parking revenues!

176

Continue Tourism Services

• Marketing & Advertising - $9,806 – Bluewater Visitors Guide, – Navigate Visitors Guide (TSL), – Ontario’s West Coast Guide (HTA), – Summer Fun Guide (incl.web), – Drayton Entertainment Playbill, – Pinery Provincial Park Visitors Guide, – DayTripping (incl. web), – Host Travel Writers, – Tourism Memberships & Events, – Event-based promotions.

177

Continue Tourism Services

• Visitor Guide - $24,475

• Website & Social Media - $3,415

178

Continue Tourism Services

• Area Advocacy/Representation - $1,626

• Community Event Support - $1,249

• Welcome Centre - $10,649

179

Continue Tourism Services

• Outdoor Display Message Centre - $5,758

• Human Resources to accomplish the task - $32,985

Estimate 50% of Chamber manager’s time, 100% of two summer students time and 100% of volunteers’ time spent on providing Tourism & Visitor Services to Lambton Shores.

180

Budget Sheet

Description Cost

Tourism & Visitor Services $89,963

Minus $ recovered via advertising & summer wage grants - $32,804

Seek funding from Municipality of Lambton Shores for $57,159

$57,159 is less than 10% of the annual parking revenue from paid parking in Grand Bend. 100% of Tourism & Visitor Services could be paid for by Tourists!

181

The Cost of No Support

• Current level of services would be reduced – Reduce Welcome Centre operation to 4 months (Victoria Day to

Labour Day): Saves $3,858 – End representation for Lambton Shores at Tourism Sarnia

Lambton & Huron Tourism Association: Saves $1,626 – Reduce Marketing & Advertising to minimal event-based

promotion: Saves $6,987 – Reduce Website, Social & Digital Media to minimal: Saves

$3,034 – End free print ad support to Community Events & organizations:

Saves $1,249 – Limit Manager’s time given to Tourism & Visitor Services

• Re-focus activities to promotion of Chamber Members

182

2013

Susan Mills, Manager

Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce

10/28/2013

Tourism & Visitor Services for Lambton Shores

183

P a g e | 2

How Does Tourism Benefit Lambton Shores? Over 2 million people visit Lambton County annually. Of those, 985,000 do so for vacation/pleasure and another 769,000 do so to visit friends and family. Total visitor spending for our region is almost $178-million ($177,748,116.17).

64% stay overnight

36% same-day visits

$62.7-million is spent on food & beverage

$34.5-million is spent on retail & shopping

$32.4-million is spent on transportation

$28.3-million is spent on recreation & entertainment

$22.6-million is spent on accommodation Since StatsCan collects data based on census regions, we are unable to break that figure down for Lambton Shores alone, but below you will find some attendance figures for local popular attractions and events. Did you know -?

600,000 people visit Pinery Provincial Park each year

60,000 patrons attend the Grand Bend Motorplex events

41,000 patrons attend Huron Country Playhouse

23,000 people attend Canada Day in Grand Bend

11,642 people are helped by our Welcome Centre

10,451 folks visit Lambton Heritage Museum

7,000 frequent Grand Bend’s Farmers’ Market

2,700 attend the Studio Tour

1,000 people go to Aquafest

816 bird enthusiasts attend Return of the Tundra Swans

750 attend Winter Carnival

500 visit the Forest Garden Show Based on the 11,642 inquiries the Welcome Centre handles annually, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's "Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model" calculator figures we are responsible for $1.5-million of tourist spending in terms of accommodation, food, retail, transportation/gas and area attractions! The Huron County Playhouse reported its 13-week summer season accounts for $14-million of visitor spending in the local area annually. Grand Bend Motorplex's 60,000 patrons - using the same Ontario Ministry's calculator - would account for $10.8 million of local visitor spending. The economic value of Tourism to Lambton Shores represents millions of dollars annually.

184

P a g e | 3

How Are Tourism Services Provided to Lambton County Three levels of tourism services affect Lambton County. The purpose and scope of each level are defined by the geographic area it serves. 1. Regional Level - Southwest Ontario Tourism Corporation (swotc.ca /

ontariossouthwest.com). Established 2011. Tagline – “Shaped by Nature”. Located: Woodstock, Ontario. Organization seeks to provide access to information, link tourism assets across county lines and offer a value proposition that benefits the region through increased tourism business. SWOTC’s priority “themed clusters” form the basis of its tourism services development and promotion:

a. Primary Focus: Winery / Culinary; Motorcycling, Festivals, Waterfront b. Secondary Focus: Birding, Cycling, Agri-Tourism, Camping

Funding Model: Provincial Government Focus: Region-wide

2. County Level – Tourism Sarnia Lambton (tourismsarnialambton.com). Established

2000. Tagline – “Navigate to Great Times in Lambton County.” Located: Sarnia, Ontario. Destination marketing organization for the County. TSL seeks to bring more people to the area, get them to stay longer, spend more money and ensure their experience will bring them back. It works to enhance the county’s tourism industry by fostering partnerships that grow tourism through programs, ideas and initiatives that result in greater tax revenue for Sarnia-Lambton municipalities. Lead and assist tourism partners. Establish a unified brand. Grow sustainable, long-term funding to TSL and its destination marketing and management initiatives. Funding Model: Mixed – Government & Advertising revenues. Focus: County-wide

3. Municipal Level – Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce

(grandbendtourism.com). Established 1957. Tagline – “It starts at the beach.” Located: Grand Bend, Ontario. Since amalgamation, the Chamber has leveraged the century-old and well-known “brand” of the Grand Bend Area to promote all of Lambton Shores in its efforts to increase tourism revenues, to provide local visitor services for the benefit of the entire community and to partner/support community groups whose activities contribute to the area’s attractiveness to out-of-area visitors and local residents. It works to highlight the variety of things to do, places to see, where to eat, shop and access services throughout Lambton Shores.

Funding Model: Mixed – Government, Membership Fees & Advertising revenues. Focus: Lambton Shores

185

P a g e | 4

How Are Tourism Services Elsewhere? Chambers of Commerce do not provide tourism or visitor services1 as part of their offering to Members. Chamber activities include Member networking and informational events (Mayor’s Breakfast, Member Mixers, Golf Tournaments, Business Awards Banquet, Members Directory, Members Website, Group Insurance, Discount Programs), advocacy for their members, and professional development workshops. Local level Tourism and Visitor Services are provided by Municipal government in most parts of Ontario with only a few minor exceptions, such as Lambton Shores, Prince Edward County (a municipality not a county), Walkerton and Saugeen Shores. We are sure there are other situations, but these are the few for which we have some basic information. The functions of Tourism and Visitor Services in municipalities such as Owen Sound and Goderich are provided by and financed by the municipalities. Goderich budgets around $400k2 annually ($196k for tourism administration and another $121k for specific events) devoted entirely to the promotion of Goderich (population 7,521) via “Tourism Goderich” with a full-time staff of two supplemented by summer students. Owen Sound (population 21,950) splits the function – staffing wise - between Planning and Community Services, with two full time staff devoted to tourism services management. Owen Sound budgets $173k for tourism, with an additional $93k for the Festival of Northern Lights, another $87k for other events and $170k for economic development (total - $523k). Adjusting for population size in comparison to Lambton Shores and acknowledging that Lambton Shores pays about $60k through the County levy in support of the County’s Destination Marketing Organization – Tourism Sarnia Lambton, our Municipal investment in Tourism and Visitor Services should likely be increased substantially and our level of services increased.

1 Tourism Services: Marketing, promoting and “selling” an area to potential visitors for pleasure and business as a

preferred travel destination. Marketing tools typically include visitor guides, guides for event and meeting planners and tour operators, attracting and hosting travel writers, website, and marketing and advertising campaigns (electronic and print). A marketing plan would typically breakdown the target market universe into specific areas of focus, such as travel trade, consumers, and meeting & event planners, sport tourism. Tourism services for Lambton Shores focus on the consumer. The professional markets are managed by Tourism Sarnia Lambton. Visitor Services: Year-round advice and face-to-face information counseling, plus access to area maps, brochures and services that help an area visitor plan their time and locate the tourism products and services they desire. This includes information about area events, festivals and attractions, helping visitors decide what to see and do 2 Goderich 2013 budget lists Tourism Administration separately from the amounts designated to specific events

such as Winterfest, Triathlon, Canada Day, Festival of Lights, Children’s’ Festival, other special events, Farmers’ market and contributions to Shakespeare to the Shoreline. Economic Development had a budget of $1 million with a net cost of the city of $50k and the BIA budget was $198k.

186

P a g e | 5

What We Propose for Council Consideration We propose that Tourism and Visitor Services receive a percentage of Grand Bend's paid parking revenue (about $600k annually). Paid parking is in effect from the Victoria Day Weekend through to mid-September and is primarily used and paid for by area visitors. By establishing a link between Tourism Services and the parking revenue generated during peak tourist season, we will be connecting the activity (i.e. Tourism & Visitor services) to the return-on-investment (parking revenue) without any extra load on the taxpayer. Money spent from parking revenue is an investment that ensures continued parking revenues!

Tourism & Visitor Services Activities and Costs It is not important WHO does tourism and visitor services for Lambton Shores, it is important that it is done! The Chamber of Commerce has done it for decades; we are willing to continue to do so. We respectfully request that if the Chamber continues to provide Lambton Shores with tourism and visitor services, we do so as part of a multi-year, shared-costs agreement with the Municipality. As a not-for-profit organization reliant on membership dues of 197 area businesses, we simply do not have the financial resources to subsidize an area of service traditionally provided by government. We understand and appreciate Council’s wish to fulfill its promises of expenditure control to the taxpayer. We also believe we are the most cost effective method of providing Tourism and Visitor Services in Lambton Shores, because we are:

Not-for-profit – service costs are not inflated with an “agency fee”

Volunteer supported – staff compliment extended through volunteered skills and time

Welcome Centre is paid for there’s no mortgage or loan etc (via donations from local businesses throughout the area)

We have a proven track record and we are rooted and committed to the community. What follows is a Chart of Tourism and Visitor Service activities and their associated costs. We’ve also included the percentage and dollar amounts that are recoverable through advertising revenue or user-pay fees that off-set the overall cost.

187

P a g e | 6

TOURISM SERVICES ACTIVITIES COST AMOUNT RECOVERABLE

1. Visitor Guide (research, write & produce; provide art direction & layout, provide photographs and text; manage advertising sales; distribute province-wide)

$24,475 100% (achieved through advertising sales)

2. Tourist-focused Website & Social Media (GrandBendTourism.com: hosting & domain registrations, maintain/update content, listings & photographs, community events, festivals & events, links to key tourism attractors, enhanced electronic offering and mobile-friendly aspects, geo-mapping of area businesses, online accommodation checker. Facebook, Twitter and monthly consumer e-Newsletter)

$3,415 89% (achieved through invoicing accommodation checker participants; 2013 – 5 accommodation providers dropped out due to cost)

3. Marketing & Advertising (Bluewater Visitors Guide, Navigate Visitors Guide/TSL, Ontario’s West Coast Guide/HTA, Summer Fun Guide, Drayton Entertainment Playbill, Pinery Provincial Park Visitors Guide, DayTripping. Host Travel Writers. Tourism Memberships & Events. Event-based promotions)

$9,806 0%

4. Area advocacy/representation (represent Lambton Shores on boards of Tourism Sarnia Lambton and Huron Tourism Association; respond to media inquiries)

$1,626 0%

5. Community Event & Organization Support (promotion & marketing support – print & web to area events - Tundra Swans, Studio Tour, Paint Ontario, Drive ‘N Jive, Canada Day in Grand Bend, Aquafest, Forest Fall Fair, Farmers’ Markets – Forest & Grand Bend, Winter Carnival; promotional support to community clubs & associations from Port Franks Camera Club to Golden Agers Club)

$1,249 0%

VISITOR SERVICES ACTIVITIES COST AMOUNT RECOVERABLE

6. Welcome Centre (year-round centre – 7-days a week in peak season, 6-days a week in shoulder seasons; display brochures for area

$10,649 0%

188

P a g e | 7

attractions, events, area businesses & municipality, maps; respond to email, phone & in-person inquiries; 3 phone lines, including toll free number; Internet access & computer for visitor use; outdoor display boards with literature holder for 24-7 service)

7. Outdoor Display / Message Centre (displays flyers/brochures of area festivals & events, community organizations events & meetings, community announcements)

$5,758 100% (achieved through advertising sales)

8. Consumer contact w/Lambton Shores (receive/respond to complaints/feedback about parking, washrooms, individual businesses, resident inquiries as to Municipality’s facilities, amenities & services; respond to media inquiries; serve as information hub for residents, tourists, new businesses, and other Municipality’s inquiring about Lambton Shores)

Included in Welcome Centre $ 0%

HUMAN RESOURCES

We estimate that 50% of our manager’s time, 100% of the two summer students’ time, and 100% of our two volunteers’ time are spent on providing Tourism & Visitor Services.

$32,985 ($ quote based on percentages noted to left)

0%

TOTALS TOTAL COSTS TOTAL RECOVERABLE

$89,963 $32,804

Seeking Funding For $57,159 100% through paid parking revenue from Grand Bend $ figure represents just under 10% of parking revenue

The Chamber of Commerce is requesting $57,159 in support of Tourism and Visitor Services for Lambton Shores. This figure represents the balance of actual expenses to provide the current level of service not recoverable through advertising or pay-for-service revenue. Our suggestion is that this financial support be paid for by the parking revenue generated in Grand Bend, because that revenue is a direct result of tourists and area visitors’ activity in Lambton Shores and would not add to the taxpayers’ load.

189

2013

Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce

10/28/2013

Round-Table Sessions – Challenges & Opportunities

190

P a g e | 1

Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Emerging Issues / Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 2

Signage ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Where’s the beach? .............................................................................................................................. 3

Quality & Quantity of Parking Signage .................................................................................................. 3

Other Signage ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Parking Lots, Spots & Meters ................................................................................................................ 4

Roads, Sidewalks & Bridges .................................................................................................................. 5

Bylaw ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Customer Service & Quality of Product .................................................................................................... 7

Commercialization .................................................................................................................................... 8

191

P a g e | 2

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce hosted two Round-Table sessions (10am/2pm) on the

challenges and opportunities of various factors affecting Grand Bend businesses and the local economy

at the Grand Bend Legion on Monday, August 12, 2013. These factors included (a) issues relating to

parking and traffic congestion; (b) bylaw application which may help/hinder tourism and business

prosperity; (c) planning for future growth and prosperity.

The emphasis for these sessions was to generate positive, solution-based discussion and suggestions

that would be compiled for sharing with fellow business owners, community stakeholders and the

Municipality of Lambton Shores.

Round-Table invitations were sent to all Chamber Members, Non-member Grand Bend business owners,

representatives of local service clubs and homeowner associations, members of the Economic

Development Committee, as well as key Municipal staff and Councillors.

Chamber’s goal was to seek shared solutions/suggestions in a collaborative way for a stronger,

prosperous local economy.

These meetings were organized in response to feedback and commentary received by the Chamber over

the past two years and in follow-up to the 2011 Parking Summit.

EMERGING ISSUES / SOLUTIONS While parking remains a primary, top-of-mind issue, overall discussion and solutions targeted FIVE key

areas:

1. Signage

2. Infrastructure

3. Bylaw

4. Customer Service & Quality of Product

5. Commercialization

Concerns of Main Street West businesses differ from those on River Road and also those on Ontario

Street (north and south). While Main Street business owners talked of traffic congestion and lack of

parking, River Road business owners talked about parking availability and differentiation between single

family vehicles and boat haulage vehicles (manoeuvrability, parking spot designations, free parking), as

well as traffic flow moving back towards Ontario Street and seasonal one-way designation. Businesses

from Ontario Street talked about congestion, but mainly in terms of pedestrian safety and accessibility

issues related to current traffic lights.

The identified issues were discussed in terms of reducing Grand Bend’s appeal to tourists and the need

to address and resolve these issues in order to again make Grand Bend a desired destination that’s

known for its welcoming and friendly attitude to the tourist traffic so critical to its sustainability.

192

P a g e | 3

SIGNAGE There are a number of aspects to Signage and how this function could be leveraged for improved

understanding of local attractions, parking and infrastructure services.

Where’s the beach?

Despite being the reason for Grand Bend’s existence, a surprising number of area visitors don’t know

where the Main Beach is, or the location of the Marina or Parking lots or location of other tourist-type

facilities (Beach House, Observation Deck, Galleries, Theatre, Motorplex etc). Improved signage to

identify the way-finding and location of these facilities was identified as a method of improving Grand

Bend’s friendliness and ease of access and use.

Quality & Quantity of Parking Signage

Improved signage, both in quality and quantity was a primary concern. The current situation was

thought to confuse visitors. Not enough parking signs, signage that’s only readable from one side, lack of

wayfinding signage to direct parking patrons to the parking ticket metres, location of the metres, costs

and rules of the various parking opportunities throughout the town.

Suggestions for improvement included:

Increase the amount of signage identifying parking lots and the location of parking metres

Ensure parking signs are readable from both sides

Use QR codes spray painted on curbs to give Smartphone users immediate and easy access to

parking rates and rules.

Highlight the fact there’s FREE parking – on identified streets (Crescent Street, Gill Road) and

parking lots (Municipal lot behind the Legion). FREE parking is great – but no one knows about it.

Trim trees and shrubs as necessary to ensure signage is visible throughout the summer months

during peak foliage cycles

Colour-code the parking lots to improve understanding of the price levels of the different

parking options – and to make those levels more immediately understandable. Different parking

lots have different prices, rules and hours of operation. Parking lot rules and rates are not

understood by year-round residents, annual cottagers or repeat or first-time visitors. During

discussion, Owen Sound was mentioned as an example of highlighting the parking lot pay

stations in a creative way – they use a flower garden to draw attention to the Pay Station’s

location. This method would simultaneously help bump up the town’s “Communities in Bloom”

attractiveness factor.

Other Signage

The pedestrian cross-walks on Main Street West must be honoured by drivers, but “seeing” these

crosswalks with all the other Main Street West distractions – other vehicles, pedestrians, trees and lamp

standards and concrete flower beds obstructing line-of-sight is a challenge. The crosswalks must be

more clearly marked and trees or shrubs obscuring drivers’ line-of-sight addressed to increase safety.

193

P a g e | 4

INFRASTRUCTURE

Parking Lots, Spots & Meters

Parking Lots

Grand Bend’s parking lots are largely a result of recent infrastructure efforts with parking ticket revenue

the main method of paying for the parking improvements, debt servicing, and provision of lifeguards

and Blue Flag beach maintenance. Additional parking upgrades and parking lot expansion remain a

current need, with the application of “parking in lieu” levies a means of expediting the

upgrade/expansion process.

Parking lot/spot fees were a concern and it was suggested increased flexible or tiered pricing could be

applied to those secondary and tertiary parking locations away from the Main Beach parking lots as a

means of lessening the negativity around the issue of paid parking and generate retail foot traffic.

Flexible parking lot pricing was also seen as a method of increasing retail traffic from year-round

residents (i.e. free parking in the Midtown Parking Lot on Tuesdays).

Further, the lack of clearly marked large vehicle parking opportunities was identified with examples of

visitors driving 45-foot RV vehicles to the Main Beach parking only to find navigating the turning circle a

driving nightmare and ultimately not finding RV parking. These large vehicles should not even be on

Main Street West, they’re simply too big. Instead, diverting this type of traffic to a specific and easily

traversed parking lot would reduce the possibility of them entering Main Street West and respond to a

current parking need.

River Road

Business on River Road was increased with the existence of Purdy’s at the Bend, Sunset Arts Gallery,

Grand Bend Art Centre, River Road Gallery, Richman Gallery and Smackwater Jack’s Taphouse joining

the Grand Bend Yacht Club and the Marina. Additional parking has been provided and all parking is

currently free. However, the existence of free parking has become an issue in that River Road is suffering

from traffic congestion and it’s not clear that all vehicles parked on River Road are utilizing River Road

businesses. In addition, the mix of family and boat-haulage vehicles is causing a safety concern as there’s

manoeuvrability and parking issue for the truck-and-boat trailer traffic. Fine tuning of parking setup is

required and it’s suggested that non-boaters be restricted to a 2-hour limit. It was also noted that

currently there’s no handicap parking available on River Road.

Main Street West Parking Meters / Pay Stations

Metered street parking was identified as perhaps the most negative issue affecting retail traffic and

visitor perceptions of Grand Bend. Main Street businesses identify metered street parking as scaring-off

year-round residents from venturing onto Main Street West, while area visitors remain confused about

the application of metered parking. A perception exists that as a result, there’s a large number of

parking infraction tickets written by Bylaw and this results in a negative image for Grand Bend. Main

Street West businesses report a decline in local trade. Further, the perceived response speed of Bylaw to

issue parking infraction tickets was negatively compared with Bylaw’s slow response to enforce noise

bylaws in Plan 24.

194

P a g e | 5

Suggestions for improvement included:

Improve parking ticket metres / Pay Stations by using non-glare glass to allow for readability in

bright sun

Improve parking ticket metres/ pay stations by adding debit/credit point-of-sale capacity.

Additionally, improve the signage to where coin change can be obtained. Currently retail

business is interrupted with visitors attempting to park and get change for the meters.

Create a database of licence plate numbers to enable a “first offence” warning. This was viewed

as a means of educating instead of punishing the parking visitor.

Offer two hours of FREE street parking on Main Street West to encourage the return of year-

round resident retail traffic and be visitor-friendly (this option is currently available on River

Road and results in a different set of problems!)

Reduce the paid parking period by offering free parking on Main Street West after 5pm – this

solution was seen as helping the evening and dining flow of visitors. The reduction of one-hour

was seen as a visitor-friendly option that would not place too deep of a dent in parking revenue.

Roads, Sidewalks & Bridges

During peak tourist months, Grand Bend becomes a vehicle and pedestrian mix that has had the

potential to become deadly. In September 2012, two pedestrians crossing Ontario Street South from the

LCBO plaza to No Frills were hit by a vehicle turning north onto Ontario Street. One pedestrian died and

the other sustained serious injuries but was later released from hospital.

Traffic congestion south of the Ontario Street and Main Street intersection continues to cause a cascade

of issues on Ontario Street south including traffic backups extending south of Grand Bend proper, a

chronic irritant to drivers travelling along Ontario Street, a challenge for drivers pulling out of roads,

businesses or plazas onto Ontario Street in either direction and a potential danger for vehicular and

pedestrian collisions.

Suggestions for improvement included:

Traffic Signal Timing: Amend the timing of traffic signals to allow for improved flow of traffic.

Perhaps both traffic signals (at Lake Road and Main Street) could be timed to change together,

so that traffic can flow north or south unimpeded by a second stop. Increase the timing of the

traffic signals to allow for longer GREENs, enabling a greater amount of traffic to flow through

the “bottle neck” stretch from Lake Road to Main Street.

Scramble Intersections: Change both traffic light intersections to “Scramble Intersections”

that allows for the flow of pedestrians to cross the intersection in every direction, including

diagonally, at the same time. Although this prioritises the pedestrian flow over traffic, the

benefits of pedestrian amenity and safety have led to increased examples of Scramble

Intersections being used world-wide. Include a pedestrian countdown and sound for a fully

accessible solution.

Turning Lanes: The long-term preferred solution to traffic congestion, especially along Ontario

Street from Lake Road to Main Street was the addition of a left-turn lane.

195

P a g e | 6

Sidewalks: The Ausable River bridge immediately south of Ontario Street and Main Street has

long been identified as problematic in terms of traffic congestion and pedestrian safety (lack of

railings to protect pedestrians from vehicle traffic). The addition of a left-turn lane along Ontario

Street South and extending to the traffic lights would reduce traffic congestion. Simultaneously,

the addition of east and west pedestrian sidewalks extending off the bridge sides would

dramatically increase the amount and safety of pedestrian traffic flowing along Ontario Street

South to Main Street West (and ultimately the Main Beach). From a sustainability perspective,

these sidewalk bridge extensions would increase the Walkabilityi of Grand Bend.

o Oak Street was identified as the secondary method for pedestrians getting to the Main

Beach. The absence of a current sidewalk combined with a narrow street and vehicular

traffic was identified as a safety concern and yet an easy opportunity to improve

resident and visitor access to the Main Beach and Main Street West

retailers/restaurants.

o River Road was also noted as being congested with a mix of vehicular and pedestrian

traffic with no sidewalk. In addition, the current seasonal one-way traffic flow was noted

as a point of confusion for drivers with out-of-area drivers attempting to access Ontario

Street South by River Road. It was suggested that seasonal one-way flow of traffic

returning to Ontario Street South via Alberta Street and Lake Road be made a

permanent, year-round solution. This would make River Road immediately west of

Ontario Street South to Alberta Street one-way only, leaving space for a pedestrian

sidewalk and additional parking.

Swing Bridge: During discussions it was noted there’s a disconnect between River Road and the

Main Beach area that actually increases the need for vehicle traffic within the town when

potential diners, boat-owners, gallery patrons and cottagers and residents from Southcott Pines

seek to access the River Road businesses and/or the Main Beach. Currently,

patrons/shoppers/beach-goers must travel Main Street West to Ontario Street South to River

Road / Lake Road or vice versa. Again, the town’s Walkability could be increased with the

installation of a pedestrian/bicycle swing bridge connecting the western end of River Road to

the Main Beach area (Government Road).

BYLAW Perhaps one of the most difficult functions to perform and still keep people happy and satisfied is that of

bylaw enforcement. Bylaw enforcement was seriously criticized for being overly zealous to ticket parking

infractions in parking lots and Main Street West street parking and lacking in response to issue tickets

for other bylaw infractions such as barbequing on the beach and noise complaints. Adversarial situations

result in conflict, however effort spent to address the cause of the conflict (as noted above under

Signage & Infrastructure) can quickly generate positive returns!

In addition, the number of parking infraction tickets witnessed by those in attendance at the Round-

Table Sessions led to a perception there’s a “ticket quota” in effect for Bylaw officers. Whether or not

this is true is actually irrelevant to the PERCEPTION that it exists and the need for that perception to be

addressed and eliminated. Additionally, Bylaw officers drew complaint for their “police persona”

196

P a g e | 7

attitudes, of being too aggressive at issuing parking tickets and the need for all Municipal Staff – and

front-line staff of local businesses – to adopt a more tourist-friendly attitude that speaks to being

Ambassadors of the community.

Suggestions for improvement included:

Posted Warnings: Meter violation warnings near/on/beside Pay Stations and parking metres

Change Perceptions: Eliminate the perception there’s a ticket quota to one of

awareness/education with the issuance of more “courtesy tickets” (informing visitors they

would have received a ticket, but that we appreciate their presence in Grand Bend and

therefore they received a informative “courtesy ticket” outlining parking options, pricing tiers

etc). Eliminate the perception of “police persona” staff to Ambassadors

Prioritize: Continue parking bylaw enforcement for evening/night hours while demonstrating

leniency during the day. Evening/night hour enforcement focuses on overnight parking and

where a driver can park overnight.

Bylaw prohibiting barbequing on the beach MUST be enforced for safety reasons.

CUSTOMER SERVICE & QUALITY OF PRODUCT In addition to the usual factors affecting prosperity, attendees were encouraged to think about planning

for future growth and prosperity and opportunities to increase our sustainability. The policies and

business approaches of the past may not be working now and may not be appropriate in the future.

Suggestions for improvement included:

Ambassador Program: Grand Bend needs to transform its attitude into a business friendly

and tourist friendly attitude. Retail businesses must have a consistent, positive and helpful

attitude towards tourists and visitors – because they are this town’s lifeblood. From our Bylaw

Officers, to Municipal Staff to summer students working in retail, restaurants and

accommodation locations, our attitudes need to change – we must become Ambassadors of our

Community.

o Customer Service Training for all Municipal Staff – any and all staff that would connect

with a “customer”, whether year-round resident, annual cottager or area visitor take

customer service training.

o Customer Service Training for Retail, Restaurant, Accommodation Staff – this would be

more difficult to implement, but perhaps working in conjunction with Tourism Sarnia

Lambton or college/university Hospitality Program, a series of workshops could be

offered at a discounted rate to encourage local business owners to send their summer

staff or key influencers.

Improved Municipal Communications: Use the business and resident tax bill to clarify the

cost of the Blue Flag beach and how parking revenue is paying for this and related services to

ensure the Lambton Shores’ taxpayer is not. This would also enhance the receptiveness of

tourists by locals but improve our overall perception of the summer “invasion” phenomenon.

197

P a g e | 8

Retail shops must have a consistently positive and helpful attitude toward the people they

serve.

Summer Worker Billeting Program: A seasonal challenge to any business is attracting and

retaining good employees – the ones who show up, perform their work and do so in a manner

that keeps customers (i.e. “tourists”) coming back. The main challenge to anyone working in

Grand Bend is access to affordable accommodation. Since area accommodation is setup for

overnight or weekly stays with varying pricing from $80/day to over $2,000/week for a cottage,

area workers earning minimum adult wages ($10.25/hour) have limited access to affordable,

convenient accommodation. It was proposed that a billeting program could be created whereby

summer workers are billeted locally that would benefit the worker and the billet location

provider.

COMMERCIALIZATION Free Wi-Fi: Currently, internet access hotspots in Grand Bend are located on Main Street, Purdy’s (River

Road) and the Cruising Club (Greenacres Drive), but at a cost. Hay Communications provides the

hotspots at a rate of $3.95/hour, $7.95/24hours, $15.95/week and $45.95/4 weeks. This solution was

acceptable in past years, but now the tourist/visitor expectation is that free Wi-Fi should be available

throughout the “core” of the town (Main Street West, River Road, Ontario Street immediately north and

south of the lights). Perhaps some arrangement could be negotiated with Hay Communications to

address the peak tourist season and free Wi-Fi at multiple locations within Grand Bend’s core.

Program of events: The Beach Usage Policy currently in effect, despite being drafted with community

input, has restricted the leveraging of the Main Beach for the community’s benefit. It was noted that a

program of events on the beach would bring business to Main Street West merchants, but that the

offerings at these events should not circumvent local business.

Shop local initiatives: Year-round residents were criticized for not shopping local and heading to the

US to buy. It was thought that a shop-local initiative to get residents to shop local would good for the

local economy. An understanding of the flow-through of money in our local economy could be included,

so residents understand the full extent of their shopping habits.

Marketing: It was noted that local businesses and the Municipality need to improve marketing efforts.

Businesses need appropriate signage that’s visible to shoppers and patrons (residents, cottagers,

tourists), while the need to embrace and use new digital media such as websites, facebook and twitter

were noted. Marketing and advertising was considered crucial to getting the area visitor HERE.

Others noted that visitor demographics have changed over the decades, with the largest travelling

segment now being aged 50s/60s with the second largest contingent being families with family-reunion

vacations the upcoming trend (grandparents, children and grandchildren vacationing together). Business

owners need to respond to the changing demographic with a change of product and service mentality.

Others noted there are more visitors from Waterloo Region and Toronto and less from London with

international visitors from Germany and Holland increasing.

198

P a g e | 9

o Post Round-Table Note: The Grand Bend & Area Chamber of Commerce provides to the best

of its ability and budget, marketing and advertising campaigns for Lambton Shores (“Grand

Bend Area”) that includes print, web and digital media maintaining a tourist-focused

website leveraging the century-old brand of “Grand Bend”, but also a Facebook and Twitter

presence. Annually 30,000 copies of an area visitor guide is researched, written, produced

and distributed province-wide. In addition, print ads leveraging the beach and the variety of

things to do in the area (theatre, canoe, fish, hike, shop etc) are placed in established and

proven print publications such as Bluewater Visitor Guide, DayTripping, Ontario’s West

Coast, Summer Fun Guide, Navigate, Drayton Entertainment Playbill and Pinery Provincial

Park. More could be done (i.e. couponing, contests, and digital media) with more budget.

i Walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is to walking. Walkability has many health, environmental, and economic benefits. Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety, among others.[1] Walkability is an important concept in sustainable urban design.[2]

199

From: FCM Membership [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: July-24-13 1:44 PM To: Kevin Williams

Subject: Your FCM membership

Dear Head of Council and Council Members:

The County of Lambton has renewed its membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) for 2013-2014. This membership includes all of the municipalities located within the County of Lambton, including the Municipality of Lambton Shores.

Your continuing membership will allow us to build upon the gains FCM achieved for cities and communities in the 2013 federal budget:

• Federal commitments for infrastructure totalling some $47 billion over 10 years; • Indexing of the Gas Tax Fund as recommended by FCM, resulting in an extra $9 billion over 20 years; • Renewal of expiring programs for affordable housing and homelessness; and • FCM designated as a partner in the design and review process for new programs.

FCM gives municipalities a strong and united voice in Ottawa, and we are getting results for Municipality of Lambton Shores and all Canadian communities.

Please visit www.fcm.ca and log in to access our member benefits. You are also welcome to contact Member Services at 613-907-6273 or [email protected].

Again, thank you for being part of the FCM family and supporting our efforts to help all cities and communities in Canada.

Yours sincerely,

Claude Dauphin President, FCM

Brock Carlton Chief Executive Officer, FCM

200

201

202

203

Zone 3 Community Group October 18, 2013

The Clerk, Mayor and Council Municipality of Lambton Shores Re: Wastewater Collection & Treatment in North Lambton Shores In July 2010, Lambton Shores Council ‘decided to send out a series of newsletters providing more information to assist residents in gaining a better understanding of the issues and the efforts to resolve them’. So stated the inaugural issue that was referred to as the ‘Zone 3 Wastewater Newsletter’ volume 1, Issue 1. To our knowledge no subsequent issue was released. However, a comprehensive ‘Project Status Update – Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Plant and Associated Collection Systems’ was distributed with property tax notices in July, 2012. In light of Council’s decision to adopt the recommendations in the Ad hoc Sewage Advisory Committee’s report, approval of the scope change for the Building Canada Fund grant and Environment Minister Jim Bradley’s recent decision to deny the bump-up requests for the Environmental Assessment Sanitary Treatment Facility Addendum, we feel a second issue of a ‘Zone 3 Wastewater Newsletter’ is warranted as soon as possible. In particular, we would like to see included in the Newsletter the following items:

The six Ad hoc Sewage Advisory Committee’s recommendations

Changes to the projects (Zones 3 & 4 and STF upgrade)

A statement as to how Council is revising the Sewer Master Plan and subsequent Official Plan

Minister Bradley’s summary table of reasons for his decision.

Although much of this information was posted individually on the municipal website, it would be useful to bring it together in a format that explains the current situation. A Newsletter distributed to Lambton Shores residents would capture most resident’s attention and answer many questions posed by area taxpayers. Thank you. Sincerely, Zone 3 Community Group: Bob Sharen, Chair Carl Belke, Ernest Lewis, Richard Matzka, Lee McCutcheon, Jordy Speake, Justin Speake & Cam Taylor

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

Community Improvements Coalition

Paul Wilson, Committee Chair

47 Gill Rd, PO Box 534

Grand Bend, ON N0M 1T0

Grand Bend Community Foundation

David Campbell, Executive Director

45 Ontario St, PO Box 1150

Grand Bend, ON N0M 1T0

October 17, 2013

Mayor & Council

Municipality of Lambton Shores

Administration Office

7883 Amtelecom Parkway,

Forest, ON N0N 1J0

RE: Request for the Municipality of Lambton Shores to be named as a Charitable Partner

for the CIC Community Centre & Outdoor Rink Feasibility Project. This is required to

secure a grant(s) from the Grand Bend Community Foundation and other funding

partners.

Dear Mayor Bill Weber and Council

Purpose The purpose of the Community Improvements Coalition is to:

Identify potential projects, activities and events that would improve the economy,

environment, health and viability of the Greater Grand Bend Community

Establish key community priorities

Explore ways to work together to fund and achieve these priorities

Trends By 2026, the number of Canadian seniors is expected to double. For communities similar to

Grand Bend, multi-purpose, multi-generational community centre facilities often support

recreational activities and seniors programs, festivals, events, cultural tourism and other multi-use

purposes.

Many members of the Baby Boomer demographic are now entering retirement and are placing a

greater demand on programs and activities aimed at an older population. Research suggests that

this generation is shifting away from traditional seniors’ activities and towards more active

recreation, seeking quality of wellness and active living opportunities. The new senior will

typically be wealthier and more physically active and look for swimming, yoga, Pilates, fitness

walking and even more rigorous activities like floor hockey, volleyball, and pickle ball. As new

seniors’ reach a point they can no longer participate in physical activities they will seek out other

forms of leisure within the community.

It is also reported by leading economic development authorities that Cultural, Culinary and

Creative initiatives are the 3 C’s of a successful tourism based economy. Having scalable and

flexible facilities in place to support these areas is a pre-requisite form of infrastructure that is the

foundation for a prosperous economy.

217

Community Improvements Coalition

September 23, 2013

Page 2

One must also recognize that the community needs to provide places and programs geared for

youth as a means to attract, retain and develop young entrepreneurs that will become the

backbone of our future. A Community Centre can be a place that provides the action,

entertainment and programs that keep youth local once they complete school.

Background Information During a Community Improvements Coalition meeting held in the spring of 2013 it was

acknowledged that while Grand Bend is the second largest community in Lambton County, it

lacked a suitable Community Centre to support residents and tourism, and that an outdoor ice rink

facility could be a unique attraction. In addition, it was identified that some existing community

programs were constrained from expansion and scheduling due to a shortage of adequate local

facilities. As a result, the CIC participants made it a priority to investigate the feasibility of a

Community Center and outdoor ice facility. A committee was formed to explore this priority and

report back to the CIC Steering Committee with a plan. Ultimately, the Committee is undertaking

a feasibility study and making a formal recommendation to Council only. The proposed

Community Centre project, management and operation would be a municipal responsibility.

Community Centre and Outdoor Ice Rink Committee Mandate The Community Centre and Outdoor Ice Rink Committee is made up of “caring people

collaborating to build an inclusive, sustainable community”. In August, 2013 the members

met and drafted a project feasibility and development plan. The outcome of this Committee is to

produce a recommendation for the Mayor, Council and Community regarding Grand Bend’s

readiness and ability to support a Community Centre and Outdoor Ice Rink. If so, such a facility

could be operational by July 1, 2017. Phase One proposes to initiate a Discovery Phase project,

the process of understanding and assessing Grand Bend’s current recreational, leisure and cultural

needs, uses, and limitations. The outcome of this phase will report findings, recommendations

and proposed next steps. Phase 2 would involve concept design, site selection and funding.

It was decided that the method to undertake Phase 1 should be in the form of an Initial

Consultation Program. It was also proposed that the program will be performed by an

independent qualified Consultant. This program will encompass the following activities and

outcome;

Review of existing Lambton Shores studies and recommendations associated with

recreation, leisure and culture

Identification of the key objectives and consultation program techniques with the

Committee

Scoped one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders (may include councilors, staff,

agencies, community groups)

Preparation of a questionnaire / survey for distribution via email

Workshop with stakeholders and community

Inventory of current uses and comparables

Summary report of findings and recommendations

We are confident we can perform the Initial Consultation program for $10,000.

218

Community Improvements Coalition

September 23, 2013

Page 3

CIC Members Community Centre & Skating Rink

Committee Paul Wilson, Committee Chair

[email protected]

Ron Crown, [email protected]

Ed Fluter, [email protected]

Jim Southcott, [email protected]

Peter Coleman, [email protected]

Ken Reidy, [email protected]

Craig Scott, [email protected]

Cam Taylor, [email protected]

Dinah Taylor, [email protected]

CIC Steering Committee Dave Campbell, [email protected]

Glen Baillie, [email protected]

Gordon Britton, [email protected]

Dave Maguire, [email protected]

Cindy Maxfield, [email protected]

Dave Snopko, [email protected]

Anticipated Community Needs and Potential Uses The purpose of the Phase 1 Discovery Consultation Program is to complete a “Use and Needs

Analysis” for Grand Bend and Area. At this point in time we hear that many community

residents feel underserved by community facilities and programs especially during the winter

months. However we are not clear on the real needs and uses until an independent consultation is

completed.

At present the Committee believes a Community Centre should; Be used everyday

Breakeven or profitable – no Operating drain on taxpayers

Intergenerational

Central to Grand Bend Area, and viewable from road as a community icon

Integrate other municipal and community needs as appropriate for economies of scale and

cross-use; i.e. Fire, Library,

Facility for “creative, cultural, cuisine” events, programs, festivals

Gymtorium – kids programs, adults, seniors, special needs

Host service clubs; Rotary, Optimist, Probus etc.

Arts Centre Section – display arts, arts programs and events

Host seasonal events to draw people on shoulder months of the summer season and to create

stay overs for Accommodation industry

Host a Culinary school and programs like Stratford

Centre for adult and continuing learning programs I.e. Entrepreneurs, Agribusiness, Hotel &

Restaurant, Tourism, Creative

Hall rentals, Weddings

Provide virtual offices, meeting rooms, displays, co-worker area to bring entrepreneurs together

Accommodate programs from facilities that cannot accommodate them i.e. CHC, YMCA

Indoor soccer fields, floor hockey, roller blading, indoor walking circuit for winter

Pickle ball, racquet courts

Outdoor frisbee golf course

Sustainable, LEEDS building

Outdoor pond hockey, broomball and skating pad - tournaments

Site Selection

219

Community Improvements Coalition

September 23, 2013

Page 4

No site selection is planned at this point. This is Phase 2 of the Consultation Program and is not

yet funded until we see the results of the Phase 1 Discovery (Use and Needs Analysis). Potential

sites could involve expansion and retrofit of the Legion property, the planned Pittao development,

or other suitable property fronting Hwy 21 or 81.

Feasibility, Approval, Procurement, Construction, Management and Operational Model

Phase 1 – Discovery re needs, uses and support

Phase 2 – Pre-Planning re building design, site selection and project cost

Phase 3 – Recommendation to Council and Decision to Proceed

Phase 4 – Fund Raising Campaign

Phase 5 – Planning & Design

Phase 6 – Tendering & Construction

Phase 7 – Ready

Phase 8 – Operate and Manage

The CIC Steering Committee proposes to lead Phase 1-3 and potentially Phase 4. It is proposed

that the Municipality takes control and ownership of this project for Phases 5-8.

Formal Request to the Municipality of Lambton Shores In order to move forward with Phase 1 of the Discovery Study, the Committee requires a

charitable funding partner. This will enable the committee to apply for grants to undertake the

developmental phases of this initiative. We respectfully request that the Municipality of Lambton

Shores consider and accept this critical role. Once accepted and in place, the Committee will

make a formal grant request to the Grand Bend Community Foundation for $10,000 to fund the

Phase One of this study. The Committee will be sourcing additional funding from other available

sources to continue the development process should it be deemed feasible and in the best interest

of the community and its residents. Upon consideration of the above request, council may elect to

establish a Committee of Council for the purposes of undertaking a Grand Bend Community

Centre and Outdoor Ice Rink feasibility study and bringing a detailed recommendation back to

council. We would support this approach as well.

Other Funding Partners The Committee has been in communication with local service groups. We are pleased to share

that several have indicated early signs of support and even begun to budget and assemble funds in

the event the feasibility study shows solid evidence that the community can benefit from such a

facility.

The Grand Bend Community Foundation values and promotes innovative ideas that

strengthen communities and supports recreational activities. For this reason, a request has been

made to the Foundation to help the CIC Committee by setting aside funds in the amount of

$10,000 for an Interim Grant to assist with funding the Discovery Phase of the study.

220

Community Improvements Coalition

September 23, 2013

Page 5

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 519-238-1733 (or by email at

[email protected]). We deeply appreciate your consideration of our request to be the

Charitable Partner for the purposes of applying for grants and look forward to hearing from you

soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wilson

Committee Chair

Community Improvements Coalition – Community Centre and Ice Rink Committee

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: October-18-13 7:15 PM To: Kevin Williams; Carol McKenzie; Janet Ferguson

Cc: Bill Weber; Elizabeth Davis-Dagg; Dave Maguire; Doug Bonesteel; Lorie Scott; Ken McRae; Martin Underwood; Doug Cook; John Russell

Subject: RE: My clarification question

I would like to thank Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg and Councilors Maguire, Russell and Scott who have upheld the opportunity for citizens of Lambton Shores to ask relevant questions of their Municipal government in a public forum. I hope these honest and conscientious representatives are rewarded at the next ballot box. Open and public discussion between politicians and ratepayers is the essence of democracy and allows for transparency in government. That spirit should be extended to have ratepayer questions answered satisfactorily and in a timely manner.

In that vein, I had a simple question: The 2nd largest allocation on the explanation sheet (page 116) of the costs of the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility was once again attributed to ‘Miscellaneous’. The amount reported was $209,041.35 which seems to me more than should be attributed to ‘petty cash’. Less than $ 13,000 was paid for by the Federal Government, Provincial Government or our Partners (South Huron and Bluewater)

It was suggested by Councilor Maguire that page 120 held the answer but upon inspection I find very little explanation and actually it seems more deceptive. Page 120 shows $196,745.15 of administrative allocations for which Lambton Shores is responsible. Could you please identify the parties that were paid from this account and the amounts they received?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Matzka

229

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Economic Development Committee Minutes

Meeting No. 011-2013 Date of Meeting: Tuesday, September 6, 2013 Location: The Shores Recreation Centre, Main Meeting Room Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg Chair Sarah Hornblower Tino Breuer Dave Shaw

Paul Wilson Regrets: Geoff Greening

Marilyn Keunecke-Smith Also Present: C.A.O. Kevin Williams

Administrative Assistant Melanie DeSchutter

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Hornblower called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

2. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 3.1 Regular Economic Development Meeting- August 6

th, 2013

EDC13-0903-01 Moved by: Mayor Bill Weber

Seconded by: P. Wilson

The August 6, 2013 meeting minutes for the Economic Development Committee were confirmed. Carried

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There was no business arising from the minutes.

5. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

5.1 Visioning Exercise Continued

230

Paul Wilson reviewed the visioning exercise completed to date, the Lambton Shores vision, and where we are heading with the visioning process. Chair Sarah Hornblower asked the committee if they knew of any First Nations partnerships for Lambton Shores to mirror. Partnerships mentioned include Curve Lake First Nations, and the Town of Osoyoos, British Columbia. Partnerships with First Nations could promote opportunities in cultural heritage and the arts. There is potential but do they have the motivation. The RED program was briefly discussed. The visioning process was discussed further. Bill Weber questioned if our visioning is competitive or is it the same as our neighbouring municipalities. The Lambton Shores vision should be compared to South Huron, Bluewater, and Middlesex. Paul Wilson stated that our vision will be very similar to others but our priorities, goals, objectives, and action items will be different and unique to our municipality. Team themes from the previous visioning exercise were reviewed to establish key difference and where we are in comparison to where we want to be. See below for summary of discussion.

Team 1:

Incubator/Resource Centre for ideas

Way to identify groups-be able to link needs, people, investment and mentoring

Barriers to entry

Training programs for entrepreneurs

SLEP/SLBDC-training/connections

Establish retirees resource network

CYBE-Established programs available

Youth-Summer Works-Startup of $3000, municipal partners with programs

Survey local business for needs

Centennial College- Entrepreneur Centre

Lambton Shores Funding/Angel Foundation/Dragons Den type event-hold as a regular event

Partner with North Lambton Secondary School-Business Training

Better Awareness

Mobile Agriculture-GIS/Mapping

There is money out there without using Lambton Shores funds

Look at larger area/region- What does the supply chain look like for those larger industries

Team 2:

Capitalize on resources

Historic Tours

Design opportunities for smooth transitions

231

Information accessible online

Analyze failure/successful business in Lambton Shores-revitalization

What are we not accommodating

Team 3:

Identify new trends

Who do we have, what do they know

Capitalize on Middle Eastern Influence

6. EDC MEMBERS-REPORTS

6.1 Chamber of Commerce Roundtable-P. Wilson & E. Davis-Dagg

Elizabeth Davis-Dagg discussed the summary from the roundtable discussion with the Grand Bend Chamber of Commerce. The Grand Bend Chamber of Commerce is putting together a report for council. Elizabeth also discussed key action items for Grand Bend including cross walks, traffic flows, traffic lights, enforcement issues, beach and parking signage, and service mentality. Further open discussion was had.

6.2 Canadian Business Article-M. Keunecke-Smith Discussion will be carried over to future meeting.

6.3 Supporting SWEA Research Project- E. Davis-Dagg

Elizabeth Davis-Dagg discussed Libro Financials grant initiative for community improvements. This could be a possible resource in the future.

7. NEW BUSINESS Dave Shaw mentioned to the committee that he is part of a team that has drafted proposals on an ‘Education Centre’ which would offer programs on a year round basis. This team would like to present their proposal following a private brainstorm session on October 8, 2013. The members of the Economic Development Committee have been invited to this brainstorm session. Further discussion regarding the team’s proposal will be held at a future meeting.

8. ADJOURNMENT

EDC13-0903-02 Moved by: D. Shaw

Seconded by: Mayor Bill Weber

That the September 3, 2013 meeting of the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Carried

232

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Economic Development Committee Minutes

Meeting No. 012-2013 Date of Meeting: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Location: The Legacy Recreation Centre, Thomas Hall Members Present: Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg

Tino Breuer Geoff Greening Marilyn Keunecke-Smith Dave Shaw

Paul Wilson Regrets: Mayor Bill Weber

C.A.O. Kevin Williams Chair Sarah Hornblower

Also Present: Administrative Assistant Melanie DeSchutter

1. CALL TO ORDER

In chair, Sarah Hornblower’s absence, P. Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.

2. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 3.1 Regular Economic Development Meeting- September 3

rd, 2013

EDC13-017-01 Moved by: D. Shaw

Seconded by: E. Davis-Dagg

The September 3, 2013 meeting minutes for the Economic Development Committee were confirmed. Carried

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

Geoff Greening provided contact information for the RED Program relating to Sarnia-Lambton. Sarnia-Lambton’s contact is Jeff Kinsella.

5. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

233

5.1 Visioning Exercise Continued Paul Wilson reviewed the visioning process completed to date and described the work he completed independently for the committee to review. He explained where the committee is headed with the vision, mission, priorities, goals and action items on how to achieve these items.

Paul Wilson explained three visions he created to assist in creating the committees draft vision statement. The committee discussed their interpretation of the outline themes relating to the vision and mission. A draft vision and mission was formulated.

6. EDC MEMBERS-REPORTS

6.1 Canadian Business Article-M. Keunecke-Smith

Article was reviewed and discussed by the committee.

7. NEW BUSINESS There were no new business items discussed.

8. ADJOURNMENT

EDC13-0903-02 Moved by: D. Shaw

Seconded by: T. Breuer

That the September 17, 2013 meeting of the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee adjourned at 9:010 p.m. Carried

234

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Economic Development Committee Minutes

Meeting No. 013-2013 Date of Meeting: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 Location: The Legacy Recreation Centre, Thomas Hall Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg Chair Sarah Hornblower Tino Breuer Geoff Greening Dave Shaw

Paul Wilson Regrets: C.A.O. Kevin Williams

Marilyn Keunecke-Smith Also Present: Administrative Assistant Melanie DeSchutter

1. CALL TO ORDER

S. Hornblower’s called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

2. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 3.1 Regular Economic Development Meeting- September 17

th, 2013

EDC13-1001-01 Moved by: P. Wilson

Seconded by: D. Shaw

The September 17, 2013 meeting minutes for the Economic Development Committee were confirmed. Carried

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

There was no business arising from the minutes.

5. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

5.1 Finalize Vision and Mission

235

P. Wilson provided an outline showing the process the committee needs to take including the vision, mission, goals and values to finalize the process. This outline illustrated where the committee is headed regarding strategic planning. P. Wilson explained the outline and a discussion was had on how the final product was going to be achieved. The committee discussed the member’s brainstormed visions and key words relating to the vision to work towards a final product. Please see below for tentative vision. Vision- “Our economic development vision will make Lambton Shores the coast with the most - a great place to live.” Discussion relating to mission was conducted to work towards a final mission. Please see below for tentative mission. Mission- “Our economic mission will promote, enable, and support businesses, entrepreneurs and organizations with planning, resources and infrastructure that helps to create prosperity for our municipality.”

5.2 Create Goals

Item deferred to future meeting.

5.3 Review Mandate/Establish Accountability & Action Plan

P. Wilson proposed that committee members think of goal statements with specifics that will move us towards the mandate. Further discussion will take place at the next committee meeting.

6. EDC MEMBERS-REPORTS

6.1 Education & Training Programs

Item deferred to future meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS

The new municipal website was discussed including the heading and content. Committee would like to meet with municipal employee or web designer.

7.1 Dropbox Discussion

For the time being all information that committee members want added to the Dropbox will be added by committee secretary.

8. ADJOURNMENT

236

EDC13-1001-02 Moved by: T. Breuer

Seconded by: D. Shaw

That the October 1, 2013 meeting of the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Carried

237

FOREST BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

Regular Board Meeting

Date of Meeting: Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Members Present: Glen VanValkenburg, Chair

` Chris Williamson

Ken McRae

Sarah Jane Goodhand

Marilyn Smith

Members Absent: Brett Denning, Matt Ferguson, Richard Farr

Staff Present: Lynn VanHaaren, Administrator

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson, Glen VanValkenburg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Regular Board Meeting – August 14, 2013

BIA 13-0918-1 Moved by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

Seconded by: Chris Williamson

That the minutes of the August 14, 2013 meeting be accepted.

Carried

3. FINANCIAL REPORT

BIA 13-0918-2 Moved by: Marilyn Smith

Seconded by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

That the September 2013 financial report be accepted as corrected. Correction to

reallocate Administrator wages.

BIA 13-0918-3 Moved by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

Seconded by: Chris Williamson

That $5000 be moved from the chequing account into a short term GIC.

Carried

Administrator to look at estimated costs needed to February 2014 for the October

meeting.

238

4. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT

AR 09-13 RE: Activities During the month of September, 2013 attached

BIA 13-0918-4 Moved by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

Seconded by: Chris Williamson

That the Administrator’s report be accepted as presented. Carried

5. PROMOTIONAL CONSULTANT

PC 0913-13 RE: Activities during the month of July/August, 2013 attached

BIA 13-0918-5 Moved by: Marilyn Smith

Seconded by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

That the Promotional Consultant’s report be accepted as presented. Carried

6. COUNCIL REPORT

- Sewage treatment plant in Grand Bend has been approved and given the go

ahead

- Initial concept stages of having a Canadian Business Incubator in Forest.

Communications has begun with Sarnia Lambton Business Development

- As a committee of council, role of Councilor should an advisory one, not

taking the lead or voting on issues that affect the BIA. Ken to check with

Clerk.

Action item – look at bylaws and see what council rep’s role is

7. BEAUTIFICATON COMMITTEE REPORT

- Best Bloomin’ Business

Marilyn to provide information on winners and receipts for the event

- Committee wants to put out Christmas Challenge to “light up the town”

- Committee would like to have a three plan in place for beautification

8. NEW BUSINESS

8.1 Forest Community Foundation grant application

Too late to apply for this year. Interest at looking into items to enhance the

Rotary park with in splash pad area. Ie. Benches, canopy etc.

Action item – Ken to have plan for October meeting

239

8.2 Budget/Planning meeting

Proposed date October 10, 7:00 – 8:30 pm.

8.3 Advertising mailout

BIA 13-0918-6 Moved by: Marilyn Smith

Seconded by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

That the BIA will endorse the advertising flyer with a two stage rate. (ex $300 for

BIA business / $400 for non BIA) Let advertiser do the sales and present price

structure.

Action item – Invite Advertiser to Tuesday morning meeting to make

presentation

8.4 Signing Authority

BIA 13-0918-7 Moved By: Chris Williamson

Seconded by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

That Matt Ferguson be given signing authority for the BIA.

9. ADJOURN

BIA 13-0918-8 Moved by: Sarah Jane Goodhand

Seconded by: Chris Williamson

That the board meeting of September 18, 2013 adjourn.

Next meeting October 16, 2013.

240

FOREST BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

PC Report No. 10-2013 B.I.A Meeting Date: October 17, 2013

TO: Chair Van Valkenburg and Members of the B.I.A.

FROM: Karen Boris, Promotional Consultant

RE: Promotional Activities During the Month of October, 2013

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report from the B.I.A. Promotional Consultant, outlining activities during the months October, 2013 be received and filed.

REPORT -sent weekly ads to the Forest Standard -sent ad to Coffee Time News for Fall Fun Day -arranged payments for Fall Fun Day -collected prizes for Fall Fun Draw and delivered flyer for the draw boxes -contacted winners from Fall Fun Day draw -collected and submitted payments for Sept. flyer, picked-up Sept. flyer -collecting list of interested participants for the November flyer, Tree Lighting event, Ladies Night, coupon exchange, and Couples Night -created newsletter with more details of upcoming events and distributed the newsletter along with the information flyer from Creative Crayon for the Meet the Merchant newspaper and coupon flyer for 2014 -planning tree lighting, health centre available, treat bags from Foodland, booked horse rides, Santa, Fire Truck, Community Singers, barricades, light switchers, treat bag storage, ride for Santa’s return, helpers for Santa -working on ideas and dates for 2014

241

FOREST BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

AR Report No. 10-2013 B.I.A Meeting Date: October 17, 2013

TO: Chair Van Valkenburg and Members of the B.I.A.

FROM: Lynn VanHaaren, Administrator

RE: Administrator’s Activities During the Month of October, 2013

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report from the B.I.A. Administrator, outlining activities during the months October, 2013 be received and filed.

REPORT

Ongoing administration tasks including meetings, emails, website updates, banking, accounts payable

Attend weekly Tuesday morning meetings

Prepared financials, meeting information for October 2013 meeting

Working with Grand Bend Chamber re historical information

Banking to apply for additional signature, transfer money to GIC

Look into pricing for banners. Communicate with beautification committee.

Prepared and delivered BIA bucks information to new sales centre

Attend planning and budget meeting

Prepared draft budget report 2014

242

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

PL Report No. 46-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-01/2013 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-03/2013 LOCATION: 7549 Arkona Road OWNER: Roy Schrijver Implementing By-law

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT PL Report No. 46-2013, regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation, be received and filed and that the By-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved.

REPORT

Summary This report relates to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments requested by Roy Schrijver respecting lands he owns at 7549 Arkona Road which were approved in principle by Council on March 4, 2013, subject to conditions. Background The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, just north of Arkona (see map Attachment 1). At their September 5, 2013 meeting and Council passed the following resolution: 13-0304-21 Moved by: Councillor Cook Seconded by: Councillor Maguire

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it

243

relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property: a) Prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling; b) Requiring a surplus farm dwelling lot to have a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares (2 acres); and c) Allowing a 416 m² accessory building to remain on the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot. Carried

Mr. Schrijver has replaced the septic system under a permit from the County of Lambton. Further, a reference plan has been prepared which verifies that the surplus farm dwelling will have a lot area of 0.8 hectares. I have prepared the official plan amendment and amending by-law for Council review and approval. The amending by-law prohibits the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel and recognizes the size of the existing accessory building. Financial Impact None Respectfully submitted,

Patti L. Richardson, Senior Planner Attach. 1 - Location Map, Attach. 2 - Official Plan Amendment 38, Attach. 3 - Implementing Zoning By-law

244

245

AMENDMENT NO. 38

TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

OFFICIAL PLAN

246

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Official Plan Amendment No. 38

This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores by By-Law 107 of 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 (1) and 19 (15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, on the 7th day of November, 2013.

_____________________

Mayor

Corporate

Seal

______________________

Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

AND NOTICE REQUIREMENT

I, Carol McKenzie, Clerk for the Municipality of Lambton Shores, hereby certify that the requirements for the holding of at least one public meeting as set out in subsection 19(15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990 and the giving notice as set out in subsection 19(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, have been complied with.

_______________________

Clerk

247

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW NUMBER 107 OF 2013

WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores deems it advisable to adopt AMENDMENT NO. 38 to the Lambton Shores Official Plan.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, hereby enacts as follows:

1. Amendment No. 38 of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan consisting of the attached text and maps is hereby adopted.

2. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Lambton for approval of Amendment No. 38 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

3. This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing thereof.

Read a First and Second Time This 7th Day of November, 2013. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

______________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

______________________ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

248

INDEX

PAGE

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS 1

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

1. PURPOSE .......................................................................................... 2

2. LOCATION ......................................................................................... 2

3. BASIS ................................................................................................. 2

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 5

2. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT ...................................................... 5

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION .................................. 5

PART C - APPENDIX ............................................................................................... 7

249

-1-

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute part of this amendment.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text and map (designated Schedule 'A') constitutes Amendment No. 38 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

PART C - APPENDIX does not constitute part of this amendment. This appendix contains background data, planning considerations and a record of the public involvement associated with this amendment.

250

-2-

PART A – THE PREAMBLE Purpose

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation. Location The lands affected by this amendment comprise lands described as Part of Lots 6 and 7, South Boundary Concession, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 7549 Arkona Road and are shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, just north of Arkona. Basis The lands are currently designated “Agriculture”, and “Agricultural Constraint” in the Lambton Shores Official Plan. The “Agricultural Constraint” designation affects the south boundary of the lands where the Curtis Townline Drain traverses property. The balance of the lands are designated “Agriculture”. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm dwellings The Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 73 hectares and thus complies with the policy. Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states: A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm lot comply with the following polices: i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 metres apart;

ii) only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be

251

severed from an original farm lot; iii) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the

requirements of the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water supply and sewage disposal;

iv) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance

with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to an

improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following: Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for: c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation

provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective: and

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as ” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states: “New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following with respect to the creation of new residential lots: Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted only in the following situations:

252

(a) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for :

1. a farm retirement lot; 2. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 3. residential infilling.

Mr. Schrijver farms an extensive dairy farm operation with his father and mother, Leo and Gerritdina Schrijver, with their primary operation and home being located at 7714 Gordon Road. The Schrijver family and their farming company, Leges Farm Ltd., have land holdings comprising 432 acres. Mr. Schrijver resides at his family farm on Gordon Road and has no use for the dwelling on the subject lands. As a result, he would like to dispose of it. This would be permitted by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, but not the Lambton Shores Official Plan which has not been updated to reflect the 2005 Policy Statement.

The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to prohibit a new dwelling on the farm parcel. As well, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the creation of a lot for a surplus farm dwelling comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS). Site inspection reveals that there are no animal operations in the general vicinity.

253

-5-

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

Introduction All of this part of the document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following text and attached map, designated Schedule “A” (Land Use Plan), constitutes Amendment No. 38 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan. Details of the Amendment The following amendments affect lands shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. Section 1.11(e) of the Official Plan for the Municipality of Lambton Shores is hereby amended by adding the following to Section 1.11(e) after section (xx)

; and

(xxi) Part of Lots 6 and 7, South Boundary Concession, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 7549 Arkona Road:

Implementation and Interpretation The implementation and interpretation of this amendment shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

254

-6-

255

-7-

PART C - THE APPENDIX

The following appendix does not constitute part of Amendment No. 38 but is included as information supporting the amendment.

APPENDIX 1...................................Planning Report No. 10 of 2013 - February 19, 2013

APPENDIX 2...................................Minutes of Public Meeting - March 4, 2013

APPENDIX 3 ……………………….Planning Report No. 46 of 2013 - November 7, 2013

256

APPENDIX 1

257

THE MUNCIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES PL Report No. 10-2013 Tuesday, February 19, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-01/2013

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-03/2013 LOCATION: 7549 Arkoma Road OWNER: Roy Shriver

RECOMMENDATION:

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council.

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-09/2012, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property:

a) prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the

remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling;

b) requiring a surplus farm dwelling lot to have a minimum

lot area of 0.8 hectares (2 acres); and

258

c) allowing a 416 m² accessory building to remain on the

proposed surplus farm dwelling lot.

REPORT

Summary of the Application

The Applicant, Roy Schrijver is requesting: Official Plan Amendment Application an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the creation of a new 0.57 hectare non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation.

Zoning By-law Amendment Application an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in Zoning By-law 1 of 2003:

(a) as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling

(b) as it affects the proposed severed non-farm dwelling lot to:

i) allow a lot area of approximately 0.57 hectares (1.4 acres; and

ii) allow a 416 m² accessory buildings to remain on the proposed non-farm dwelling lot.

The applications are being proposed in order to allow the existing farm dwelling and accessory building to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a non-farm dwelling. The proposed severed dwelling is excess to the owner’s needs as he resides on another farm. Location The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, just north of Arkona (see map Attachment 1). The lands are occupied by a dwelling and a large shed. The lands have frontage of approximately 539 metres (1,770 ft.) and a lot area of 73.6 hectares (182 acres). Abutting lands to the south are occupied by single detached dwellings and lands under cultivation. Lands to the east, west and north are under cultivation. Correspondence A letter has been received from Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager of Building Services, County of Lambton (See Attachment 2), advising that the proposed retained lot size of 0.57 hectare (1.41 acres) for the non-farm dwelling lot is

259

not accepted and does not meet the ‘Reasonable Use’ guidelines set by the Ministry of the Environment which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres when created in underlying clay soils. Therefore the County cannot support the application as presented, with respect to proposed lot size. The property does have septic records available for consideration. (SL-269-90) A lot diagram was not submitted regarding the existing septic system, but our records do indicate where the system is currently located.

It should be noted that the septic tank is 600 gallons and is smaller than current Code Standards. The septic bed is stated to be a fully raised filter bed. The septic tank and bed must be located within the property lines and effluent treatment must also follow this requirement. Septic effluent cannot be discharged into field tiles or drainage ditches. This process is no longer permitted or acceptable. If the septic system is not operating in this manner, it may be necessary to install an acceptable Part 8 septic system. This requirement has been set out by the County-Wide Septic Policy on all Planning Applications. The applicant should contact this Department for further direction regarding this task. At this time, this Department cannot support the above noted application, for the following reasons:

1. The new proposed lot size of 0.57 hectares (1.41 acres) does not meet Reasonable Use guidelines.

2. The existing tank does not meet the current Code requirements (and the existing bed will need to be assessed).

3. Further, a site inspection will need to be conducted to confirm location of the septic system(s) and to ensure that sewage/effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface and that it is wholly contained within the newly created parcel. In the event the septic system is not compliant, a new Part 8 system will be required to be installed.

Geoff Cade of the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority advises (see Attachment 3) that a portion of the proposed retained lot is regulated under the

260

Authority’s Development Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 147/06. The property has been identified as hazardous due to the flooding and erosion characteristics of the adjacent Curtis Townline Drain. The proposed severed lot has not been identified as hazardous. The Authority has not identified any natural heritage concerns with the requested amendments and lot creation. The Authority advises that it does not have any natural hazard or natural heritage concerns with the requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments or the ultimate severance. Discussion The lands are currently designated “Agriculture”, and “Agricultural Constraint” in the Lambton Shores Official Plan. The “Agricultural Constraint” designation affects the south boundary of the lands where the Curtis Townline Drain traverses property. The balance of the lands are designated “Agriculture”. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm dwellings The Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 73 hectares and thus complies with the policy. Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states: A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm lot comply with the following polices: i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 metres apart;

ii) only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be

severed from an original farm lot; iii) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the

requirements of the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water supply and sewage disposal;

iv) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance

with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and

261

v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to an

improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following: Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for: d) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation

provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective: and

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as ” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states: “New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following with respect to the creation of new residential lots: Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted only in the following situations: (b) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for :

4. a farm retirement lot; 5. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 6. residential infilling.

262

Mr. Schrijver farms an extensive dairy farm operation with his father and mother, Leo and Gerritdina Schrijver, with their primary operation and home being located at 7714 Gordon Road. The Schrijver family and their farming company, Leges Farm Ltd., have land holdings comprising 432 acres. Mr. Schrijver resides at his family farm on Gordon Road and has no use for the dwelling on the subject lands. As a result, he would like to dispose of it. This would be permitted by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, but not the Lambton Shores Official Plan which has not been updated to reflect the 2005 Policy Statement. The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to prohibit a new dwelling on the farm parcel. As well, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the creation of a lot for a surplus farm dwelling comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS). Site inspection reveals that there are no animal operations in the general vicinity. Zoning The subject lands are zoned “Agricultural 1 (A1)”, and “Environmental Protection - Hazard (EP-H)” in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. The “Environmental Protection - Hazard (EP-H)” zone affects the south portion of the lands where the Curtis Townline Drain traverses property. The balance of the lands are zoned “Agricultural 1 (A1)”. The predominant permitted use in this zone is agriculture and associated buildings and structures. The “A1” zone requires that a farm parcel have a minimum lot area of 38 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 150 metres. The lands which are to be retained in agricultural use will have a lot frontage of approximately 539 metres (1,770 ft.) and a lot area of 73. hectares (180 acres). The lot frontage and area comply with the by-law. The “A1” zoning on these lands permits an accessory farm dwelling as a permitted use. The zoning on the remnant farm parcel will be amended to prohibit the construction of a new non-farm dwelling as is required by the Provincial Policy Statement. The Agricultural 1 (A1) Zone requires that a non-farm dwelling lot have a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 45 metres. The surplus dwelling lot is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 0.57 hectares and a lot frontage of 67 metres. The lot frontage complies but the lot area is deficient. It is recommended that the lot area of the lot be increased to a minimum of 0.8 hectares. Servicing The proposed non-farm residential lot is serviced by a private septic system and municipal water.

263

Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager of Building Services, County of Lambton, advises that the 0.57 hectare (1.41 acres) area proposed for the non-farm dwelling lot is not accepted and does not meet the ‘Reasonable Use’ guidelines set by the Ministry of the Environment which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres when created in underlying clay soils. Any approval of this application should be conditional on the size of the proposed surplus farm lot being revised to a minimum of 0.8 hectares or 2 acres. Further, Ms. Nauta indicates that the property does have septic records available for consideration. (SL-269-90) A lot diagram was not submitted regarding the existing septic system, but our records do indicate where the system is currently located. It should be noted that the septic tank is 600 gallons and is smaller than current Code Standards. The septic bed is stated to be a fully raised filter bed. The septic tank and bed must be located within the property lines and effluent treatment must also follow this requirement. Septic effluent cannot be discharged into field tiles or drainage ditches. This process is no longer permitted or acceptable. If the septic system is not operating in this manner, it may be necessary to install an acceptable Part 8 septic system. This requirement has been set out by the County-Wide Septic Policy on all Planning Applications. The applicant should contact this Department for further direction regarding this task as it will be necessary to conduct a site inspection to ensure that sewage effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface. Again any approval of this application should be conditional on the County and the Municipality being satisfied with respect to the septic system. Summary

In light of the above, I can recommend that these applications be approved in principle, subject to the size of the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot being increases to 0.8 hectares and the County and Municipality being satisfied with respect to the existing septic system prior to the By-law for the Official Plan and zoning amendments being adopted by Council as the applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Respectfully submitted

Patti L. Richardson Senior Planner

264

ATTACHMENT 1

265

ATTACHMENT 2

266

267

ATTACHMENT 3

268

269

APPENDIX 2

Excerpts from the March 4, 2013 Council Meeting

6.3 Public Meeting – Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 & Zone

Amendment Application ZO-03/2013 for Roy Schrijver – 7549 Arkona Road

13-0304-19 Moved by: Councillor Cook

Seconded by: Councillor Russell

That the Council meeting adjourns at 7:20 p.m. for a Public Meeting held

under the Planning Act to hear an application an Official Plan Amendment

and Zone Amendment submitted by Roy Schrijver for property located at

7549 Arkona Road. Carried

Ms. Richardson, the Planner, explained that the applicant, Roy Schrijver., is requesting an

amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the

creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as

a result of a farm consolidation.

She further advised that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1)

zone in the Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the

construction of a new dwelling on the farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and

to allow a lot area of approximately 0.57 hectares (1.4 acres; and a 416m2 accessory building to

remain on the proposed non-farm dwelling lot.

The applications are being proposed in order to allow the existing farm dwelling and accessory

buildings to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a non-farm dwelling lot. The proposed

severed dwelling is excess to the owner’s needs as he reside on another farm.

It was noted that the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot should be increased to 0.8 hectares to

meet the County septic requirement.

There were no questions and or comments from the audience or Council.

13-0304-20 Moved by: Councillor Russell

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

That the Public meeting adjourns and the regular Council meeting

reconvenes at 7:27 p.m. Carried

13-0304-21 Moved by: Councillor Cook

Seconded by: Councillor Maguire

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 submitted by Roy

270

Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as

it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a

new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare,

for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm

consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County

and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets

current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be

repaired or replaced prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted

by Council.

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-09/2012, submitted by

Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official

Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the

creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of

0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result

of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the

County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system

meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it

be repaired or replaced prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by

Council and the new zonings on the property:

a) Prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm

parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling;

b) Requiring a surplus farm dwelling lot to have a minimum lot area

of 0.8 hectares (2 acres); and

c) Allowing a 416 m² accessory building to remain on the proposed

surplus farm dwelling lot. Carried

271

APPENDIX 3 THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

PL Report No. 46-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-01/2013 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-03/2013 LOCATION: 7549 Arkoma Road OWNER: Roy Schrijver Implementing By-law

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT That PL Report No. 46-2013, regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation, be received and filed and that the By-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved.

REPORT

Summary This report relates to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments requested by Roy Schrijver respecting lands he owns at 7549 Arkona Road which were approved in principle by Council on March 4, 2013, subject to conditions. Background The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, just north of Arkona (see map Attachment 1). At their September 5, 2013 meeting and Council passed the following resolution: 13-0304-21 Moved by: Councillor Cook Seconded by: Councillor Maguire

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it

272

relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2013, submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property: a) Prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling; b) Requiring a surplus farm dwelling lot to have a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares (2 acres); and c) Allowing a 416 m² accessory building to remain on the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot. Carried

Mr. Schrijver has replaced the septic system under a permit from the County of Lambton. Further, a reference plan has been prepared which verifies that the surplus farm dwelling will have a lot area of 0.8 hectares. I have prepared the official plan amendment and amending by-law for Council review and approval. The amending by-law prohibits the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel and recognizes the size of the existing accessory building. Financial Impact None Respectfully submitted,

Patti L. Richardson, Senior Planner Attach. 1 - Location Map, Attach. 2 - Official Plan Amendment 38, Attach. 3 - Implementing Zoning By-law

273

274

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW 108 OF 2013 Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 of 2003

WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores passed a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 on the 4th day of February, 2003; and WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law; and WHEREAS a public meeting was held on March 4, 2013 under Section 34(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule "A" attached hereto (being a description of the lands affected by

this By-law) is hereby declared to form part of this By-law. 2. Section 5.5 of By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by adding the following

thereto: hhh) Exception 62 to the Agricultural - 1 Zone

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law to the contrary, on lands zoned Agricultural 1.60 (A1-60) on Schedule “A-9” to this By-law, and described as the Part of Lots 6 and 7, South Boundary Concession, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 7549 Arkona Road, no dwelling unit of any kind shall be permitted; and

iii) Exception 61 to the Agricultural - 1 Zone

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law to the contrary, on lands zoned Agricultural 1.61 (A1-61) on Schedule “A-9” to this By-law and known municipally as 7549 Arkona Road, the maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings shall be 416 m² and the existing accessory building is considered to be accessory to the residential use.

3. Schedule ‘A-9’ to Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by changing the

zone symbol that applies to those lands as indicated on Schedule ‘A’ to this By-law from the:

“AGRICULTURAL- 1- (A1)”

275

to the

“AGRICULTURAL 1.60 (A1-60)”

And

“AGRICULTURAL 1.61- (A1-61)”

4. This By-law shall come into force and effect pursuant to Section 34(21) or Section 34(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

Read a First and Second Time this 7th Day of November, 2013. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

MAYOR – Bill Weber

_____ _ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

276

277

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

ZONING BY-LAW 108 OF 2013 Explanatory Note The purpose of this zoning by-law amendment is to change the Agricultural 1 (A1) zoning on the lands described as Part of Lots 6 and 7, South Boundary Concession, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 7549 Arkona Road to a:

a) an Agricultural A1.60 (A1-60) Zone on the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the

construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling; and

b) an Agricultural A1.61 (A1-61) Zone on the surplus dwelling lot to allow a maximum lot coverage for the existing accessory buildings to be 416 m² and to recognise that existing accessory buildings are considered to be accessory to the residential use.

The lands are also subject of an Official Plan Amendment Application (OP-01/2013) which has been considered by Council and approved, to allow the creation of a new non-farm residential dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation.

278

279

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

PL Report No. 47-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-03/2013 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-05/2013 LOCATION: 392 Main Street, Thedford OWNER: Gary Edward Struyf

Implementing By-law

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT That PL Report No. 47-2013, regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation, be received and filed and that the By-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved.

REPORT

Summary This report relates to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments requested by Gary Edward Struyf respecting lands he owns at 392 Main Street, Thedford which were approved in principle by Council on September 5, 2013, subject to conditions. Background The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, east of Widder Road and Main Street East in Thedford and south of Ravenswood Line. (see map Attachment 1). At their September 5, 2013 meeting and Council passed the following resolution:

13-0905-18 Moved by: Councillor Russell Seconded by: Councillor Scott

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official

280

Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible, prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and allowing a lot area of 34.7 hectares.

Mr. Struyf has had the existing septic system inspected by the County of Lambton. The County has certified that the existing septic system is functioning and meets current standards. I have prepared the official plan amendment and amending by-law for Council review and approval. The amending by-law prohibits the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel and recognizes the size of the remnant farm parcel. Financial Impact None Respectfully submitted,

Patti L. Richardson Senior Planner

Attachment 1 - Location Map, Attachment 2 - Official Plan Amendment 39 and Attachment 3 - Implementing Zoning By-law

281

ATTACHMENT 1

282

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW 109 OF 2013 Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 of 2003

WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores passed a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 on the 4th day of February, 2003; and WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law; and WHEREAS a public meeting was held on September 5, 2013 under Section 34(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule "A" attached hereto (being a description of the lands affected by

this By-law) is hereby declared to form part of this By-law. 2. Section 5.5 of By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by adding the following

thereto: jjj) Exception 62 to the Agricultural - 1 Zone

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law to the contrary, on lands zoned Agricultural 1.62 (A1-62) on Schedule “A-7” to this By-law, and described as the Part of Lots 20, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 392 Main Street, Thedford, no dwelling unit of any kind shall be permitted; and the agricultural lot shall have a lot area of 34.7 hectares.

3. Schedule ‘A-7’ to Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by changing the

zone symbol that applies to those lands as indicated on Schedule ‘A’ to this By-law from the:

“AGRICULTURAL- 1- (A1)” to the

“AGRICULTURAL 1.62 (A1-62)”

283

4. This By-law shall come into force and effect pursuant to Section 34(21) or Section 34(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

Read a First and Second Time this 7th Day of November, 2013. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

MAYOR – Bill Weber

_____ _ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

284

285

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

ZONING BY-LAW 109 OF 2013 Explanatory Note The purpose of this zoning by-law amendment is to change the Agricultural 1 (A1) zoning on the lands described as Part of Lots 20 and 21, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 392 Main Street, Thedford to an Agricultural A1.62 (A1-62) Zone on the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling; and recognize the lot area of 34.7 hectares. The lands are also subject of an Official Plan Amendment Application (OP-03/2013) which has been considered by Council and approved, to allow the creation of a new non-farm residential dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation.

286

287

AMENDMENT NO. 39

TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

OFFICIAL PLAN

288

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Official Plan Amendment No. 39

This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores by By-law 110 of 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 (1) and 19 (15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, on the 7th day of November, 2013.

_____________________

Mayor

Corporate

Seal

______________________

Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

AND NOTICE REQUIREMENT

I, Carol McKenzie, Clerk for the Municipality of Lambton Shores, hereby certify that the requirements for the holding of at least one public meeting as set out in subsection 19(15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990 and the giving notice as set out in subsection 19(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, have been complied with.

_______________________

Clerk

289

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW NUMBER 110 OF 2013

WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores deems it advisable to adopt AMENDMENT NO. 39 to the Lambton Shores Official Plan.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, hereby enacts as follows:

1. Amendment No. 39 of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan consisting of the attached text and maps is hereby adopted.

2. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Lambton for approval of Amendment No. 39 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

3. This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing thereof.

Read a First and Second Time This 7th Day of November, 2013. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

_____

MAYOR – Bill Weber

_____ _ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

290

INDEX

PAGE

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS 1

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

1. PURPOSE .......................................................................................... 2

2. LOCATION ......................................................................................... 2

3. BASIS ................................................................................................. 2

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 5

2. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT ...................................................... 5

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION .................................. 5

PART C - APPENDIX ............................................................................................... 7

291

-1-

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute part of this amendment.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text and map (designated Schedule 'A') constitutes Amendment No. 39 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

PART C - APPENDIX does not constitute part of this amendment. This appendix contains background data, planning considerations and a record of the public involvement associated with this amendment.

292

-2-

PART A – THE PREAMBLE Purpose

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation. Location The lands affected by this amendment comprise lands described Part of Lot 20 and East Part of Lot 21, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 392 Main Street, Thedford and are shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, east of Widder Road and Main Street East in Thedford and south of Ravenswood Line. Basis The lands are currently designated “Agriculture in the Lambton Shores Official Plan. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm dwellings The Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 34.7 hectares. and is only marginally smaller than identified in the Official Plan. Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states:

A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm lot comply with the following polices: i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 metres apart;

ii) only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be

severed from an original farm lot; iii) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the

requirements of the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water supply and sewage disposal;

293

iv) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and

-3- v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to

an improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following:

Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for:

c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm

consolidation provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective: and

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as

” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation).

Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states:

“New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.”

The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following with respect to the creation of new residential lots:

Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted only in the following situations: (a) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for : 1. a farm retirement lot;

294

2. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 3. residential infilling.

Mr. Struyf together with his wife, Sylvia and son Jeff, own 750 acres of agricultural land and rent a further 750 acres. Gary and Sylvia Struyf reside at 9034 Arkona Road, while their son resides at 9033 Arkona Road and therefore they have no use for the dwelling on the subject lands. As a result, Mr. Struyf would like to dispose of it. This would be permitted by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, but not the Lambton Shores Official Plan which has not been updated to reflect the 2005 Policy Statement. The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to prohibit a new dwelling on the farm parcel. As well, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the creation of a lot for a surplus farm dwelling comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS). Site inspection reveals that there are no animal operations in the general vicinity.

295

-5-

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

Introduction All of this part of the document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following text and attached map, designated Schedule “A” (Land Use Plan), constitutes Amendment No. 39 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan. Details of the Amendment The following amendments affect lands shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. Section 1.11(e) of the Official Plan for the Municipality of Lambton Shores is hereby amended by adding the following to Section 1.11(e) after section (xxi)

; and

(xxii) Part of Lot 20 and East Part of Lot 21, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now the Municipality of Lambton Shores and known municipally as 392 Main Street, Thedford:

Implementation and Interpretation The implementation and interpretation of this amendment shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan.

296

-6-

297

-7-

PART C - THE APPENDIX

The following appendix does not constitute part of Amendment No. 39 but is included as information supporting the amendment.

APPENDIX 1......................................Planner’s Report No. 40 of 2013 – September 5, 2013

APPENDIX 2......................................Minutes of Public Meeting –September 5, 2013

APPENDIX 3 …………………………Planner’s Report No. 47 of 2013 – November 7, 2013

298

APPENDIX 1

THE MUNCIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES PL Report No. 40-2013 Council Meeting Date: September 5, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-03/2013

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-05/2013 LOCATION: 392 Main Street, Thedford OWNER: Gary Edward Struyf

RECOMMENDATION:

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 submitted by Gary Edward Struyf requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council.

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant

299

farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and allowing a lot area of 34.7 hectares.

REPORT

Summary of the Application

The Applicant, Gary Edward Struyf is requesting: Official Plan Amendment Application an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the creation of a new 0.58 hectare non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation.

Zoning By-law Amendment Application an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and allow the remnant farm lot to have a lot area of 13.35 hectares whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 38 hectares.

The applications are being proposed in order to allow the existing farm dwelling and accessory building to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a non-farm dwelling. The proposed severed dwelling is excess to the owner’s needs as he resides on another farm. Location The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, east of Widder Road and Main Street East in Thedford and south of Ravenswood Line. (see map Attachment 1). The lands are occupied by a single detached dwelling, small elevator and seed cleaning plant. The lands are predominately under cultivation. Upon receipt of the application and reviewing the assessment information it appears that the land subject of the application comprise the south 13.3 hectares identified as of the Role # 460060038. However, upon further review, staff found that Mr. Struyf also owns the northerly adjacent property identified as Role No. 460060039 and comprising an area of 21.4 hectares. Mr. Struyf’s solicitor, Mr. Philip Walden was contacted and he verified that although the lands comprise two role numbers they are actually legally one parcel. So the entire subject land has an area of 34.7 hectares and an extensive frontage on Arkona and Widder Roads, Main St. E and Ravenswood Line. Uses of surrounding lands include residential dwellings, industrial, agriculture and commercial uses.

300

Correspondence A letter has been received from Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager of Building Services, County of Lambton (See Attachment 3). She advises the following:

The proposed lot size of 2 acres in clay soils is acceptable to this Department and meets the "Reasonable Use" guidelines and requirements. The retained parcel also meets the same requirements. Therefore this Department has no concerns with the lot sizes as presented.

There are records in our possession for 392 Main Street, East which confirms there is a septic system on this property as it was installed under permit No. SL-217-85 in 1985. Review of the permit indicates that the septic system appears to generally conform to the Ontario Building Code, Part 8, as required. No "underdrains" are noted on the approved Ministry of Environment paperwork.

A site inspection must be conducted to ensure that the septic system is operating in an efficient and effective manner and that no evidence of sewage effluent/discharge on the ground. Additionally, all distribution piping shall meet the property line setback of 10 feet in all directions, please provide visual and written proof of the same.

At this time, this Department can support the above noted application, provided the following conditions are imposed:

1. That the septic system be partially uncovered to confirm the component location, size and condition. This must be completed to the satisfaction of the Private Sewage System Coordinator or Building Services Manager. 2. That a site inspection be conducted to confirm location of the septic system and to ensure that sewage/effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface and that it is wholly contained within the newly created parcel. In the event the septic system is not compliant, a new Part 8 system will be required to be installed.

Discussion The lands are currently designated “Agriculture in the Lambton Shores Official Plan. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm dwellings

301

The Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 34.7 hectares. and is only marginally smaller than identified in the Official Plan. I have no concerns with the remnant farm parcel size. Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states:

A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm lot comply with the following polices: i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 metres apart;

ii) only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be

severed from an original farm lot; iii) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the

requirements of the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water supply and sewage disposal;

iv) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance

with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to

an improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following:

Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for:

d) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm

consolidation provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be

302

recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective: and

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as

” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation).

Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states:

“New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.”

The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following with respect to the creation of new residential lots:

Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted only in the following situations: (b) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for :

4. a farm retirement lot; 5. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 6. residential infilling.

Mr. Struyf together with his wife, Sylvia and son Jeff, own 750 acres of agricultural land and rent a further 750 acres. Gary and Sylvia Struyf reside at 9034 Arkona Road, while their son resides at 9033 Arkona Road and therefore they have no use for the dwelling on the subject lands. As a result, Mr. Struyf would like to dispose of it. This would be permitted by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, but not the Lambton Shores Official Plan which has not been updated to reflect the 2005 Policy Statement. The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to prohibit a new dwelling on the farm parcel. As well, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the creation of a lot for a surplus farm dwelling comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS). Site inspection reveals that there are no animal operations in the general vicinity.

303

Zoning The subject lands are zoned “Agricultural 1 (A1)” in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. The predominant permitted use in this zone is agriculture and associated buildings and structures. The “A1” zone requires that a farm parcel have a minimum lot area of 38 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 150 metres. The lands which are to be retained in agricultural use will have a lot frontage well in excess of 150 metres and a lot area of 34.7. hectares. The lot frontage complies with the by-law, however the area is slightly less than the minimum lot area established in the zoning by-law. The “A1” zoning on these lands permits an accessory farm dwelling as a permitted use. The zoning on the remnant farm parcel will be amended to prohibit the construction of a new non-farm dwelling as is required by the Provincial Policy Statement and recognize the deficient lot area. The Agricultural 1 (A1) Zone requires that a non-farm dwelling lot have a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 45 metres. The surplus dwelling lot is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 0.8 hectares and a lot frontage of 152 metres and thus complies with the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of the Zoning by-law. Servicing The proposed non-farm residential lot is serviced by a private septic system and municipal water. Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager of Building Services, County of Lambton (See Attachment 3) advises the following:

The proposed lot size of 2 acres in clay soils is acceptable to this Department and meets the "Reasonable Use" guidelines and requirements. The retained parcel also meets the same requirements. Therefore this Department has no concerns with the lot sizes as presented.

There are records in our possession for 392 Main Street, East which confirms there is a septic system on this property as it was installed under permit No. SL-217-85 in 1985. Review of the permit indicates that the septic system appears to generally conform to the Ontario Building Code, Part 8, as required. No "underdrains" are noted on the approved Ministry of Environment paperwork.

A site inspection must be conducted to ensure that the septic system is operating in an efficient and effective manner and that no evidence of sewage effluent/discharge on the ground. Additionally, all distribution piping shall meet the property line setback of 10 feet in all directions, please provide visual and written proof of the same.

304

At this time, this Department can support the above noted application, provided the following conditions are imposed:

1. That the septic system be partially uncovered to confirm the component

location, size and condition. This must be completed to the satisfaction of the Private Sewage System Coordinator or Building Services Manager.

2. That a site inspection be conducted to confirm location of the septic system and

to ensure that sewage/effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface and that it is wholly contained within the newly created parcel. In the event the septic system is not compliant, a new Part 8 system will be required to be installed.

Summary

In light of the above, I can recommend that these applications be approved in principle, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied with respect to the existing septic system prior to the By-law for the Official Plan and Zoning amendments being adopted by Council as the applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Respectfully submitted

Patti L. Richardson Senior Planner

305

ATTACHMENT 1

306

ATTACHMENT 2

307

ATTACHMENT 3

BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 789 Broadway Street, Box 3000 Wyoming, ON N0N 1T0 Telephone: 519 845-5420 Toll-free: 1-866-324-6912 Fax: 519 845-3817 www.lambtononline.ca

MEMO

DATE: August 16, 2013 TO: Committee of Adjustment FROM: Corrine Nauta – Manager, Building Services CC: Patti Richardson – Senior Planner RE: 392 Main Street, East - Struyf Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment OP-03/2013 and ZO-05/2013

The above noted application has been reviewed and the following comments are provided for your consideration. The proposed lot size of 2 acres in clay soils is acceptable to this Department and meets the "Reasonable Use" guidelines and requirements. The retained parcel also meets the same requirements. Therefore this Department has no concerns with the lot sizes as presented. There are records in our possession for 392 Main Street, East. The permit number and installation date is SL-217-85 (1985), respectively which confirms the septic system on this property. The septic system appears to generally conform to the Ontario Building Code, Part 8, as required. No "underdrains" are noted on the approved Ministry of Environment paperwork. A site inspection must be conducted to ensure that the septic system is operating in an efficient and effective manner and that no evidence of sewage effluent/discharge on the ground. Additionally, all distribution piping shall meet the property line setback of 10 feet in all directions, please provide visual and written proof of the same. At this time, this Department can support the above noted application, provided the following conditions are imposed:

308

1. That the septic system be partially uncovered to confirm the component location, size and condition. This must be completed to the satisfaction of the Private Sewage System Coordinator or Building Services Manager. 2. That a site inspection be conducted to confirm location of the septic system and to ensure that sewage/effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface and that it is wholly contained within the newly created parcel. In the event the septic system is not compliant, a new Part 8 system will be required to be installed. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

309

APPENDIX 2

Excerpts from September 5, 2013 8.1 Public Meeting – Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013 &

Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 for Gary Edward Struyf – 392 Main Street, East

13-0905-16 Moved by: Councillor Scott Seconded by: Councillor Russell That the Council meeting adjourns at 6:15 p.m. for a Public Meeting held under the Planning Act to hear an application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zone Amendment submitted by Gary Edward Struyf for property located at 392 Main Street, East in Thedford. Carried

Planner Patti Richardson advised Council that the applicant, Gary Edward Struyf is requesting an amendment to the ”Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the creation of a new 0.58 hectare non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation. The applicant is also requesting an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling. Ms. Richardson noted that the County of Lambton can support this application provided the conditions imposed concerning the septic system were met. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Councillor Russell asked that staff investigate the option that the applicant connects to the Thedford Sewer System.

13-0905-17 Moved by: Councillor Russell Seconded by: Councillor Cook That the Public Meeting closes and the regular Council meeting reconvenes at 6:24 p.m. Carried

13-0905-18 Moved by: Councillor Russell

Seconded by: Councillor Scott

310

THAT Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 submitted by Gary Edward Struyf requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired, replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council. THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1-2003 as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired, replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and allowing a lot area of 34.7 hectares. Carried

311

APPENDIX 3

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

PL Report No. 47-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-03/2013 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-05/2013 LOCATION: 392 Main Street, Thedford OWNER: Gary Edward Struyf

Implementing By-law

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT That PL Report No. 47-2013, regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation, be received and filed and that the By-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved.

REPORT

Summary This report relates to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments requested by Gary Edward Struyf respecting lands he owns at 392 Main Street, Thedford which were approved in principle by Council on September 5, 2013, subject to conditions. Background The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, east of Widder Road and Main Street East in Thedford and south of Ravenswood Line. (see map Attachment 1). At their September 5, 2013 meeting and Council passed the following resolution:

13-0905-18 Moved by: Councillor Russell Seconded by: Councillor Scott

312

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2013 submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible prior to the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council.

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-05/2013, submitted by Gary Edward Struyf, requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 392 Main Street, Thedford, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing septic system meets current standards and is functioning properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced or connected to the Thedford Sewer System if possible, prior to the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the new zonings on the property prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling and allowing a lot area of 34.7 hectares.

Mr. Struyf, has had the existing septic system inspected by the County of Lambton. The County has certified that the existing septic system is functioning and meets current standards. I have prepared the official plan amendment and amending by-law for Council review and approval. The amending by-law prohibits the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel and recognizes the size of the remnant farm parcel.

Financial Impact

None Respectfully submitted,

Patti L. Richardson Senior Planner Attachment 1 - Location Map, Attachment 2 - Official Plan Amendment 39 and Attachment 3 - Implementing Zoning By-law

313

ATTACHMENT 1

314

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 137– 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Amendment to the Recreation Facility Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 137-2013 regarding an amendment to the Recreation Facility Fee Schedule be received; and THAT Council adopt the existing fee schedule for the pavilion located at the Port Franks Community Centre.

REPORT Summary This report proposes an amendment to the Recreation Facility Fee Schedule to include a rental fee for the new pavilion at the Port Franks Community Centre. Background Lambton Shores currently has rental fees for eight pavilions within the municipality. These pavilions are used for a variety of activities including family picnics, baseball tournaments and active living programs. All pavilion renters pay either a flat per day rate, as is the case for most event rentals or an hourly rate for any active living programs. The chart below illustrates the pavilion fees up to 2016.

Pavilion 2013 2014 2015 2016 HST

Per Day $ 43.45 $ 44.75 $ 46.10 $ 47.50 Extra

Pavilion Active Living Programs Per Hour $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Extra

It is anticipated that the new pavilion in Port Franks will be utilized for similar functions and therefore the same rental fees should be applied. Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council adopt the existing fee schedule for the pavilion located at the Port Franks Community Centre. Financial Impact Rental Fees for municipal facilities help offset the operational and maintenance costs incurred daily. Pavilion fees are set at a minimal rate because of the lower overhead

315

costs to the municipality, but it is important to impose a fee to ensure those expenses are covered. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Report Prepared by Shannon Prout, Acting Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure

316

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 138 – 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Jericho Wind Energy Project - Requests for Drainage Reports RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 138-2013 related to “Jericho Wind Energy Project - Requests for Drainage Reports” under Section 78 of the Drainage Act be received; and

THAT the request for drainage improvements received for the Scott Drain under Section 78 (1) and Section 74 of the Drainage Act be approved; and THAT Spriet & Associates be appointed as the engineer for the project conditional on the expiration of the 30 day notice period to the Conservation Authority as required under Section 6 of the Drainage Act.

REPORT Summary This report presents an additional request from NextEra, acting as agent for individual landowners, for improvements to the Scott Drain submitted under Section 78 (1) and Section 74 of the Drainage Act. This request relates to drains that are affected by construction of NextEra’s Jericho wind energy project. Background At the June 6, 2013 meeting Council received DCS 70-2013 that provided Council with information and the recommended approach for dealing with the numerous requests for drain maintenance that were anticipated to be submitted for the Jericho wind energy project. As a result of this report Council passed the following motion:

13-0606-23 Moved by: Councillor Cook Seconded by: Councillor Underwood

That the recommendations contained in D.C.S. Report No. 70-2013 be approved; and further

That requests for municipal drain maintenance related to closed drainage crossings be accepted under Section 74 of the Drainage Act. Carried

317

As a result of this decision, all requests for maintenance on closed drains related to Section 74 of Act will be dealt with in the following manner:

A drainage engineer is appointed to develop a technical memo detailing the acceptable design, pipe material, installation conditions, and all other pertinent details for each respective crossing.

After pipe upgrades at the location of a closed drain crossing is completed, the municipality requires two copies of all technical memos, design plans, specifications, and stamped drawings to include in the drainage file.

The municipality further requires a stamped letter of conformance from the engineer of record stating that the installation has been completed to plan.

After construction of the turbine, the municipality requires the drain crossing to be camera inspected, and the submission of a stamped letter from the engineer of record stating that the drainage pipe at the crossing remains in good condition and in good working order.

All costs are apportioned directly to the affected property owner. For Council’s information requests to install new open drain crossings are automatically covered under Section 78 the Act. Community Services staff communicated this policy to NextEra and has subsequently has received one (1) additional signed request for repair and improvements to the Scott Drain which has been identified in the construction zones of the Jericho wind energy project. NextEra is acting as the agent for the individual landowners, and each request has been signed by the registered landowners per the requirements of the Drainage Act. This request was received under Section 78(1). For this request, the Scott Drain will require a report outlining the history and existing conditions, design criteria and considerations with recommendations by the engineer and scope of work for construction purposes. As these projects are not being completed for agricultural purposes, there will not be any agricultural granting offered by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Because the drainage work will be for the sole benefit of the property owner requesting the work, all maintenance costs will be assessed directly to that specific landowner. Required Action Staff recommends that the request for drainage improvements to the Scott Drain received for the Jericho wind energy project under Section 78 (1) and Section 74 of the Drainage Act be approved by Council. It is further recommended that Spreit & Associates be appointed as the engineer for the project conditional on the expiration of the 30 day notice period to the Conservation Authority as required under Section 6 of the Drainage Act. Financial Impact There will be no financial obligations for the municipality as a result of these drainage improvement requests. Each project will be assessed under Section 24 of the Drainage Act as a “Special Benefit” to the landowner requesting the work. Specifically, Section 24 of the Act states:

318

“special benefit” means any additional work or feature included in the construction, repair or improvement of a drainage works that has no effect on the functioning of the drainage works;

As a result, all costs of the works will be borne by the landowners who have submitted the request for a drainage improvement. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Report Prepared by Allan Little, Drainage Superintendent

319

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 140 – 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Renewal of the Thedford Shuffleboard Club Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 140-2013 regarding the “Renewal of the Thedford Shuffleboard Club’s lease agreement” be received; and THAT the Club be granted a one-year agreement with the Municipality for the periodic use of Thomas Hall at the Legacy Recreation Centre, with a monthly fee of $125.00 plus HST, commencing January 1, 2014.

REPORT Summary This report proposes the renewal of the agreement that was approved by Council in 2012 and recommends that the Thedford Shuffleboard Club continue to pay a monthly fee of $125.00 plus HST for the use of Thomas Hall at the Legacy Recreation Centre on Monday afternoons for their weekly shuffleboard program. The current agreement ends on December 31, 2013. Background The Thedford Shuffleboard Club has been a part of the community for over twenty years and has been able to run a successful program with approximately 30-35 members. Each member pays a nominal fee of $30.00 per year to play. The Club not only offers a physical activity for the seniors and retired individuals in the community, but also a social outing for the users.

Staff met with the Club’s Treasurer on October 10, 2013 to discuss the agreement and both parties feel that continuing the monthly fee of $125 plus HST is appropriate.

As noted in DCS Report No.112-2012, the Club would face annual fees over $7,500.00 if they had to pay the regular rate. Since the Club charges annual dues of only $30.00 per player, charging the regular rate would require the group to significantly increase membership rates, and would likely cause a decline in membership. It is unlikely that the group would continue operations should they be charged the regular rate.

Also mentioned in that report was the fact that the other senior organizations have operated on verbal agreements with the Municipality and pay anywhere from $100.00 per month to $230.00 per month for use of municipal facilities. The Community 320

Services Department recognizes that these agreements are inconsistent as they were grandfathered in after amalgamation and have not yet been fully reviewed, however a full review in 2014 will be a priority. Alternatives to Consider Council may want to consider the following alternatives to the recommended action:

1) The Club must pay the full rate to use the facility. This would assist the Municipality in recouping the costs incurred while operating the facility. This would likely see the demise of the Club.

2) Council could grant a total fee waiver for the use of the hall for this organization. This would help ensure the life of the Club and may also increase its membership as the savings could be passed onto the shuffle boarders. This alternative would see the Municipality lose out on any possible revenue that would help cover the expenses of operating the facility, and would be inconsistent with its practice of charging nominal rates to other community organizations.

Recommended Action It is recommended that the Thedford Shuffleboard Club be granted a one-year renewal agreement with the Municipality for the use of Thomas Hall at the Legacy Recreation Centre that would see the Club continue to pay a monthly fee of $125.00 plus HST. A draft agreement has been included in ‘Attachment 1’ for Council’s review. The agreement would be effective from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, and renewal would be possible pending staff and Council review of agreements with community groups. Financial Impact Although, charging the Club the full rate would have a positive financial impact for the Municipality, it would likely lead to the folding of the Shuffleboard Club’s. By charging the Club a reduced rate allows to Municipality to earn some revenue from the rental that would otherwise be lost with a full fee waiver. This is a consistent approach with the Municipality’s overall recreation fee philosophy, and allows access to recreation for a wide range of user groups. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Report prepared by Shannon Prout, Acting Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure Attachments:

1. Draft License Agreement with Thedford Shuffleboard

321

Attachment 1

THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT is made the day of , 20__

BETWEEN

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES (Hereinafter called the “Municipality”)

OF THE FIRST PART AND

THEDFORD SHUFFLEBOARD CLUB (Hereinafter called the “Licensee”)

OF THE SECOND PART In consideration of the agreed upon rate paid by the Licensee to the Municipality, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Municipality grants to the Licensee the use of the (area/room) Thomas Hall

located at the (facility) Legacy Recreation Centre for the purpose of (i.e. meetings) Shuffleboard as specified on the times and days listed below:

DAY START TIME END TIME WEEKLY/MONTHLY (if monthly, indicate

which week i.e. 3rd Monday)

MONDAY 1:00pm 4:00pm Weekly

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

SUNDAY

2. This Agreement is for a one (1) year period, commencing January 1, 2014, with an

option to renew at the expiration of this License, subject to approval of both parties. 3. Both parties agree that the Licensee is granted access to the facility at a rate of

$125.00 + HST per month, during the times and days and for the purpose(s) mentioned in Section 1.

4. The Municipality reserves the right to book any space habitually not being used by

the Licensee.

322

5. The Licensee acknowledges that the facility is owned by the Municipality and as the owner; the Municipality has the right to use the facility when required. The Municipality reserves the right to use any portion of the licensed area for municipal purposes provided a minimum of seven (7) days notice is given to the Licensee. The seven day notice requirement will be waived in the case of an emergency, at which time; no notice will be required to be provided to the Licensee.

6. It is the intention of both parties that the agreement between the two parties for the

occupancy by the Licensee does not create a possessory interest or any other interest in real property that is subject to assessment under the Assessment Act.

7. No signage shall be erected in the building, on the building, or elsewhere on the

property without the prior written approval of the Municipality 8. The Municipality will be responsible for all external maintenance necessary to

protect the integrity of the building and interior maintenance of the building. The Municipality will be responsible for the maintenance on the equipment that it owns. The Licensee will be responsible for all equipment and facilities for which it claims exclusive use.

9. The Municipality shall maintain at its cost liability insurance on Municipal facilities.

The licensee shall maintain insurance on all equipment and furniture for which it claims exclusive use and liability insurance for its own events and activities as may be appropriate, naming the Municipality as an additional insured.

10. The organization acknowledges that the Municipality is not responsible for lost,

stolen or damaged equipment belonging to the organization. 11. Licensees wishing to store electronic equipment of any kind are required to pay a

monthly fee of $5.00 when the equipment is plugged in, to help cover the costs of utilities.

12. This Agreement replaces and supersedes all other agreements between the

Municipality (former Towns, Townships and Villages) and the Licensee. 13. If either the Licensee or the Municipality wishes to terminate this License prior to

the end of the term created by this agreement, notice to that affect will be given in writing NOT LESS THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS notice. The Licensee agrees and acknowledges that a notice to terminate the License as described above shall be delivered or mailed to the offices of the Municipality at:

The Municipality of Lambton Shores PO Box 610 Forest, ON N0N 1J0 Attention: Carol McKenzie, Clerk

The Municipality agrees that a notice to terminate the License as described above shall be delivered or mailed to: __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

323

__________________________________________________

EXCEPTION: In the case that the “licensed premises” are required by the Municipality for municipal purposes, the Municipality can give notice of termination of the agreement to the Licensee, providing LESS THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have set their hands and seals this ____ day of __________ 200__

_____________________________

Licensee

_____________________________ Licensee

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

_____________________________

Mayor Bill Weber

_____________________________ Clerk, Carol McKenzie

324

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

D.C.S. Report No. 145 – 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services RE: Intellectual Property for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant – Dillon

Consulting Design RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 145-2013 regarding the “Intellectual Property for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant – Dillon Consulting Design” be received; and THAT Council authorize the Director of Community Services to sign the letter of agreement with Dillon Consulting for the provision of intellectual property associated with the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Upgrade.

REPORT Summary This report presents a letter of agreement from Dillon Consulting for provision of intellectual property related to the original design for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility upgrade. Background Dillon Consulting Limited was retained to complete design and construction administration services for the originally envisioned Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Upgrade project, and the standard Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) agreement was signed for the project on May 22, 2009. As Council is aware the project will be moving forward with a new design, and Dillon Consulting will not be bidding on this new work. Community Services staff has requested the intellectual property related to the original design from Dillon per Sections 1.05 and 1.06 of the MEA services agreement to complete our file. The agreement clearly specifies that intellectual property remains the sole property of Dillon, that records will be exchanged between the parties of the agreement, and that Lambton Shores will indemnify Dillon for unauthorized use of the documents. The MEA agreement is the standard agreement used when hiring engineering firms. The wording used in these sections recognizes the fact that the Client has the right to use documents with regard to any aspect of the initial project. The wording also recognizes that for any future project of a similar nature, the Consultant should not be liable unless duly compensated. 325

The sections of the agreement that apply in this case are written as follows: 1.05 Drawings and Documents

Subject to Section 3.2.4 of Article 3, drawings and documents or copies thereof required for the Project shall be exchanged between the parties on a reciprocal basis. Documents prepared by the Consultant for the Client, including record drawings, may be used by the Client, for the Project herein described. In accordance with Article 1.06, the client indemnifies the Consultant for unauthorized use of the documents and deliverables.

1.06 Intellectual Property All concepts, products or processes produced by or resulting from the Services rendered by the Consultant in connection with the Project, or which are otherwise developed or first reduced to practice by the Consultant in the performance of his Services, and which are patentable, capable of trademark or otherwise, shall be considered as Intellectual Property and remain the property of the Consultant. The Client shall have permanent non-exclusive royalty-free license to use any concept, product or process, which is patentable, capable of trademark or otherwise produced by or resulting from the Services rendered by the Consultant in connection with the Project and for no other purpose or project.

Dillon has agreed to provide the requested information, subject to Lambton Shores’ agreement to sign the attached letter of agreement. The letter essentially outlines the same requirements as were originally agreed to in 2009, namely that Lambton Shores cannot use the documents for any other use that the original project definition, and that Lambton Shores indemnifies Dillon in the event of unauthorized use. Dillon has indicated that they will not assume liability for another firm’s use of their original design work. As noted above, Dillon is not bidding on the new design. So Council is aware, the new engineering firm that is selected to redesign the Grand Bend sewage treatment facility will not be able to reuse design drawings from the original project. The design has changed in a material sense, namely the reduction in sewage treatment capacity of the plant. This difference materially changes the design of the unit operations within the facility. As a result, the successful firm will be required to redesign all unit operations, create new design drawings, seal, stamp, and assume liability for their work. This requirement stems directly from a professional engineer’s duty to be responsible for his/her work, and assume the liability of the design. The design engineer must have a reasonable level of comfort in the design parameters and assumptions, and many prefer to begin the design process from step 1 so that they are fully aware of the components of the design and are only assuming liability for their own work. When a redesign is completed and when the engineering firm changes, the original design work cannot be used as a basis for the redesign unless the original design engineer agrees to assume liability for new engineer’s use of their work. As noted by the Municipal Engineer’s Association, the MEA agreement is drafted with this matter in mind and the industry standard is that the original consultant should not be liable unless duly 326

compensated. Dillon has indicated that they will not assume liability for another firm’s use of their original design work. Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council authorize the Director of Community Services to sign the letter of agreement with Dillon Consulting for the provision of intellectual property associated with the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Upgrade. Financial Impact None. Dillon is providing these electronic documents without an associated fee. Respectfully submitted, Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services Attachments:

1. October 22, 2013 Letter of Agreement from Dillon Consulting

327

328

329

330

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

TR Report No. 87 - 2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Janet Ferguson, Treasurer RE: Tax Arrears Extension Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR 87-2013 being a report to address Tax Arrears be received; and THAT By-law 103 of 2013, authorizing the execution of a tax arrears extension agreement that was signed by the Treasurer and the registered owner of the property as shown on the Assessment Roll as Roll 3845 520 010 40000 0000 on October 28th, 2013, pursuant to Section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001 be approved.

______________________________________________________________________ REPORT Summary This report is for Council’s review and approval of the signing of a Tax Arrears Extension Agreement dated October 28th, 2013 by the registered property owner and Treasurer. Background The municipality has a set collection policy for collecting past due property tax accounts which involves issuing monthly notices and personal phone calls. In the event that accounts remain unpaid for three years, the Municipal Act is followed for the balance of the procedures. Any property with taxes in arrears in excess of three years is eligible for the registration of a tax arrears certificate under Part XI of the Municipal Act, 2001. A registered letter was forwarded to the owner of the property identified on the Assessment Roll as no. 3845 520 010 40000 0000 on May 2nd, 2012 requesting payment of the outstanding 2009 taxes plus all year’s outstanding interest and penalty on or before June 1st, 2012. There was no response received from the property owner prior to the deadline; therefore, the Municipality proceeded with the legal requirement under the Act and contacted RealTax Inc. requested that a tax sale registration be initiated. RealTax Inc. is the company that the Municipality contracts for tax sale

331

procedures. RealTax issued the pertinent notices to the property owner and subsequently a Tax Arrears Certificate was registered on this property on October 29th, 2012.

Under the tax sale procedures set out in the Municipal Act 2001, if the cancellation price is not paid or an extension agreement entered into, the Municipality would be in a position to offer this property for sale by public tender after October 29th, 2013.

The owner of this property attended the Finance Department on Thursday, October 24th, 2013 and requested that the Municipality allow him time to pay the cancellation price. The “Cancellation Price” is the payment of all outstanding tax arrears, all penalties and interest outstanding, consultant (RealTax) fees incurred and any applicable administration fees.

Section 378 of the Municipal Act 2001 provides that after the registration of a tax arrears certificate and before the expiry of the one (1) year following the date of the registration of the tax arrears certificate, the Municipality may by By-law authorize an extension agreement with the owner of the property, the spouse of the owner, a mortgagee or a tenant in occupation of the land, to extend the period of time in which the cancellation price is to be paid.

Considering the best interest of the Municipality and Property Owner, an extension agreement was prepared and the registered owner and Treasurer signed this agreement on October 28th, 2013. Preparing and signing the extension agreement was done in advance of an authorizing by-law to ensure we met the Municipal Act requirement of 1 year. This agreement was completed with the understanding that Council has the final decision to grant the extension. The payment schedule is attached as “Schedule B” to the Extension Agreement authorizing by-law. The cancellation price is to be paid in full by January 31st, 2014. In the event the property owner defaults on the payment commitment, this Extension Agreement shall terminate and the Treasurer will resume the tax sale process. Recommended Action That Council ratifies the Extension Agreement signed on October 28th, 2013 by by-law. Financial Impact There is no negative financial impact to the Municipality if the extension agreement is approved. A cooperative agreement benefits both the property owner and the Municipality. Implementing this agreement will result in a decrease in the taxes receivable for this property. Respectfully submitted,

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer Report prepared by Wendy Jennison, Tax Collector

332

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW 103 - 2013

BEING A BY–LAW to authorize the execution of a tax arrears extension agreement pursuant to Section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001

________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores registered on the 29th day of October, 2012, a tax arrears certificate against the land described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this By–law;

AND WHEREAS Section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that after the registration of a tax arrears certificate and before the expiry of one (1) year following the date of the registration of the tax arrears certificate, a Municipality or Board may by By–law authorize an extension agreement with the owner of the land, the spouse of the owner, a mortgagee or a tenant in occupation of such land to extend the period of time in which the cancellation price in respect to the Owner’s land is to be paid;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts the following as a By–law:

1. THAT an agreement be entered into by The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores with the Owner of the land described in Schedule “A” to extend the time period in which the cancellation price payable on this land is to be paid on the terms and generally in the form of Schedule “B” attached to this By-law;

2. THAT the agreement be in substantially the same form and contain the same terms and conditions as set out in Schedule “B”, a copy of which is attached hereto.

3. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Corporation.

4. THAT this By–law shall come into force and take effect upon the final passing

thereof.

READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of November, 2013.

READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of November, 2013.

______________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

______________________ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

333

SCHEDULE “A” TO EXTENSION AGREEMENT

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

TAX ROLL # 3845 520 010 40000 0000

334

SCHEDULE “B” TO EXTENSION AGREEMENT

PAYMENTS REQUIRED UNDER EXTENSION AGREEMENT:

$30,000.00 to be paid on November 8th, 2013 Balance of Cancellation Price to be paid in full on or before January 31st, 2014

335

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

TR Report No. 89-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Janet Ferguson, Treasurer

RE: Fire Service Agreement Review

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Treasurers report TR-89-2013 regarding Fire Service Agreement Review be received; and THAT staff provide a written response to the Town of Plympton-Wyoming acknowledging their notice to terminate the Fire Service agreement with Lambton Shores, and clarifying the nature of any mutual aid service that may be requested in the future. THAT staff continue to meet with the Municipalities that Lambton Shores has fire service agreements with and when necessary, the Lambton County Fire Service Coordinator and Fire Marshal’s office representative and report back to the Fire Services Board and Council should changes to the agreements be necessary.

REPORT Summary This report is to advise Council of notice by Plympton-Wyoming that they have chosen to terminate their fire service agreement with Lambton Shores. Furthermore, this report advises that staff have initiated a review of other existing fire service agreements. The objective of this review is to help ensure a full understanding of issues and impacts that these agreements have on the ratepayers of both Lambton Shores and our neighbour communities. Background Lambton Shores has agreements with 5 neighbouring communities for the provision of fire protection services. These communities are: Municipality of Bluewater Municipality of North Middlesex Municipality of South Huron Town of Plympton Wyoming Township of Warwick

336

Many of these agreements represent the continuation of arrangements between the former municipalities (Forest, Arkona, and Grand Bend) constituting what is now Lambton Shores, and their neighbours. The agreements continue to serve their original purpose of providing cost effective fire services to geographically aligned communities with the intent of enabling response times that target the guidelines of the Ontario Fire Marshal’s office. Attached to this report as Appendix 1 is a letter received from Plympton-Wyoming providing written notice of their intent to terminate their Fire Service Agreement effective on the 31st of December 2013 at 11:59 pm. The Forest Fire Chief has expressed concerns that Plympton-Wyoming may not fully understand the impact of this decision, as regards the provision of emergency services. Accordingly, the Chief and CAO will be clarifying future expectations, in conjunction with the County Fire Coordinator and the Fire Marshal’s office as necessary. Council may recall that in June of 2013 it received a request from the Township of Warwick to review the financial terms of its fire service agreement. During the summer, and early fall, staff have reviewed the costing associated with each of the fire service agreements and researched other sample agreements and methods of cost sharing. As part of this review staff has met with, or are scheduled to meet with, administrators from the Municipalities that we have fire service agreements with. The intent of these meetings is to review service delivery, communications, and financing issues. Once the meetings are complete a report will be provided to Council for consideration for the future fire service agreements. Recommended Action That staff continue to meet with the Municipalities that Lambton Shores has fire service agreements with and when necessary, the Lambton County Fire Service Coordinator and Fire Marshal’s office representative and report back to Council. Financial Impact Any change to the current Fire Service Agreements impacts the Lambton Shores Budget; however, at this time it is difficult to determine the full degree of the impacts. The termination of the Plympton-Wyoming agreement reflects a loss of revenue of approximately $59,000.00. Respectfully submitted,

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer Attachment 1: Letter from Town of Plympton-Wyoming providing notice of termination from Fire Service Agreement

337

338

339

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

CL Report No. 97-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk RE: Election 2014 – Report #1 Re: Key Dates & Method of Election RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 97-2013 providing information on the 2014 Municipal Election be received, and THAT, in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Section 42.(1) the Council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores authorizes the continuation of the “Vote by Mail” method of election; and THAT prior to June 1, the final policies and procedures are presented to Council for approval.

REPORT Summary With the next Municipal Election scheduled for October 27, 2014, candidates will be able to file nomination papers as of January 2, 2014, and it is requested that Council confirm the method of election to be used in the election so that the “Candidate Information” packages can be prepared. Background Municipal Elections are governed by the Municipal Elections Act, and in an election year, voting day is the fourth Monday of the month of October, which in 2014 is October 27th. The term for the new Council will commence December 1, 2014. Candidate nomination forms can be filed between January 2, 2014 and September 12, 2014 (Nomination Day), at any time when the Clerk’s Office is open (Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). On Nomination Day, nomination forms may be filed only between 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The tentative “Key Dates” for the 2014 Municipal Election are outlined in Attachment 1.; however, please note that these dates and times may be subject to change should amendments be made to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

340

Items requiring decisions at this time: Method of Election Under the Municipal Elections Act, it is the Clerk’s responsibility to ensure that all members of the electorate are given every opportunity to vote and that the voting process is as accessible and accountable as possible. In order to ensure this, the various methods of elections available were research in depth, and the Vote by Mail (VBM) method of elections was determined to be the best option available, considering accessibility issues, technology issues/challenges and the large percentage of non resident electors in the Municipality. With every form of election there are issues and challenges, and it is my opinion that the benefits of the VBM process outweigh the negatives. Benefits: 1. Improved voter turnout – with the traditional method of election, the average turnout is in the low to mid 30% range. Since changing to the Vote by Mail method, our results have always been over 50%. The turnout in the 2010 election was approximately 50.4% compared to the Provincial average of 36% overall. (Note: Voter turnout will also be impacted by the number of candidates running.) 2. Residents find the process very simple and straight forward (if they read the instructions). The process is very similar to other surveys or renewals and uses familiar and traditional supplies (paper ballot, marked with an x) and processes. (Canada Post) 3. It is convenient – a ballot is mailed to the elector’s home – it does not require electors to visit voting stations or take time off work to be able to exercise their right to vote. If a voter is away, or is a non-resident, the need to find and register a “proxy” to vote on his/her behalf is eliminated. 4. It is accessible. One of the requirements under the Municipal Elections Act, Section 12.1 (1) is that the Clerk who is responsible for conducting the election is to have regard for the needs of electors and candidates with disabilities, and identify, remove and prevent any barriers that affect electors and candidates with disabilities. It is important to note that “Accessibility” covers more than just physical disabilities, as it encompasses other challenges such as vision loss, hearing impairment, speech impediments, cognitive disabilities, and mental illness. Vote by mail allows all electors to obtain the assistance they require in the privacy of their own home, as opposed to traditional method of voting, whereby assistants were required to swear oaths and accompany the voter into the booth, or electors were required to have assistance to access the voting stations.

341

Main issues and concerns noted with respect to the process: 1. Concerns regarding the Security of the process: There have been concerns expressed regarding the security of the Vote by Mail system, and the potential for the misuse of ballots by other individuals. Ballots are created and mailed based on the information in the Voter list, prepared by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. Each election, the accuracy of the information on the voter list improves through technological advances, and by people completing and returning the enumeration forms. There are numerous checks done by MPAC to confirm the identity and the eligibility of the electors, including reviewing information on birthdays, addresses, gender, spouses – all to ensure that the list is accurate. However, there are instances on every voters list whereby an ineligible voter is on the list. Each voting kit contains a declaration, and requires that the voter declare that he/she has not already voted in the election, and that he/she is an eligible elector. It is an offence to vote more than once in an election, and to make a false declaration. According to a Ministry of Municipal Affairs representative, the onus is on the person signing the declaration to affirm the information is accurate and factual. Each declaration includes an independent bar code which refers back to a specific elector. The voting packages are processed daily and once the bar code is scanned, the name of the elector is removed from the list, and marked as voted which precludes someone from photocopying and submitting numerous ballots.(Note: the declarations are in the outside envelope and the ballot is sealed in the inside envelope. Once the two are separated, it is not possible to match the ballot to the declaration) 2. In every election, there are people who a) throw away the ballot, b) destroy the ballot by accident, c) misunderstand the process and come to the office to vote or d) do not receive a ballot. The election staff is prepared with replacement ballots and make every effort to accommodate the electors needs, right up until 8:00 p.m. on Election night. 3. If a person is uncomfortable mailing the ballot and wants to use the traditional ballot boxes, right up until Election Day, a ballot box is available in each of the Municipal offices to allow electors to cast their vote. Summary: The “Vote by Mail” method is very straight forward process geared to the convenience of the electors – Instead of electors being required to meet certain time and location criteria in order to vote, the ballot is delivered to his/her home to complete. Electors who require assistance to vote, due to sight or physical limitations, can arrange for that assistance in the privacy of their own home.

342

Therefore, it is recommended THAT, in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Section 42.(1) the Council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores authorizes the continuation of the “Vote By Mail” method of election; and THAT prior to June 1, the final policies and procedures are to be presented to Council for approval. Financial Implications Each year, one-quarter of the funds necessary to run the Municipal Election have been included in the annual budget, as opposed to funding the entire cost of the process in the election year, therefore, there will be no additional financial implications. Respectfully submitted,

Carol McKenzie Clerk

343

Attachment 1.

Key Dates (Tentative) for the 2014 Municipal Elections

January 2014 to September 12, 2014

Nomination Period

Nomination forms may be filed by candidates prior to Nomination Day, at any time when the Clerk's Office is open (Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). On Nomination Day, September 12, 2014, nomination forms may be filed 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

January 2014 to December 31, 2014

Campaign Period

The campaign period begins once a candidate has filed a nomination form and ends on December 31, 2014. Alternative time periods will be in effect if the candidate withdraws the nomination, the Clerk rejects the nomination, or the candidate extends his/her campaign and is continuing to campaign to erase a deficit.

April to June 2014

Enumeration

A mail-in enumeration will be conducted by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

September 1, 2014

Voters' List

The Clerk shall make the list of voters available for election purposes only. Note: Public viewing of the Voters' List will be supervised in order to protect personal information.

September 9, 2014 to September 12, 2014

Revision - Application to Remove Another Elector's Name

An individual may make a written application to the Clerk requesting that their name be added, removed or corrected. The application must be approved by the Clerk or his designate.

September 12, 2014

Nomination Day

Last day for filing nominations. Nomination forms filed on this date may only be filed between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

September 15, 2014 Certification of Nomination Forms

The Clerk shall certify filed nomination forms before 4:00 p.m.

September 15, 2014

Acclamations

The Clerk shall, immediately after 4:00 p.m., declare any acclaimed eligible candidate(s) to be duly elected.

344

September 22, 2014

Certificate of Maximum Campaign Spending Limits

The Clerk shall issue the certificate of maximum campaign spending limits to all certified candidates.

TBD

Ballots mailed

October 27, 2014

Voting Day

Forest Municipal Office will be open from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for voting

Week of October 27, 2014

Official Results

The Clerk shall, as soon as possible after Voting Day, declare the candidate who received the highest number of votes for each office to be elected.

December 1, 2014

New Term of Office Commences

The elected members shall take the declaration of office prior to taking his or her seat. The term of office commences once the declaration of office has been taken.

December 31, 2014

End of Campaign Period

Candidates may not raise funds or incur expenditures beyond this day, unless the candidate is continuing his or her campaign to erase a defect and has filed the appropriate documentation to do so.

December 31, 2014

Extension of Campaign Period

Candidates, if in a deficit, may extend their campaign period by submitting a Form 6 (extension of campaign period form) to the Clerk no later than 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 31, 2014 (subject to Festive Closure).

345

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

CL Report No. 99-2013 Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk RE: 2013 By-law Enforcement Contract Information RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 99-201 being a report providing information on the current By-Law Enforcement Contract is received.

REPORT Summary The report is to comply with resolution # 13-0704-07 which states “That staff prepares a report with details regarding how by-law enforcement is contracted out for the municipality” Background Each year, the enforcement needs in the community are presented and discussed during the budget deliberations, at which time, the funds to be allocated for by-law enforcement is determined. Allocations do not allow for 24 hour a day, 7 day a week service, therefore officers’ schedule their time and manpower to be as strategic and as effective as possible within the dollars allocated to these duties.

In addition to the budget allocations for by-law enforcement, the municipality contributes annually to the County Wide Provincial Police service.

History

Each of the former municipalities had different levels of by-law enforcement – Thedford and Arkona did not have an enforcement officer, Grand Bend and Forest contracted individuals to undertake enforcement duties, and the Bosanquet Building Official undertook most of the enforcement role, with part time assistance.

At the time of amalgamation, an RFP was let for by-law enforcement, and since that time, the process has been for a report to be presented annually during the budget deliberations, outlining the current issues and any recommended amendments to the scope of work to address the concerns. Council makes the determination at that time how to address the issues.

346

Examples of changes in scope to address issues that arose would be the amendments to the North Area contract to include dedicated beach patrols, additional patrols for Main Street, inspections of “multi residential dwellings” and additional patrols of Plan 24. In the South Area contract, a change was the addition of “grease trap” inspections.

It is important to note that the scope of work and expectations covers not only the duties on the “street”, but also responding to correspondence and calls from residents, providing advise on policy and/or by-law changes, and the investigative work and documentation necessary for charges, as well as Court attendance when charges are being prosecuted.

Impact of By-law Enforcement on the community

Community standards, expressed through municipal by-laws, and the enforcement of those standards, have a major impact on the quality of life of the residents and on the desire on visitors to return to our community. With an area that is both a residential community, and is also considered a major tourist destination, there are different needs in the community, which result in different viewpoints of enforcement.

If Officers issue tickets for offences, they are seen to be too aggressive, and there are complaints from visitors and the commercial sector; If Officers try to work with the community to change behaviour, they are seen as too lenient, and this results in complaints from residents. If Officers extend a courtesy and issue a warning to a guest, they are seen as ineffective.

Going Forward

As noted, the practice has been for staff to review the performance of the officers annually, and submit information on the community needs and recommendations to address the needs to Council for consideration during the budget session.

Currently, the officers are complying with the directions provided by Council, and staff are satisfied that the rules have been applied in a fair and equitable manner, the officers have perform their duties satisfactorily and have balanced the various community’s needs, and have provided the necessary service in a cost effective and efficient manner. If there are additional duties, or areas of concern that Council would like addressed, these could be discussed with the officers.

There had been a request from the community that Council consider retendering by-law enforcement duties. If Council directs that a request for proposals be drafted, it is important that any RFP be well written and covers all the aspects and duties that the officers currently undertake, as by-law enforcement plays a key role in the quality of life of residents. RFP’s could be issued during the month of November, with the closing date of the end of December, and the contract award by the middle of January. As the commitment from the current officers is year-to-year, running from January 1 to December 31, it would be necessary to extend the current commitments until the process has been completed, and new contracts in place.

347

Summary

The staff is pleased with the level of service provided by the current officers, and would be satisfied if the commitments were extended for 2014, with an increase based on the cost of inflation. If Council is desirous of circulating an RFP for By-law Enforcement, it will be necessary to extend the current commitment of the officers until the new contracts are signed.

Financial Impact

Retaining the status quo for enforcement would result in an increase of approximately 2% over 2013 to maintain the same level of service.

It is not possible to determine at this time if there will be a positive or negative impact resulting from the issuance of an RFP for by-law enforcement services.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol McKenzie Clerk

348

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

CL Report No. 100-2013 Council Meeting: November 7, 2013

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk

RE: Proposed Council Meeting Dates for 2014

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL100-2013 being a report to consider Council meeting dates for 2014 be received for direction.

REPORT Summary This report is presented to comply with Section 3.1 of By-law 73 of 2013, being a by-law to “Provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores”, which states that, prior to December 1 of each year, the Clerk is to prepare and submit a schedule of Council meeting dates for the next year for consideration by Council. Background Currently, Council meetings are scheduled for the first and third Thursdays of each month; with the meetings on the first Thursday of the month scheduled for 3 p.m. - 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. – 9 p.m. and the third Thursday of each month scheduled for 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The afternoon of the first meeting of the month is generally dedicated to issues that require additional time to present or for Council to consider, such as the Ice Management study or the pending parking review. Although part of the official “Council Meeting”, this section of the meeting tends to be less formal and allows for more discussion than the regular business session, similar to a “Committee of the Whole” meeting. 2014 Council Schedule This report provides three (3) meeting schedule options for 2014 for Council’s consideration, and the proposals offer alternatives uses of Council’s scheduled time together.

349

Option 1 (Status Quo): Option 1 shows the meetings on the same days as the 2013 schedule. As in the past there is only one Council meeting scheduled for the month of January, as traditionally, budget sessions are scheduled for this month, and the scheduling of only 1 Council (business) meeting provides more flexibility for Council to set a budget meeting schedule. There is only one meeting scheduled for the months of July and August, however, as always, additional meetings can be called to deal with emergent issues, or for a special purpose. Option 2: Currently, the afternoon of the first meeting of the month is devoted to issues that require more time to present and, for the most part, have been devoted to the discussion of “one time” issues that were discussed and resolved at the meeting. Recently, larger issues such as the process for the updating of the Official Plan have taken place at these meeting, and it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on important issues such as the Official Plan and accommodate all the other issues that need to be discussed in the 2 hours allotted. In addition, Council has discussed the need to dedicate time to deal with other significant issues such as the Strategic Plan, or Community Improvement Plans. As it is often challenging to schedule additional meetings due to other time commitments of members, a variation of option 1 is presented for consideration. Option 2 has the same meeting schedule as in Option 1; however, the second meeting of the month (currently in the evening) would be devoted exclusively to one of the special issues as noted above. The primary disadvantage to Option 2 is that there would be additional time between the “regular” Council (business) meetings. A secondary consideration would be that it may be more difficult to arrange for consultants or subject matter specialists to attend evening meetings. Option 3: Another option for consideration would be to schedule regular Council (business) meetings every 3 weeks, which would result in more days available for the scheduling of other special purpose meetings, and would still allow the business of Council to be dealt with on a regular basis. These council meetings could have the same format as the current first meeting of the month, (3 – 5 and 6 – 9) in order to allow sufficient time to deal with issues.

350

The difference in the number of meetings between Options 1-2 and 3 is a reduction of three meetings over the course of the year (reduced from 21 to 18). However, if the meetings were scheduled differently, it could allow for a more strategic use of Council’s time. The most significant change to Option 3 would be the irregular schedule (ie the meetings would not be the first and third Thursdays). Other Considerations: With the current time allocations at the first meeting of the month, it is sometimes challenging to efficiently schedule the issues to be discussed - There have been occasions at meetings where there is a significant break in time between the end of the items scheduled for the “afternoon session” and the start of the “evening session”, which leaves both the Council members and the public with a time gap to fill. Conversely, there have been times when the issues scheduled for the afternoon have been cut short in order to accommodate the established start time of the later session. An alternative for consideration would be the establishment of a “Committee of the Whole” session at the beginning of each of the “combined” Council Meetings, with the opportunity to either defer or expedite other council business depending on time requirements.

An option to consider to deal with an issue raised earlier in this term regarding holding meetings at night, would be to shift to an earlier meeting start time.

Summary

2014 will be a busy year, and there are a significant number of issues that Council has indicated they would like to review and consider. It is anticipated that additional meetings outside of the existing schedule will need to be held to deal effectively with these issues if Option 1 is selected.

Both Options 2 and 3 would allow for the Council business to continue to be dealt with on a timely basis, while still providing time to consider the larger issues so that they can be completed prior to the end of the Council term.

All of the above is submitted for Council’s review and consideration.

Financial Impacts

There are no financial impacts regardless of the option selected. Respectfully submitted,

Carol McKenzie Clerk

351

3-5 & 6-9 Meeting

6-9 Meeting

2014 Council Calendar Stat Holidays

Conferences

Election Day

Start of new Council term

January Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

February Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

March Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

April Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

May Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

June Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

July Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

August Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

September Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

October Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

November Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

December Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

OGRA OSUM

FCM

AMO

Option 1 & 2

352

3-5 & 6-9 Meeting

Election Day

2014 Council Calendar Stat Holidays

Conferences

Start of new Council term

January Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

February Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

March Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

April Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

May Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

June Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

July Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

August Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

September Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

October Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

November Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

December Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

OGRA OSUM

FCM

AMO

Option 3

353

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW 104 OF 2013

Being a By-law to authorize an Agreement

between the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores and Darch Fire Inc

WHEREAS: A Request for Proposals for the supply of a Fire Pumping

Apparatus for the Grand Bend Fire Department closed on September, 2011;

AND WHEREAS: The low tender for the work was submitted by Darch Fire Inc; AND WHEREAS: The submission was reviewed and deemed acceptable; AND WHEREAS: The tender was approved at the October 17, 2013 Council

meeting by resolution: 13-1017-16: AND WHEREAS: It is deemed appropriate for the Municipality to authorize the

Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary contract for the work. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows:

1. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the

Corporation between the Municipality of Lambton Shores and Darch Fire Inc., a copy of which is attached to this by-law as “Schedule “A”, and to affix to the contract the Corporate Seal of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores;

2. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of November, 2013. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

__________________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

__________________________ CLERK – Carol McKenzie

354

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

2013 CAPITAL PLAN – Fire Pumping Apparatus

Grand Bend Fire Department

SECTION 3

FORM OF AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made in triplicate this 29th day of October, 2013 BETWEEN: Darch Fire Inc. of 9-402 Harmony Road, Ayr Ontario in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and Province of Ontario (hereinafter called “The Contractor”)

THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PARTY and THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES hereinafter called the “Municipality”

THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART

WITNESSETH, that the Contractor, for and in consideration of the payment or payments specified in the Proposal for this work, hereby agrees to furnish one (1) custom fire pumping apparatus, with six(6) person, full-tilt cab, carry a minimum 1000 Imperial Gallons of water. The apparatus shall meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2009 edition),as well as the current CAN/ULC S515 in all respects for use as a pumper fire apparatus, with a total length of apparatus to be no Greater than 37 feet and a total height to be no greater than 11.5 feet, all of which is identified and acknowledged in the Schedule of Provisions, Drawings, Specifications and Conditions attached to the Proposal and all of which are to be read herewith and form part of this present Agreement as fully and completely to all intents and purposes as though all the stipulations thereof have been embodied herein.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK Supply all labour, equipment, and materials as necessary to design and supply a fire pumping apparatus and all and any other things necessary to complete this contract. The Contractor further agrees that they will deliver the whole of the works completed in accordance with this Agreement no later than July 15, 2014. The Contractor agrees that any monies due to the Municipality as a result of non-completion of the works within the time stipulated may be deducted from any monies due the Contractor on any account whatsoever. IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, the Municipality agrees to pay the Contractor for all work done in the sum of:

355

Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($456,357.00) Including HST Subject to such additions and deductions as may be properly made under the terms hereof. This Agreement shall be to the benefit of me and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the Municipality have hereto signed their names and set their seals on the day first above written. CONTRACTOR

Darch Fire Inc. 9-402 Harmony Road, Ayr, ON N0B 1E0 _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Position Held Signature of Contractor or Seal of Corporation _____________________________________ Witness

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES _____________________________________________________ Mayor _____________________________________________________ ____________________________________ Clerk Municipal Seal

THIS ___________DAY OF ____________2013.

356

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

BY-LAW NUMBER 111 of 2013

A By-law of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores

to confirm the proceedings of Council which were adopted up to and including November 7, 2013

WHEREAS: It has been expedient that from time to time, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores should act by resolution of Council;

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed advisable that all such actions that have been adopted by a resolution of the Council be authorized by By-law;

THEREFORE: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows;

THAT all actions of Council which have been authorized by a resolution of the Council

and adopted in open Council and accepted by Council up to and including November 7,

2013 be hereby confirmed; and

THAT the Mayor and the proper officials of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the approved actions or to obtain approvals where required, and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the Corporate Seal to all such documents.

THAT any pecuniary interest declared during any Council meeting or Committee meeting is deemed to be in force and the same as though repeated in this by-law;

THAT THIS BY-LAW is read a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and finally passed November 7, 2013

_________________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

_________________________

CLERK – Carol McKenzie

357

Notice of Motion: November 7, 2013 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg WHEREAS Council is aware, the Pinery Park was allocated capacity for an average daily flow of 470 m3 for their sewage collection system when their system was designed for 253 m3. As well, there are reliable reports that in 2012 the Park used less than an average of 50 m3 per day during the year. Original plans to extend the Park's collection system have since been abandoned and the MNR staff are seriously considering a greywater recycling system. WHEREAS Lambton Shores Council inquired about redirecting this unused capacity to other developments, they were asked to allow 2 years for data collection before revisiting the Park's sewage allocation in the lagoons/STF. The Park's collection system has been operating since 2011 and the two years of heavy seasonal flow will be completed by the 2013 Thanksgiving weekend. The Pinery sewage travels to the lagoons on the Goosemarsh Line and as I understand, the Goosemarsh Line is used almost exclusively for Park Sewage. I HEREBY MOVE that Council direct our CAO to make contact with Pinery managers, MNR and Ontario Parks Board of Directors and inquire about the 2013 flows and their openness to discussing a release of the Park's unused capacity allocation. AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to provide an update to our previous Goosemarsh Line Report providing information on (1) the Pinery's contribution of money to date on the total cost of the Goosemarsh Line, (2) the status of the debt associated with the Goosemarsh Line (including whether the debt is still floating or now fixed) and (3) a report on discussions with MNR staff to date regarding capacity requirements. This information would return to Council before the end of November.

358

Notice of Motion: November 7, 2013 Moved by: Councillor Underwood WHEREAS the Great Lakes are a connected water system; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million North Americans; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes Basin is home to 90% of Ontario's population; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes contribute an estimated $180 billion to Canada-U.S. trade; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes support 45% of Canada's industrial capacity; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $100 million commercial fishing industry; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes sustain a $350 million recreational fishing industry; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council, on January 29, 2013, requested further information and consultation which has not been forthcoming, nor has a consultative approach been taken regionally, through the Joint Water Boards; AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Lambton Shores is concerned that the proposal for nuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario may set a precedent for possible future expansion of Deep Geological Repositories (DGR) for high level nuclear waste, without full engagement and consultation with Great Lakes Basin municipalities; AND WHEREAS the Clean Water Act of Ontario demands that Municipal Councils uphold a high standard of care in order to protect water quality; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in order to protect the great Lakes and its tributaries, urges that neither this proposed nuclear waste repository near Kincardine, Ontario, nor any other underground nuclear waste repository, be constructed in the Great Lakes Basin, in Canada, in the United States, or on any First Nations property.

359