2014 09 04 Lambton Shores Municipality Council Meeting Agenda

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA

Meeting #: 18-2014
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2014
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Location: Legacy Centre - Thomas Hall, Thedford
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
3. Confidential Business
Open Session begins at 3:00 p.m. with any Closed Session items being
scheduled between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., with the start time determined by the
material to be considered.
3.1 Minutes of the Closed Session of Council - August 7, 2014
3.2 Education Session (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (3.1) of the
Municipal Act
4. Approval of Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the September 4, 2014 Council agenda as presented be approved.
5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings
5.1 Council Meeting - August 7, 2014 9 - 20
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the minutes of the August 7, 2014 Council meeting be accepted as
presented.
5.2 Special Council Meeting - August 14, 2014 21 - 25
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the minutes of the Special Council meeting held August 14, 2014
be accepted as presented.
1
6. Councillor Reports
An opportunity for Members of Council to make a report.
7. Delegations
8. Presentations & Public Meetings
8.1 3:00 p.m. - Everett Moons & Bill Shea, Forest & District Agricultural
Society - Re: Request for Bridge Loan for Proposed Building
26 - 39
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the presentation from the Forest and District Agricultural Society
as presented be received.
9. Consent Agenda
There were no items to include in the Consent Agenda.
10. Correspondence & Petitions
Correspondence - For Council Information
10.1 Ms. Prithi Yelaga, Communications Specials Policy and
Communications - College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario - Re:
Physician Nomination
40
10.2 Brenda Howie, Local Area Manager, London Woodstock - Canada Post
- Re: Potential Reductions to Weekday Business Hours at the Forest
Post Office
41
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the following items of correspondence be received and filed:
10.1 Ms. Prithi Yelaga - College of Physicians and Surgeons - Re:
Physician Nomination;
10.2 Brenda Howie - Canada Post - Re: Potential Reductions to
Weekday Business Hours at the Forest Post Office.
Correspondence - For Council Direction
10.3 Ted Archer - Re: Additional Information on Making the Hamlet of Port
Franks a More Aesthetically Pleasing Locale
42 - 47
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Mr. Archer and Mr. Nelson be invited to meet with Councillor Scott
and staff for the purpose of understanding the suggested projects.
11. Consideration of Committee Minutes & Staff Reports
2
Corporate & Strategic
11.1 Report CAO 15-2014 - Re: Answers to Questions Received Regarding
the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant
48 - 83
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report CAO 15-2014 providing answers to questions received
regarding the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant be received.
11.2 Report CAO 16-2014 - Re: Municipal Responsibility Related to the
Roads of Armstrong East
84 - 88
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report CAO 16-2014 regarding Municipal responsibility related to
the Roads of Armstrong East be received.
Planning
11.3 Report PL 21-2014 - Re: Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores
Official Plan Review of Public Comments
89 - 168
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT comments related to Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores
Official Plan be received; and
THATthe summary of staff suggestions (Appendix A) resulting from the
public review be incorporated into Draft 7 of the proposed Lambton
Shores Official Plan; and
THATdirection be provided with respect to the items listed in Appendix
B and any other changes required to be incorporated in Draft 7; and
THATDraft 7 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan be finalized
and returned to Council at the October 2
nd
meeting for Councils
consideration and possible adoption.
Community Services
11.4 Report DCS 63-2014 - Re: School Zone Speed Limit Review 169 - 179
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT DCS 63-2014 regarding School Zone Speed Limits be received;
and
THAT school zones be established in the following areas:
Grand Bend Public School (Grand Bend)
3
Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill
Road.
Kinnwood Public School (Forest)
Morris Street, from 16 Morris Street to 50 Morris Street.
MacDonald Street, from 40 MacDonald Street to 99 MacDonald
Street.
St. John Fisher Catholic Elementary School
Main Street North, from Townsend Line to 28 Main Street North
Queen Street, from 28 Queen Street West to 27 Prince Street
North Lambton Secondary School
George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane; and
THAT a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h be established for these areas,
enforceable from 8:00am 4:30pm on school days, September 1 June
30; and
THAT staff prepare the necessary by-law to amend the speed limit in
these areas for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council
meeting.
11.5 Report DCS 65-2014 - Re: Policy #66 Community Grants Amendments
and Draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy
180 - 204
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT DCS 65-2014 regarding Policy #66 Community Grants and the
draft Seconday Sponsorship Policy be received; and
THAT the amendments to Policy #66 Community Grants be approved;
and
THAT the draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy be adopted and
implemented for 2015 with a budget consideration of $2,000.00 be
included during budget deliberations.
11.6 Report DCS 66-2014 - Re: 2014 Drinking Water Inspection Reports 205 - 262
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DCS 66-2014 regarding the 2014 Drinking Water
Inspection Reports be received for Councils information.
4
11.7 Report DCS 67-2014 - Re Request from the J unior B Predators for a
Licensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre
263 - 269
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DCS 67-2014 regarding a Request from the Junior B
Predators for a Licensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre be
received; and
THAT the request received from the Predators Hockey Club be
approved with the following stipulations:
The licensed area is restricted to the site plan provided (Attachment 1 to
this report); and
Hours of operation are limited to one half hour prior to the game starting
to the 10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period; and
The licensed area must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy; and;
The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in
Attachment 2.
11.8 Report DCS 68-2014 - Re: Windsor Park Association Various Traffic
Requests
270 - 275
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DCS 68-2014 regarding Windsor Park Association
Various Traffic Requests be received; and
THAT speed limits within Windsor Park be reduced to 40 km/h; and
THAT the north side of Bond Road, the west side of Wedd Road and the
roads at the intersection of Clarke and Dune Drives be changed to No
Parking anytime; and
THAT the set fine for infraction on Clarke Drive and Dune Drive be
increased to $ 65.00; and
THAT parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking area be
changed No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and
THAT staff prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at the
September 18, 2014 meeting.
11.9 Report DCS 69-2014 - Re: Speed Limit Review Richardson Drive,
Ipperwash
276 - 277
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DCS 69-2014 regardi ng Speed Li mi t Revi ew
Richardson Drive, Ipperwash be received; and
THAT the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40 km/h and
5
that staff prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at the
September 18, 2014 meeting.
11.10 Report DCS 70-2014 - Re: Tornado Clean-up Update 278 - 279
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DCS 70-2014 regarding Tornado Response Update be
received for Councils information.
Finance & Administration
11.11 Report TR 40-2014 - Re: Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and
Small Communities Fund
280 - 285
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report TR-40-2014 regardi ng the Ontari o Communi ty
Infrastructure Fund and Small Communities fund be received; and
THAT the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction project and
the Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction project
are the identified projects for the programs.
11.12 Report TR 41-2014 - Re: Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration
Program Funding
286 - 317
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report TR-41-2014 regarding the Land Stewardship and Habitat
Restoration Program be received; and
THAT the Mayor and Treasurer be authorized to execute the funding
agreement for the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program
for Invasive Phragmites Control and Habitat Restoration for a Lambton
Shores Coastal Meadow Marsh PMA V B1 & B2.
11.13 Report CL 58-2014 - Re: Amending the Noise By-law to allow for
Exemptions under certain circumstances
318 - 333
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT CL Report No. 58 -2012 regarding an amendment to the Noise
By-law to allow exemptions under certain circumstances be approved,
and
THAT the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to provide for
exemptions, and the draft policies/procedures and application form be
approved; and
THAT the staff prepare the necessary amendment to the by-law for
6
consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council meeting.
11.14 Report CL 60-2014 - Re: Forest & District Agricultural Society Request
to Renew Lease
334 - 335
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT CL Report No. 60-2014 regarding the request from the Forest &
District Agricultural Society to renew a lease (license) agreement be
received; and
THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a renewal
agreement with the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of
the Forest Fairgrounds property for an additional 20 year period.
11.15 Report CL 61-2014 - Re: 2014 Drain Maintenance 336
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT CL Report 61-2014 respecting the collection of funds for Drain
Maintenance works be received, and
THAT By-Law 86 of 2014 authorizing the collection of the sums be
approved.
11.16 Report CL 62-2014 - Re: Council Compensation for Mileage Expenses 337 - 341
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report CL 62 of 2014, regarding Council compensation for
mileage expenses be received for discussion.
11.17 Report CL 63-2014 - Re: Farm Land Tender for the Use of the Forest
Industrial Lands
342 - 346
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report CL 63 2014 regarding the results from the farm land
tenders for the Forest Industrial land be received; and
THAT the tender submitted by Triple L farms in the amount of $325.00
per workable acre be accepted; and
THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign the required
agreements.
12. By-laws & Resolutions
12.1 By-law 84-2014 - Re: Authorizing Agreement with Triple "L" Farms
12.2 By-law 85-2014 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 347
7
12.3 By-law 86-2014 - Re: Collecting the Sums from the Lands and Roads
Assessed for the Maintenance of Certain Drains
348 - 350
RECOMMENDATION:
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 by-law book:
- By-law 84-2014 - Authorizing Agreement with Triple 'L' Farms;
- By-law 85-2014 - Confirming Resolutions to Date;
- By-law 86-2014 - Collecting Sums for Drain Maintenance.
13. Accounts
13.1 Report TR 63-2014 - Re: J uly 2014 Cheque Listing 351 - 357
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report TR-39-2014; regarding the Lambton Shores cheque listing
for July 2014 in the amount of $1,886,974.87, be received.
14. Notices of Motion
14.1 Notice of Motion from Councillor Bonesteel - Re: Discussion with MTO
regarding Traffic Flow Along Highway #21
358
14.2 Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: United Nations
Agenda 21
359
15. Emergent Issues
An opportunity for an emergent issue to be discussed by Council.
16. Adjournment
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the September 4, 2014 Council meeting adjourn at _____ p.m.
8

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES

Thursday, August 7, 2014
2:00 p.m.

Member Present: Mayor Bill Weber
Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg
Councillor Doug Bonesteel
Councillor Lorie Scott
Councillor Ken McRae
Councillor Martin Underwood
Councillor Doug Cook
Councillor John Russell

Staff Present: Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Williams
Clerk Carol McKenzie
Treasurer Janet Ferguson
Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer
Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon

1. Call to Order

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.


The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary interest that they may
have with the business itemized on the agenda and Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg declared
a conflict with Item # 11.9 regarding the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Road Use
Agreement and Item # 11.10 dealing with the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project
Collection Line Infrastructure Installations. In addition Councillor Cook declared a
conflict with Item # 13.1 dealing with the Municipal accounts.

3. Confidential Business

14-0807-01 Moved By: Councillor Scott
Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT Council goes into a Closed Session to review minutes of
the July 3, 2014 Closed Session, Report DCS 62-2014 regarding
the Water and Wastewater Operations RFP Award Review
Summary, Report DCS 59-2014 dealing with the 2014 Volunteer
Achievement Award Recipients and to discuss concerns regarding
a personal matter. Carried

_____________________________________________________________________
9
Minutes of the August 7, 2014 Council Meeting 2

Council rose from the Closed Session at 3:05 p.m. and made the following resolution:

14-0807-02 Moved By: Councillor Russell

THAT Council rise and report progress on matters discussed in the
Closed Session of Council. Carried

4. Approval of Agenda

Mayor Weber advised that there was a supplement to the agenda and asked for Council
consent to bring the supplemental agenda forward after the presentation from the EDC.

Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT the Supplemental Agenda for the August 7th, 2014 Council
with the following items be approved;

1. Report CAO 15-2014 Re: Municipal Storm Clean Up Strategy
2. Report TR-38-2014 Re: Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance
Program
3. Report CL 57-2014 Re: Request for a Class 5 Septic System
(Holding Tank), Wood Drive; and

THAT the Supplemental Agenda be dealt with following the
presentation from the Economic Development Committee.
Carried

5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

5.1. Council Meeting - July 3, 2014
5.2. Special Council Meeting - July 31, 2014

Seconded By: Councillor Cook

THAT the minutes of the regular Council meeting held July
3, 2014 and the minutes of the Special Council meeting held
July 31, 2014 be accepted as presented. Carried

6. Councillor Reports

Members of Council brought forward items of interest to the community and noted their
appreciation of Municipal staffs efforts in the cleanup following the recent storm.

10

7. Delegations

There were no applications submitted to be a delegate to Council.

8. Presentations & Public Meetings

8.1. 3:00 p.m. - Paul Wilson, Lambton Shores Economic Development
Committee - Re: Economic Development Action Plan

Paul Wilson, Chair of the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee
appeared before Council to present the Committees Action Plan, which outlined seven
specific goals, each with identified strategies designed to advance economic
development in Lambton Shores.

Mr. Wilson further proceeded to identify the six actions as priorities for implementing
these Action Plan goals.

8.1.1. Report CAO 14-2014 - Re: Presentation of the Economic
Development Action Plan


THAT Report CAO 14-2014 bringing forward the
Economic Development Action Plan on behalf of the
Economic Development Committee be received; and

THAT the Economic Development Action Plan
(EDAP) dated August 7, 2014 be received and posted
to the Municipal website; and

THAT support in principle be given to the six (6)
actions identified as priorities in the plan; and

THAT the Committee be encouraged to seek
stakeholder feedback on the EDAP actions and
priorities; and

THAT the Economic Development Committee review
its mandate as necessary for the consideration of
Council. Carried

Supplemental Agenda

1. Report CAO 15-2014 Re: Municipal Storm Clean-Up Strategy

14-0807-06 Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel
Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
11

THAT Report CAO 15-2014 bringing forward an outline of the
proposed Storm Clean-up Work Plan be received for information;
and

THAT the roadside brush management program be concluded and
re-evaluated on Sunday, August 17
th
, to enable ongoing clean-up
and restoration efforts on the municipal road allowances.
Carried

2. Report TR 38-2014 Re: Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program

14-0807-07 Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel

WHEREAS: The Municipality of Lambton Shores recently
experienced an EF1 tornado on July 27, 2014 and has experienced
substantial damage requiring clean up on municipal property and
has received reported losses of private damage, the council of
Lambton Shores hereby requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing to declare the areas identified as Grand Bend,
Southcott Pines, Pinedale, Merrywood, Beach OPines, Huron
Woods, Wee Lake Estates, Klondyke Rd, Van Dongen and Dalton
subdivisions a disaster area for the purposes of the Ontario
Disaster Relief Assistance Program (ODRAP);

FURTHER, should the Minister declare a disaster area regarding
the private component of ODRAP, Council will immediately, under
the authority of ODRAP, appoint members to a disaster relief
committee to administer ODRAP.

THAT the storm related private property cost estimate form be
distributed to affected property owners via a notification in a press
release, the website, volunteers and office locations with a return
date of August 13, 2014. Carried

A recorded vote was requested on the following motion:

Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

THAT Councillor Bonesteel be designated as the single point of
contact for facilitating information to those residents affected by the
recent tornado.

Those members of Council in favour: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg,
Councillors Bonesteel, Scott, Underwood, McRae and Russell.

Those members opposed: Mayor Weber and Councillor Cook.
Carried
12

3. Report CL 57-2014 Re: Request for a Class 5 Septic System (Holding
Tank)


THAT Report CL 57-2014, regarding the request for a Class 5
sewage system (holding tank) for property on Wood Drive be
received; and

THAT the use of a Class 5 septic system (holding tank) is approved
as a replacement system for the failed septic system for 9177
Wood Drive; and

THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to enter into an
agreement with the property owners that will include the
recommendations from the St Clair Region Conservation Authority,
and the County of Lambton Part 8 Direction/C.B.O. as well as
address any Municipal issues or concerns. Carried

9. Consent Agenda

There were no items included for the Consent Agenda.

10. Correspondence & Petitions

There was no correspondence or petitions for Councils review.

11. Consideration of Committee Minutes & Staff Reports

11.1. Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board Meeting
held May 21, 2014

11.2. Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board Meeting
held June 18, 2014


THAT the minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area
Board meetings held May 21st and June 18th, 2014 be
received and filed. Carried

11.3. Minutes of the Lambton Shores Accessibility Committee Meeting
held May 29, 2014

13

THAT the minutes of the Lambton Shores Accessibility
Committee meeting held May 29, 2014 be received.
Carried

Corporate & Strategic

11.4. Report CAO 15-2014 - Re: Storm Cleaning-Up Strategy - Pending

Report CAO 15-2014 was dealt with as part of the supplemental agenda.

Planning

11.5. Report PL 19-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-
02/2014 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-04/2014 for
Erich & Annegret Ungerer - 9122 Northville Road

14-0807-12 Moved By: Councillor Cook

THAT Report No. 19-2014 regarding Official Plan
Amendment Application OP-0/2014 and Zoning By-law
Amendment Application ZO-04/2014, submitted by Erich and
Annegret Ungerer relating to lands known as 9122 Northville
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. Carried

11.6. Report PL 20-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-
01/2014 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2014 for
Donalds Crossroads Farms Ltd. - 5883 Proof Line


THAT PL Report No. 20-2014 regarding Official Plan
Amendment Application OP-01/2014 and Zoning By-law
Amendment Application ZO-03/2014, submitted by Donalds
Crossroads Farms Ltd. relating to lands known as 5883
Proof Line, 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. Carried

14

Community Services

11.7. Report DCS 57-2014 - Re: Water and Waste Water Operations
Contract Recommendation for RFP Award

14-0807-14 Moved By: Councillor Underwood
Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT Report DCS 57-2014 regarding the Water and
Wastewater Operations Contract RFP Award be received;
and

THAT staff commence service agreement negotiations with
Operations Management International Canada, Inc. for the
operation, maintenance and management of the Lambton
Shores water and waste water systems. Carried

11.8. Report DCS 58-2014 - Re: World Under-17 Hockey Challenge

Seconded By: Councillor Bonesteel

THAT DCS 58-2014 regarding the World Under-17 Hockey
Challenge be received for information. Carried

11.9. Report DCS 60-2014 - Re: Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Road Use
Agreement

14-0807-16 Moved By: Councillor Cook

THAT Report DCS 60-2014 regarding the Cedar Point Wind
Energy Project Road Use Agreement be received; and

THAT By-Law 77-2014, authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk
to execute the Cedar Point Road Use Agreement be passed.
Carried

11.10. Report DCS 61-2014 - Re: Cedar Point Wind Energy Project
Collection Line Infrastructure Installations


THAT DCS 61-2014 regarding the Cedar Point Wind Energy
Project Collection Line Infrastructure Installations be
received; and
15

THAT the Municipality of Lambton Shores accepts the
locations of proposed electrical infrastructure within the
municipal rights of way as submitted by Suncor for the Cedar
Point Wind Energy Project, subject to the terms and
conditions recommended in Dillon Consultings technical
memos dated July 30, 2014. Carried

Finance and Administration

11.11. Report TR 37-2014 - Re: Build Canada Fund Agreement Amendment

14-0807-18 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the
Build Canada Fund Agreement Amendment and that the
pertinent by-law is passed. Carried

11.12. Report CL 55-2014 - Re: By-law 64 - 2014 Being a By-law to Authorize
the Rice Drain


THAT Report CL 55-2014 providing information on the
addendum considered at the Court of Revision for the Rice
Drain be received; and

THAT, prior to the third and final reading, By-law 64-20014
be amended to include the Addendum dated July 2, 2014
considered at the Court of Revision on July 3, 2014.
Carried

11.13. Report CL 56-2014 - Re: Extension Agreement for the Horse and
Carriage Rides in Grand Bend


THAT Report CL 56-2014 respecting the extension of an
agreement be received; and

THAT the agreement with Humes Horse and Carriage Rides
be extended until November 30, 2014. Carried

16

12. By-laws & Resolutions

12.1. By-law 64-2014 - Drainage Works - Rice Drain as Amended - Third
Reading (See Report CL-55-2014)

12.2. By-law 77-2014 - Re: Authorize Road Use Agreement with Suncor
Energy (See Report DCS 60-2014)

12.3. By-law 78-2014 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment - Ungerer (See
Report PL 19-2014)

12.4. By-law 79-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 40 - Ungerer (See
Report PL 19-2014)

12.5. By-law 80-2014 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment - Donalds'
Crossroads Farms Ltd. (See Report PL 20-2014)

12.6. By-law 81-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 41 - Donalds'
Crossroads Farms Inc. (See Report PL 20-2014)

12.7. By-law 82-2014 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date

12.8. By-law 83-2014 - Re: Amending Build Canada Funding Agreement


THAT the following by-law be read a third time as amended,
passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor
and Clerk and engrossed in the by-law book:
- By-law 64-2014 as Amended - Rice Drain; 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 by-law book:

- By-law 77-2014 - Authorize Road Use Agreement with
Suncor Energy;

- By-law 78-2014 - Zone Amendment - Ungerer;

- By-law 79-2014 - Official Plan Amendment No. 40 -
Ungerer;

- By-law 80-2014 - Zone Amendment - Donalds' Crossroads;

- By-law 81-2014 - Official Plan Amendment No. 41 -
Donalds' Crossroads;
17

- By-law 82-2014 - Confirming Resolutions to Date; and

- By-law 83-2014 - Amending Build Canada Funding
Agreement. Carried

13. Accounts

13.1. Report TR 36-2014 - Re: June, 2014 Cheque Listing


THAT Treasurers Report TR 36-2014 regarding the
Lambton Shores cheque listing for June 2014 in the amount
of $4,881,497.65, be received. Carried

14. Notices of Motion

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg provided the following Notice of Motion for consideration at
the September 4, 2014 Council meeting:

WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes that we are called to be
good stewards of the land and its resources, and

WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as a
comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global
political control, that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities
throughout Lambton Shores and Canada through the International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local sustainable development policies such
as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and
other Green or Alternative projects; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21s plan of sustainable development views
private property ownership, single family homes, private vehicle ownership; individual
travel choices, and privately owned farms as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21, social justice is described as the
right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by
society and the environment which United Nations Agenda 21 would accomplish by
redistribution of wealth; and

WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21 national sovereignty is deemed a
social injustice; now therefore be it

18

RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes the destructive and
insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes the dangerous intent
of United Nations Agenda 21; and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21
as an infringement on the inalienable rights of Canadian citizens, and

RESOLVED that the Municipality of Lambton Shores withdraw from ICLEI and inform its
residents of the harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21
and we hereby reject its destructive strategies for sustainable development.

Councillor Bonesteel provided the following Notice of Motion for consideration at the
September 4, 2014 Council meeting:

THAT staff are directed to pursue formal discussions with the Ministry of Transportation
staff to find ways of improving both the north and south flows of traffic along Hwy. 21
connecting link within Grand Bend.

15. Emergent Issues


That the Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg regarding
a disaster relief committee be brought forward as an emergent
issue. Carried

15.1. Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: Striking a
Disaster Relief Committee

14-0807-24 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

WHEREAS the greater Grand Bend area has been seriously
damaged by the tornado of July 27th;

AND WHEREAS there are land owners who have been impacted
beyond their financial means to complete restoration;

AND WHEREAS Lambton Shores council and municipal staff need
to establish coordinated communication with residents and need to
help quantify the needs that are not covered by insurance;

AND WHEREAS there are individuals who are volunteering to
donate finances or physically assist those in need;

NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that Lambton Shores council
strike a Disaster Relief Committee as required under the ODRAP
19

program with representation from the Huron Woods Community
Association, the Beach o Pines Association, Van Dongen
subdivision, Klondyke Road residents and three individuals from the
community with fund-raising experience;

AND THAT Council waive the requirements of Policy 75 pertaining
to the recruitment procedure for Lambton Shores committees, due
to the extenuating circumstances

AND THAT staff be directed to define the Terms of Reference for
this committee in accordance with the ODRAP program
requirements, and to include but not limited to (1) initiating a fund-
raising campaign; (2) managing donations; (3) coordinating the
offers to assist with the outstanding needs; and (4) communicating
regularly with staff and Council. Carried

16. Adjournment


THAT the August 7, 2014 Council meeting adjourns at 5:08 p.m.
Carried

20

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES

Thursday, August 14, 2014
7:00 p.m.

Member Present: Mayor Bill Weber
Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg
Councillor Dave Maguire
Councillor Doug Bonesteel
Councillor Lorie Scott
Councillor Ken McRae
Councillor Martin Underwood
Councillor Doug Cook
Councillor John Russell

Staff Present: Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Williams
Clerk Carol McKenzie
Planner Patti Richardson

1. Call to Order

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained that this was a
special meeting of Council to provide the public an opportunity to formally express
issues or concerns with respect to the draft Official Plan to Council, as required under
Section 26 of the Planning Act.
The procedural rules for the meeting were reviewed, and it was noted that in order to
ensure there is time to hear all participants, Council is granting an initial time limit of 5
minutes per person, with the opportunity for the speaker to return to the podium after
everyone else has had an opportunity to speak.

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary interest that they may
have with the business to be discussed and none were declared.
3. Public Meeting held under Section 26 of the Planning Act

_____________________________________________________________________
21

THAT the special Council meeting adjourns at 7:05 for a Public
Meeting held under section 26(3) of the Planning Act.
Carried
1. Philip Walden Ridge Road
Mr. Walden presented comments pertaining to the governing time frame of the
document, development in Walden North, Walden South, and in the western portion of
the Municipality.
2. Graeme Wallace Jura Line
Mr. Wallace outlined concerns with respect to reducing the amount of lands designated
for development, and increased intensification, and with increased general regulations,
restricting agriculture through the promotion of ecological buffer zones, the impacts of
sustainability plans, the need for archeological assessments, and cultural heritage
evaluation reports, the extension of the Source water protection provisions, the United
Nations Agenda 21 sustainable development wording in the document. (Presentation
provided and filed)
3. Ruth Anne Wallace Jura Line
Mrs. Wallace presented concerns with the fact that the rural agricultural sector of
Lambton Shores was not labelled in the Official Plan, and the restrictions on the land
through increased regulations. (Presentation provided and filed)
4. Ernest Lewis Huron Woods
Mr. Lewis noted that allocation of sewage capacity had not been addressed in the
document.
5. Theo Rood Goosemarsh Line
Mr. Rood is the owner of Grand Bend Produce on Walker Road, and requested that the
land owned by the company adjacent to the business remain in the current designation,
which would allow for future expansion.
6. Eugen Burgin Hickory Creek Line
Mr. Burgin provided comments on the potential impact on farm operations resulting from
the natural heritage provisions in the Plan. (Presentation provided and filed)
7. Cindy Moyer on behalf of Ian Wilkinson, Senior Litigation Paralegal
Ms. Moyer advised Council that Mr. Wilkinson had been retained by 4 property owners
and noted that they objected to any and all claims that infringe, frustrate or interfere with
land ownership and land rights. (Presentation provided and filed)

22
8. Gerry Rupke East Parkway Drive
Mr. Rupke outlined concerns with the expansion of the Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash.
9. Mark Rupke
Mr. Rupke outlined concerns with the expansion of the Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash and the fact that the designation was not applied uniformly.
10. Cheryl deVries Ontario Land Owners Association
Mrs. deVries outlined concerns with the requirement for ecological buffers associated
with the natural heritage features.
11. Al Hannahson East Parkway
Mr. Hannahson outlined his families land ownership in the Ipperwash area and the
impacts that the extension of the ANSI area would have on the ability to develop the
lands.
12. Robert Johnston St. Clair Township
Mr. Johnston expressed his concern with the setbacks and buffer zones, and the lack of
input from the agricultural area. He suggested that a committee of agricultural
landowners be formed to review the document and provide feedback. He also
expressed concerns with the similarities in the Plan to Agenda 21.
13. Eleanor Davis Petticoat Lane
Mrs. Davis stated concerns with the community design and improvement components of
the plan and the sustainability references. (Presentation provided and filed)
14. Randall Jago East Parkway
Mr. Jago also expressed concerns about the expansion of the ANSI area in Ipperwash
and the limited development potential
15. Bob Sharen - William Street
Mr. Sharen suggested that the 2 major Lambton Shores industries, Tourism and
Agriculture, need to be addressed and respected in the document. Also noted were
concerns regarding the impact the draft plan will have on taxation and personal property
rights, and the conservation authorities regulations.
16. Jay Trothen Defore Drive & Riverside Drive
Mr. Trothen brought forward concerns regarding the Commercial Constraint designation
on property in Port Franks, and the change to the designation in the new plan that
would not allow residential development on lands. (Presentation provided and filed)
23
17. John Zekueld Christian Farmers Federation of Agriculture
Mr. Zekueld advised that the Christian Farmers Federation of Agriculture had not been
circulated a copy of the document, and that he would like to see matters that pertain to
and impact the farm community be referred to the Federation for comments. Also noted
were comments with respect to property rights and the buffer strips.
18. Sheila Thompson Main Street, Thedford
Mrs. Thompson shared her concerns that the Official Plan infringed on the rights and
freedoms of property owners, and the impact of woodlots being deemed significant on
their lumber business. Also expressed were concerns regarding Agenda 21 similarities.
19. Michelle Doornbosch Beechwood Street
Mrs. Doornbosch expressed concern with Section 5.4 of the plan referencing the need
for sustainability plans for all residential development, which would be onerous for
single lot development. Also noted were the concerns regarding the minimum
requirement for industrial properties to have a minimum of 10% of the lands
landscaped, and the process to review and approve development proposals.
20. Ron MacDougal Lambton Federation of Agriculture
Mr. MacDougal spoke on the concern that a significant amount of agricultural land could
be lost if the buffers and setbacks are initiated, and supported the creation of an
Agricultural Advisory Committee to get input from the residents.
21. Don McCabe Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Mr. McCabe provided his concerns on the impact on the agricultural sector if the plan is
approved as written, and the impact of the 120 metre setbacks.
22. Brian Richardson East Parkway
Mr. Richardson expressed his concern over the extension of the ANSI area in the East
Parkway area and the inconsistent application of the line, and recommended staying
with the status quo.
23. Graeme Wallace (Continued)
Mr. Wallace spoke on the United Nations Agenda 21, and that the plan will change the
community be adding restrictions and limit development. Mr. Wallace presented his 7
recommended actions. (Included in presentation filed)
24. Bob Sharen (continued)
Mr. Sharen noted that the discharge of the sewage into the rivers in high tourist times
would not be considered sustainable.
24

THAT the Public Meeting adjourns at 8:50 p.m., and that the
Special Meeting of Council reconvenes.
Carried
Mayor Weber thanked the audience members for attending, and advised that the
comments received tonight, and at the 2 prior public meetings would be compiled and
presented at the September 4, 2014 Council meeting.
Seconded By: Councillor McRae

THAT the Special Council meeting adjourns at 8:58 p.m.
Carried

25
Forest & District Agricultural
Society
Proposed Building Presentation
September 4, 2014
26
A Brief History
The first record of a Fair being held in Forest was at the
corner of Broadway and Main Streets in 1870.
The 1879 prize list offered some interesting prizes. A large
framed picture of Queen Victoria was the first prize for the
best 10 pound crock of butter.
A Class B status was reached in 1983, the Forest Fair
expanded to a three day fair by adding a Sunday fair
featuring a demolition derby.
The Exhibition Hall was erected in 1982. Later an addition
was added that included a meeting hall and a commercial
kitchen. This building is a very busy place for events held by
local businesses and families.
27
A Brief History continued
In 1991, the old Crystal Palace (the former
Armories) was replaced by a new structure to
accommodate a variety of usages. Handicapped
accessible washroom facilities were added to this
building in 2007 .
The Fair attracts (weather permitting) between
12,000 and 15,000 people to the event over 3
days. The Forest Fall Fair is still growing with more
to come.

28
Primary Reasons to Build
The existing structures (the sheep and horse
barns) are worn out and more of a liability than an
asset.
A new large enclosed area would serve to weather-
proof our Fair and any other events currently held
on site

29
Secondary Reasons to Build
Increase the appeal of our grounds for EXISTING
events
Steam Threshers
Livestock shows
Campers
Relay for Life
Forest Fireman Reunion
Canadian Motorcycle Reunion
Square dancers

30
Secondary Reasons to Build
Increase the appeal of our grounds for NEW events
More livestock shows
RCMP Musical ride
Community garage sale
Flea market
Auction sales
Car shows
Pet Shows
And more.

31
What do we Need in a New Building
It needs to be big enough
Tall enough to allow for a door large enough to bring in
large equipment for farm equipment shows
Wide and long enough to allow for livestock shows (both
exhibitions and competitions)
The initial structure we build needs to have
sufficient lighting, electrical and plumbing to
accommodate the Fair and other events.

32
Basics of the Proposed building
100 x 150 x 18
33
North-east View
34
West View
35
How are we Raising the Money?
The Building Committee has met regularly over the
past year and are currently in the process of
forming fund-raising groups that will target the
different sectors of the local population.
Benchmarks have been set for the groups so they
have a percentage of the total cost that it is their
fund-raising goal.
The efforts have been divided up as follows: Ag
Business, Local Business, Corporate/Farms,
General solicitation, Grants & Fund Raising Events.

36
How Much will it Cost?
Based on multiple quotes from different sources
we expect the project to cost between $450,000
and $500,000.

37
What are we asking of Council?

We are asking Council for a bridge loan to allow us
to collect the money for the project over a 3 year
period.
We would like Council to afford us a loan in the
amount of $300,000 which would be paid back on
an ongoing basis while the funds are collected.
We are asking for 3 years because that is the
period we are offering as a donation option for
those that want to spread their donation over more
than one tax period.
38
QUESTIONS?
39
40
41
July 27, 2014
Mayor and Council members of Lambton Shores;
Cc: Carol McKenzie, Clerk
Kevin Williams, CAO
Re: Ted Archer letter of November 27, 2013, submitted to council at their meeting of
December 19, 2013
Dear Council and Staff;
Attached is an addendum to my November 27, 2013 letter. My, purpose with this addendum is
to provide additional information.
My understanding, is, that during councils meeting of June 04, 2014, my, letter had been
resurrected, and reviewed, with some positive discussion. It is my understanding also, I, would
be contacted, and involved, to review, and discuss the letters content, with a report then given
back to council. I have not been contacted at the time of this writing.
However, let us ignore what should have taken place, and get to the reason for my letter in the
first instance.
Share my passion, to make the hamlet of Port Franks, a more aesthetically pleasing locale.
As we all know, an outside, engineering firm, was engaged several years ago, and tasked, to
present a study, for beautification in Lambton Shores. Completion of parts of that study, have
been done in some of our seven wards. As we all know too, capital monies, even expense
dollars, have not been included in our budgets to date, for beautification in Ward 3, and
specifically, Port Franks.
We should not ignore that study, and its events planned for the Port. My items for
beautification should be a supplement to, or maybe to take precedence over the study.
We need someone, who will take hold of this beautification project, establish cost numbers,
present it to council, for some inclusion into the 2015 budget. It may be my numbers are
enough to get started.
Apparently, there was not time, to get things done during 2014, but, let us not say that for the
year 2015.
To be realistic, I have gone back, and prioritized my list, rendering them to seven items, in total.
Over time, additional items could, and should, be added.
42
In fairness to you on council, and the project, there was not enough meat on the bone in my
first submission, allowing you to give a more rapid, and favourable response. In my initial
preparation, I had given these items a dollar value. That was not passed to you. I do so now.
My prioritizing keeps in mind the whole of Port Franks, rather than concentration on a given
location. This thought considers not all can be done in a budget year, but, a plan needs to be
developed to complete the beautification of Port Franks, now, and through the next couple of
budget years, 2016, and 2017.
Based strictly on my limited ability to estimate, costs to complete come wholly from my past
work experience, and my working knowledge. I can give to you further breakdown, if needed.
My, numbers are for your edification only, giving you a heads up to the scope of work, and its
expected cost. These figures require verification from our staff, and engineering department,
eventually being given a definite number to the end cost, by the bidding process.
Items are listed on a separate attachment.
Respectfully;
Ted Archer
Port Franks
(This letter was modified, and re-submitted, on August 26, 2014
Beautification items for Port Franks (attachment to July 27, 2014 letter)
Item 1: Install low level roadway lighting (amber) along Port Franks Road from
Highway 21 to the Community Center. Spaced at 400ft, 13 lighting
standards are needed. At a cost of $12,000 each to install, total cost is
$156,000
Item 2: All mail locations to be addressed, adding arbors, flowers/ perennial
bedding. Based on 20 outlets (to be confirmed), at an average cost
$4400 each, total cost is $88,000
Item 3: All intersections of paved streets will require rebuilding. These must
be rebuilt, and paved to Provincial standards. The turning radius needs
to be increased to accommodate school bus turning. Based on ten
intersections (to be confirmed) at an average cost of $6800 each, total
cost is $68,000 (it, is possible, concrete curbing will be required, this
has not been added in to this cost)
43
Item 4: Transform the parcel of land (municipality owned), bounded by Alfred
Street and Alfred Crescent, into a park like setting. An estimate of 360
man hours, machine time, plus material, would put this cost at,
$51,000
Item 5: Negotiate with ABCA, making the Conservation Area open once again
at no cost to the residents of Lambton Shores. Since we already
support and subsidize ABCA, this park should be accessible to us, and
visitors. There is no cost shown here. The only loss to the community is
a small amount of revenue from those choosing to pay, to have access.
Item 6: Install a paved walkway/bike path, along Port Franks Road, from
Highway 21 to the Community Center. An estimated cost for this item
would be $25,000. This number would have to be adjusted, based on
established costs to install existing and similar walk/bike paths.
Item 7: Reshape, top dress, and sow grass seed along both sides of Powell
Road, from Estates Drive, to Andrea Crescent. An estimated cost for
this work might be $7500
Summary:
Item 1: $156,000
Item2: $88,000
Item 3: $68,000
Item 4: $51,000
Item 5: $no cost
Item 6: $25,000
Item 7: $7,500
Total; $395,500
Unknowns; Add 15%: $59,000
Contingency: Add 10%:$39500
Grand total: $494,000

44
Port Franks Improvement Project Ideas:
(Edited List of Community Improvements by Ted Archer, Nov. 2714)

1/ Roadway Lighting along Port Franks Road, from Highway #21 to
P.F.C.C. to improve safety & attractiveness of the entrance into our
community. The request for street lighting does not extend beyond
Port Franks Road. Many Port Franks residents enjoy the absence of
light pollution on the residential streets of the community and this
request does not change that positive aspect.
2/ Improved gravel shoulders of Port Franks Road from Highway #21 to
Superior Street, including refreshed/additional gravel and regular
grading of the shoulders to remove the deep, unsafe valleys left after
heavy rainfall and heavy vehicle use. Outer Drive from Highway #21 to
the mud Creek bridge needs the same attention.
3/ Improved Grassy Aprons on both sides of Port Franks road attracting
the need to push back foliage growth and regular cutting during the
summer months.
4/ Summertime grass cutting of the entrances, up and over, the Mud
Creek bridge will improve the attractiveness of Port Franks to our many
visitors to the heart of the community.
5/ Paved Pedestrian Pathway on the western side of Port Franks Road
from Highway #21 to the P.F.C.C. The pathway needs to be off-set from
the asphalt edge and the gravel shoulder, similar in design to the very
successful pedestrian pathway from the Pinery to Grand Bend. This
45
improvement is consistent with the integration plans of the Lambton
Shores Trails Committee.
6/ The asphalt roadways in Port Franks were laid several decades ago.
The small radius intersections are no longer suitable for the much
larger School Buses and Trucks that frequent Port Franks streets,
leaving significant mud holes, broken asphalt & ponds of water after
heavy rains. Use of gravel fill is very expensive and very temporary fix.
New professionally paved intersection corners are required.
7/ Street Sweeping of the residue of salt & sand from winter road
clearance. This service will enhance the ability to grow grass to the
street edge, improving the attractiveness of Port Franks streets. We
request the resumption of this service that was available until stopped
in 2013.
8/ Install concrete shallow arch curbing between the roadway and the
paved walkway from Superior Street to Poplar Ave., along Riverside
Drive to increase attractiveness in the heart of Port Franks.
9/ Replace the unsightly pedestal base of the light standard on
Riverside Drive at the four corners.
10/ Transform the Lambton Shores owned parcel of land bounded by
Alfred Street & Alfred Crescent into a park like setting.
11/ Make the Port Franks Marina area free access to all. This wonderful
attribute of Port Franks needs to be available to all residents, not just
boaters. Cleaning up and improving the general appearance of the
marina and boat storage areas would be an enhancement of value.
46
12/ Clean up, reshape, top dress and seed the length of Powell Street
from Port Franks Estates to Andrea Street. Good fences will provide for
better relations with the neighbouring Trailer Park.
13/ The Post Office Mail Boxes in Port Franks need attention. In many
cases the lack of maintenance over the years has lead to subsided areas
where vehicles ramp off/on the roadway to access the boxes, creating
ponds of standing water so deep that the pedestrian approach to the
locations are underwater. We are unclear as to who is responsible for
such maintenance Canada Post or Lambton Shores.
14/ Climbing the Sand Dune at MacPhersons is a Port Franks tradition
dating back decades and fondly remembered by many Port Franks
residents. Increased popularity, more & larger vehicles, trucks, ATVs &
MotoCross Motorcycles have all taken a toll on this wonderful
landmark. This area needs attention! Small children running down the
dune pose a terrible risk of injury. We suggest the installation of a
permanent berm/wall at the bottom of the dune with a set of steps
that users would climb up to continue up the dune, would address
several of the realities. The temporary sand berm graded into place in
2014 was effective, until washed away by rain.

Wayne Nelson: wandmnelson@execulink.com
July 25, 2014
47
THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Report CAO No. 15 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Kevin Williams, Chief Administrative Officer

RE: Answers to Questions Received Regarding the Grand Bend Sewage
Treatment Plant

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CAO 15-2014 providing answers to questions
received regarding the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant
be received.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report is provided in answer to Councils request that clear and concise answers be
provided to public questions related to the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant
project. These questions and answers are captured in tabular format. The questions
are quoted as received to maintain the relationship of lines of questioning. Answers are
augmented with source data being referenced where appropriate. Any questions that
are in fact statements, or would require a subjective response have been treated as
unanswerable.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting held the 19
th
day of June, 2014, the following resolution was
passed:

Carried 14-0619-21
THAT the C.A.O. act as the central point of accountability to
distribute the questions regarding the Watson Report
presented on May 15
th
to Gary Scandlan for a written
response to them by August 1
st
; and

THAT the C.A.O. assign the remaining questions regarding
need, cost, and procurement to the appropriate staff for
answers ; and

THAT these answers are reported to Council by the first
Council meeting in September, 2014.

48
As requested, all questions that were received and presented to Council through Report
CL 52-2014 have been reviewed by Mr. Scandlan, and the appropriate municipal staff.
Answers are provided in tabular format and presented as Attachment 1.

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER

N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This report recommends receipt of the answers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no specific financial impact associated with receipt of this report.

CONSULTATION

Mr. Gary Scandlan, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd.
Mr. Barry Card, Solicitor
Janet Ferguson, Treasurer
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
Patti Richardson, Planner

ATTACHMENT

GBA STF Questions 2014 08 29
49
Page 1 of 34
S # Q # Question Answer Source
1 1
Can you tell me when the proposed date for the sewer
will be?
Lambton Shores Council has adopted the recommendations from the
Ad-Hoc Committee on sewers, and the Zone 3 and Zone 4
residential service areas are not to be serviced until there is an
identifiable environmental need.
A tender for the upgrade to the sewage treatment facility was
accepted by Lambton Shores Council on J uly 3, 2014 and awarded
to K&L Construction Ltd. Substantial completion of this project is
forecasted for November 1, 2015.
- Report on the Review of Zones 3 & 4
Collection Systems and Their Relationship
to the New Sanitary Treatment Facility (Ad
Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee, March
5, 2012).
- Resolution #12-0709-36, Minutes of the
J uly 9, 2012 Lambton Shores Council
Meeting
Meeting
1 2
Can you tell me what the cost of installation to the home
owner will be?
As above, there will not be any servicing for residential properties
located in Zone 3 and Zone 4 as a part of the current project.
Cost apportionment for the sewage treatment facility upgrade
component of the project is currently under consideration by
municipal Council, and a decision has been deferred until project
tenders and the 6th draft of the Official Plan are received. The tender
for the sewage treatment facility has closed, and the tender for the
pump station upgrades is pending the fall of 2014.
May 15, 2014 Lambton Shores Council
Meeting
1 3
Should you proceed with any improvements to your
present system in the interim.
The County of Lambton is the approval authority for septic systems
in Lambton Shores. It is recommended that the County of Lambton
be contacted regarding any necessary upgrades
(www.lambtononline.com).
2 1
Why are you taking so long to even begin this project? 4
years ago the plant was approved for approximately
$25,000,000.00 and now 4 years later the same price is
being quoted for a plant that is half the original size and
still not even near being started. Money has been wasted
for engineering fees.
The original sewage treatment facility was designed for 4,659 m
3
/day
and tendered in September 2011. The tender price was $21,226,655
(excluding HST and contingency). In J anuary 2012 Council decided
not to award the tender. Throughout 2012 the project underwent a
design review completed by working group that included one elected
official and technical staff each from Lambton Shores and South
Huron and our consulting engineer Stantec. In August 2012 Council
selected a preferred option for the re-designed project. As required
by the Environmental Assessment Act this change required an
addendum to be filed for the project Environmental Study Report
(ESR). In addition, a scope change request was required for the
Federal and Provincial funding received for the project. The ESR
addendum was filed October 26, 2012 and a number of Part II order
bump-ups were received requesting that the Ministry of Environment
require further environmental assessments. The MOE provided
authorization to proceed 11 months later in September 2013. The
funding scope change request was filed October 4, 2012 and
approval for the funding change was received in August 2013. The
newly designed facility has a capacity of 2,473 m
3
/day. The facility
has been tendered at a cost of $12,767,900 (excluding HST and
contingency).
J anuary 30, 2012 Lambton Shores Council
Meeting
August 14, 2012 Lambton Shores Council
Meeting
- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment
Facility Upgrade Tender Analysis (Dillon
Consulting, October 24, 2011)
- New Grand Bend Area Wastewater
Treatment Facility Report on Tenders
(Stantec Consulting, J une 17, 2014)
GBA STF Questions
50
Page 2 of 34
GBA STF Questions
2 2
Why can the council of the day not make up their minds
as to how this project is going to be funded? The Legacy
Center and the Shores Arena were funded by the entire
Municipality of Lambton Shores and we think the Grand
Bend Area Sewage Treatment Plant should be funded by
the entire Municipality of Lambton Shores.
Unanswerable Comment.
2 3
We know this is an election year and no one wants to
make a decision on this project, however, the business of
Lambton Shores must carry on.
2 4
The sewage from Grand Cove Estates goes to the Grand
Bend lagoon system. The agreement with Grand Cove
Estates and the Municipality of South Huron concerning
the sewage treatment plant needs to be revisited. At
least the portion of South Huron that is Grand Cove
Estates should be paying a share of the project.
Sewage flows from Grand Cove Estates are metered, and are
accounted for as part of South Huron's flows to the sewage treatment
facility. South Huron pays their proportionate share of operating
costs of the sewage treatment facility based on flows contributed to
the facility, which include flows from Grand Cove Estates.
- 2013 GB STF Flows summary (internal
operating document)
3 1
The traditional policy for paying for the sewage treatment
facility is to get the money through taxes from only those
who are and will benefit from using it. Why should we, as
owners of property in Ipperwash (on septic tanks) have to
contribute?
Cost apportionment for the sewage treatment facility upgrade
component of the project is currently under consideration by
municipal Council, and a decision has been deferred until project
tenders and the 6th draft of the Official Plan are received. The tender
for the sewage treatment facility has closed, and the tender for the
pump station upgrades is pending the fall of 2014.
Meeting
4 1
What is the cost of the originally proposed "green
technologies" that are being excluded from the STF
tender?
The 2011 tender price received for the originally proposed green
initiatives was $1,653,815 (excluding HST).
4 2
What is the impact on the FCM $1.0M Grant and $10.0M
loan by eliminating the originally proposed green
technologies?
There is no direct impact to the FCM funding by eliminating the
originally proposed green initiatives.
The project has qualified for $1,000,000 in grant funding and up to
$5,765,346.80 in a low interest loan under the FCM Green Municipal
Fund for eligible costs. The basis of the funding approval is achieving
a "targeted environmental benefit" which is measured by an
improvement in effluent quality. The final loan and grant amount will
be proportional to the final project eligible expenses and subject to
the project meeting stated effluent quality standards as identified in
the agreement.
- Staff report #DCS 54-2014, (included on
the J uly 1, 2014 Lambton Shores Council
meeting agenda, www.lambtonshores.ca)
- FCM Amended Agreement (2013)
51
Page 3 of 34
GBA STF Questions
4 3
Please provide and "apples to apples" comparison of the
cost of the two tendered options (less "green
technologies") compared to the new design concept.
The basis for the calculation below is total tendered price (less
contingency and HST) divided by total treatment capacity:
Original Full Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)
- Total tender (less contingency and HST) =$21,226,655.06
- Treatment capacity =4,659 m
3
/day
- Cost per unit =$4,556.05/unit of capacity
Original Half Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)
- Treatment capacity =2,329.5 m3/day
Re-Design Concept (2014 Tender)
- Treatment capacity =2,473 m3/day
5 1
Who should pay .....clearly future users who it was built
for which Im sure they will in part thru fees, albeit it
obviously not enough to cover the full cost. Since there is
no benefit to existing users and since the existing septic
users have been shut out and future users will only cover
a portion it can only be justified as an asset of the
municipality.
The funding model is currently under review.
5 2
Additionally existing users will be burdened with higher
operating and replacement costs, when they didn't have
to. (Many are still paying the capital costs of the original
Sewer system).
5 3
The only justification for the system is as an asset of the
Municipality to allow growth. So who will benefit from
future development. EVERYONE. New assessment will
be created which flows to tax dollars which will benefit
the entire community with extra revenue and hopefully
less taxes on an individual basis. The growth will be in
the Grand Bend area which pays the largest portion of
tax dollars already and that extra revenue is spread
throughout the Municipality.
5 4
So in simple terms the only beneficiaries of this plant on
an equal basis is EVERYONE.
6 1
Why have z3 & z4 areas not been taken out of the
Official Plan as directed by both Mr. J ohn Byrne and
council's direction to planner?
Draft 6 of proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan, only makes one
reference to Zones 3 and 4 and that is in Section 13.3.2 under the
recommendation of the Adhoc Sewer Committee.
'
52
Page 4 of 34
GBA STF Questions
6 2
Why did the Goosemarsh line go ahead without payment
from South bend development?
The forcemain was built to service the Pinery Park and the proposed
sewer expansion area as identified in the Development Charges
study and now known as zone 3 and 4. The project also included
sizing to service the subdivision known as South Bend which is
identified in their subdivision agreement. Item 33 (a) of the
subdivision agreement notes when payment is due - upon
registration of the plan.
6 3
What calculations have been used to justify the costs of
this sewer line and why is the Pinery the only user to
date?
See 6-2 above. The project was approved by council in November of
2008. When the project was complete, the capital costs were divided
based on flows as per the engineer.
DCS-36-2008 and DCS-84-2008
TR-52-2010
6 4
When did the administration plan to tell the present
sewer users on the various sewer systems in Lambton
Shores that everyone's sewer use rates would rise to
help pay for the increased cost of operation of the new
mechanical STF?
Lambton Shores Council included the estimated operational costs for
the new sewer treatment plant in the sewer rate study completed in
2012. The current user fee study will be updated in 2014 for the
future years. The capital cost allocation for this project is currently
under review by Council.
TR-87-2012 and TR-5-2013
6 5
WHERE did the negative statements regarding the sewer
capacity come from?
6 6
Why did the zone 4 people not receive a proper PIC to
inform them of sewers?
A Public Information Centre was held February 12, 2008 to inform
residents of this project.
- " North Lambton Shores Pressure Sewer
"Zone 4" Class Environmental Assessment
and Preliminary Design" Project File (Dillon
Consulting, April 2012)
6 7
What is the benefit of the STF to the taxpayers of
Lambton Shores?
The new mechanical treatment facility provides sewage treatment
capacity for growth and development, which will have a positive
improvement to the tax assessment.
The new mechanical treatment facility represents an improvement to
the environment and the surrounding waterways that are enjoyed by
memebrs of the public. The new facility will dishcarge cleaner
effluent. The new facility will achieve the following compared to the
current lagoon sysstem:
- 55% reduction in total suspended solids discharged
- 25% reduction in total residual chlorine discharged
- 87% reduction in total phosphorus discharged
- 12% reduction in total ammonia nitrogen discharged
- Table 3.1 "Targeted Environmental
Benefit", FCM Funding Agreement
53
Page 5 of 34
GBA STF Questions
6 8
What is expected to be Lambton Shores' share in dollars
of the: A) Capital cost, B) Annual operating cost, C) Life
cycle cost?
A J oint Operating agreement was approved by Lambton Shores
Council on April 3, 2014. A copy of the J oint Agreement is available
by viewing the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda posted at
www.lambtonshores.ca (see report number DCS 22-2014).
A) Capital costs are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of
the new facility. Lambton Shores received 64.7% of the capacity and
pays 64.7% of the capital costs.
B) Annual operating costs will be apportioned based on actual flows
conveyed to the facility by each respective partner municipality.
C) Lifecycle costs are considered an "ownership cost" of the facility.
"Ownership costs" are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of
- Resolution#14-0403-31, Minutes of the
April 3, 2014 Lambton Shores Council
Meeting
Facility J oint Operating Agreement (2014)
(attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014,
publically available at
www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014
Council meeting agenda)
6 9
Where will Lambton Shores obtain the funds to pay for
each of the above three costs?
The capital cost is still under review by Council. The operating and
lifecycle costs are typically funded through a user rate system. The
Lambton Shores rates will be reviewed in 2014.
7 1
Were there any creative/imaginative attempts made by
the council to secure funding from any other possible
sources besides Build Canada?
In 2008 when the project was moving forward to a point where
funding options could be considered, all programs available were
reviewed. At that time the Build Canada Fund and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, Green Municipal Fund were the only
available funding programs. Further, Council considered this project
from the very early stages and incorporated it in the development
charges, connectoin fees and waste water rate studies. Council has
recently reviewed the CCME report for consideration of other
methods to fund the plant. The funding model is currently under
review.
8 1
What would be the rationale for not continuing to apply
the Council's traditional policy of raising taxes from only
those taxpayers who are current and from those future
beneficiaries (future development) of sewage treatment
in the municipality?
8 2
If the decision on a treatment facility had to be made in
light of the Federal regulations which do not demand the
shutting down of lagoon systems, would consideration
also have been given to operating the STF alongside the
treatment capacity of the two remaining lagoons?
54
Page 6 of 34
GBA STF Questions
8 3
Will the recommendation of the ad hoc committee be
imposed as part of the plan to deal with septic that the
Sewage Treatment Facility represents? Surely there are
failing septic systems in Lambton Shores - as is the case
in Sauble Beach. When will the mandatory septic tank
inspections (as recommended by the ad hoc committee)
be implemented in Lambton Shores in order to protect
Lake Huron from further degradation?
Septic inspections are the mandate of the County of Lambton. At its
May 19, 2010 meeting County Council passed the following
resolution:
a) That the County continue to participate in activities relating to re-
inspection initiatives and await further direction from the province
prior to implementing a re-inspection program County-Wide.

b) That the County work with Lambton Shores' Council/staff to
develop a re-inspection program that meets the needs/goals of
Lambton Shores with all costs associated with the
implementation/enforcement of such to be the sole responsibility of
Lambton Shores, through a prescribed user-pay program.
Carried.

According to the County, To date in Lambton Shores, re-inspection
program development work has been focussed on geographic area
surveys of the septic systems according to age, vacant land, the lack
of and the existence of records. There has been no formal
development of a program to date.
Lambton Shores Council has accepted the recommendations of the
Ad-Hoc committee. Focus on this matter has been deferred
thoughout 2012, 2013 and 2014 as staff's focus has been on the re-
design of the Grand Bend Area sewage treatment facility. With that
project now at construction stage, staff will turn their focus to bringing
this matter forward for consideration.
- Minutes of the May 19, 2010 Lambton
CountyCouncil Meeting
- Email from C. Nauta to B. Kittmer, J uly
24, 2014.
Meeting
9 1 How is the cost to be amortized?
To be determined. The funding model is currently under review.
10 1
Why did our elected council member never discuss this
with Beach O'Pines although he met with Southcott quite
often?
55
Page 7 of 34
GBA STF Questions
10 2
Why were we excluded from an Environmental
Assessment in Beach O'Pines and Southcott and Huron
Woods Surely these lakefront communities should have
been part of such a review. Was there political or outside
interference that stopped such a review?
Zone 3 and Zone 4 sanitary servicing areas were identified through
the Grand Bend Area Sanitary Servicing Master Plancompleted in
2006. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA for Zone 4 was completed
in 2009. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA was initiated by Lambton
Shores for Zone 3, however the notice of completion was withdrawn
after extending the public review period. The public response
revealed opposition to sanitary service in Zones 3 and 4. Specifically,
a public concern was raised that groundwater monitoring completed
as a part of the Zone 3 Environmental Assessment did not
demonstrate that septic systems were having an environmental
impact. These ground water monitoring results were subsequently
reviewed by hydrogeologists and surface water specialists within the
Ministry of the Environment and they concluded that there is no
current environmental impairment occurring as a result of the study
area being serviced by septic systems
An Ad Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee was created and
recommended against servicing in Zone 3 and Zone 4 unless there
was an identifiable environmental need. Lambton Shores Council
elected to defer servicing of these areas until such time that there is
an identifiable enviornmental need.
December 6, 2012 Lambton Shores
Council Meeting.
- Email from Craig Newton, Regional
Environmental Planner, Ministry of the
Environment, August 8, 2012
- Report on the Review of Zones 3 & 4
Collection Systems and Their Relationship
to the New Sanitary Treatment Facility (Ad
Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee, March
5, 2012)
Meeting
10 3
Why were the lakefront communities never considered
for sewers and the requirement for a bigger STF?
Please see answer to 10-2.
11 1
Has there been a feasibility study done for the proposed
new Grand Bend sewage treatment plant? Is this
available to the public?
There are several studies that serve the purpose of a feasibility study
reviewing alternatives for the proposed sewage treatment facility:
- Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron
Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon
Consulting, February 21, 2006)
- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade
Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)
- Sewage Working Group Report to Grand Bend Area Sewage
Board: Evaluation of Alternative Options for the Grand Bend Sewage
treatment Facility (Stantec Consulting, J uly 26, 2012)
Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting,
October 26, 2012)
These studies are available publically from Lambton Shores.
11 2
What costing model will be used for the new plant based
on the percentages used in the new J oint Sewer Board
Agreement?
11 3
A user pay model for funding for sewage treatment is
based on domestic water usage/flow into the plant. If
there is allocation without flow, how does the municipality
intend on covering the cost and for how long?
A user pay model has not yet been determined. The funding model
is currently under review.
56
Page 8 of 34
GBA STF Questions
11 4
Does the Municipality of Lambton Shores assign a time
limit to the payment and use of sewage treatment for
developments?
Payment for sewage treatment for developments is through the
Lambton Shores Development Charges fee. Development charges
are generally paid at the time of building permit.
The Municipality has recently been including conditions in draft
approvals and subdivision agreements dealing with the time frames
under which the Municipality will reserve capacity in the sewage
treatment facility. These clauses now include the volume of capacity
reserved for the development and a time period (eg 2 years) that the
assignment is valid for without review, adjustment or even
revocation.
11 5
Can the Municipality of Lambton Shores provide a cost
estimate per unit (1 cubic meter/day) of sewage
allocation for the new plant?
The basis for the calculation below is total tendered price (less
contingency and HST) divided by total treatment capacity:
- Treatment capacity =4,659 m
3
/day
11 6
How much of the cost to provide this service will
development fees cover? (as a percentage of the
following; the full cost of capital , annual operational and
long term life cycle costs)
Development Charges only cover capital costs associated with the
project. The funding model is currently under review.
11 7
Who would cover the remaining costs for development
from question #4 and how?
11 8
The agreement of subdivision between the Municipality
of Lambton and Grand Bend Community Corp. as per
By- Law 52 of 2008 for South Bend Estates was
unregistered and unsigned when a cost for $359,239.10
was attributed to this agreement in report TR Report 52-
2010. The report states the amount will be "collected and
paid down when a subdivision agreement is finalized".
Are the new owners of South Bend Estates legally bound
to the past unregistered agreement?
This issue is subject to solicitor-client privilege and forms part of the
ongoing dialogue between the municipality and new owners.
11 9
If so, has the municipality finalized a registered
agreement for this development? Has this debt been
paid down?
The agreement has not been finalized nor has a payment been
received, and the plan of subdivision has not been registered
57
Page 9 of 34
GBA STF Questions
11 10
Is the municipality legally bound to the assignment of
allocation for this development?
This issue is subject to solicitor-client privilege and forms part of the
ongoing dialogue between the municipality and new owners.
11 11
What is the standard limit to unused allocation in other
municipalities?
There is a wide variety of approaches, and there is no standard time
limit for allocation of capacity to developments. Some municipalities
choose to approve capacity allocations with "sunset clauses" noting a
deadline for when capacity must be used by. Other municipalities
allow for capacity allocation to continue without any deadline.
11 12
A technical review of the average daily flow from the
Pinery Park indicates that approximately 10% of the
assigned capacity of 470 m2/day is being used. How
does the municipality intend on recovering costs
assigned to this allocation based on this limited flow?
The Crown agrees to pay for the internal system engineering,
pumpstation, forcemain and plant expansion up to $4,540,000.00
Section 3.1 of the Cost Sharing Agreement
with the Minister of Natural Resources.
11 13
Why was an allocation of 470m2/day assigned to the
Pinery when the design limit for flow in the Goose Marsh
Force Main supplying sewage to the plant is 253m2/day?
The sewage allocation for the Pinery Park was determined by Dillon
consulting as a part of the forcemain design. Water consumption
data for J uly and August 2005 was provided by the Pinery Provincial
Park. The average water consumption for the Park was 450 m
3
/day
and the maximum daily water consumption was 650 m
3
/day. The
design water consumption was identified as the water consumption
value at 20% probability of occurrence (11 of the 58 measurements
taken). The estimated design water consumption was 550 m
3
/day.
The design wastewater flow rate for the Park is 470 m
3
/day assuming
there is a 15% water loss of water consumed.
Pinery flows were revisited and confirmed as part of the design of the
Pinery sewage collection system in March 2008.
- Cost Sharing Estimate for Forcemain and
Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades (Dillon
Consulting, J une 16, 2006)
- Pinery Provincial Park Sanitary Sewage
Design Flow Brief (Dillon Consulting, March
24, 2008)
11 14
The Pinery is using a 'grey water recovery system' as well
as 'septic holding tanks' for solids. How does this system
affect flow rates and required treatment of sewage from
the park?
The MNR has been contacted on this matter and a response is
pending.
11 15
What percentage of the total assigned allocation, for the
Lambton Shores portion of the new treatment plant, is
the Pinery and South Bend Estates?
Lambton Shores' allocation in the new sewage treatment facility is
1,600 m
3
/day.
The Pinery Park's allocation is 470 m
3
/day, which represents
approximately 29.4% of Lambton Shores' total allocation.
The South Bend Estates allocation is 260 m
3
/day, which represents
approximately 16.3% of Lambton Shores' total allocation.
- 2014 DRAFT GB STF Capacity
Assessment (internal document)
58
Page 10 of 34
GBA STF Questions
11 16
What percent of the cost for operation of the plant will
they assume?
Sewer operating costs are apportioned to users through their rates,
based on actual flows contributed to the facility.
12 1
I am looking for a complete list of all the costs/expenses
that are shown on the STF list of all costs and expenses
as misc. This amounts to almost $ 200,000 CDN.
Previously I was told by the mayor and the council they
would look into to it and provide me with an answer.
Obviously I forgot to ask what year that would happen
since it appears that neither they nor the CAO or
Treasurer seem to be able to answer promptly.
Ontario Clean Water Agency $7,000.00
ABCA - SWM Report $1,275.00
ABCA - OPA / ZBLA $350.00
Photocopies $110.35
Reprint Drawings $147.49
Postage for mailings $3,413.36
2009 administration allocation $75,459.33
2010 administration allocation $121,285.82
The administration allocation is as per the budget and financial
reporting approved by Council.
TR-84-2013 last page of detailed
information. Page 120 of October 17, 2013
Council agenda.
13 1
What are the current operating costs for the Grand Bend
Lagoon System?
The 2014 approved operating budget for the system (lagoons and
main pumping station) is $61,995.47.
- Minutes of the November 12, 2013 Grand
Bend J oint Sewage Board Meeting
13 2
How are the current operating costs allocated among
users?
Current operating costs are apportioned to Lambton Shores and
South Huron based on actual flows contributed to the facility. The
three year average is approximately 52% of costs to South Huron
and 48% of costs to Lambton Shores.
In Lambton Shores, sewer operating costs are apportioned to users
through their rates, based on actual flows.
13 3
What are the operating costs expected to be for the
GBSTP?
The 2012 Environmental Study Report Addendum completed by
Stantec Consulting presented operating costs estimated at $360,000
per year. These costs are qualified as being pre-design with a level
of accuracy of +/- 25%.
The J oint Agreement requires a first "draft operating budget" to be
approved by the J oint Board. Budget development is in progress,
and is forecasted to be less than Stantec's projection.
- GB STF ESR Addendum (Stantec
Consulting, 2012)
- GB STF J oint Board Agreement
13 4
What is the Yearly Asset Replacement Cost for the
GBSTP?
The J oint Agreement requires a first "draft operating budget" to be
approved by the J oint Board. Budget development is in progress,
and various approaches to developing the lifecycle reserve
contribution will be presented for consideration.

Our facility infrastructure is broken down by various components so
the asset replacement will vary as the useful life of the components
vary from 20 to 60 years depending on the component.
- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility
Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study
Report Addendum (October 26, 2012,
Stantec Consulting).
59
Page 11 of 34
GBA STF Questions
14 1
Is the GB sewage plant being upgraded to a mechanical
plant in order to meet the requirements of the new
Federal Regulations? If yes, please specify where in the
regulations you read that lagoon systems must be
upgraded. (I already understand that the need to
upgrade is based on effluent monitoring, and that special
provision is made, in the regs. for lagoons during the
months when lagoons may have difficulty meeting some
of the standards. So just tell me where you found the
statement that lagoons must be upgraded).
No, the purpose of the upgrades project is not driven by the Federal
wastewater regulations. Presently all municipal facilities achieve a
secondary level of treatment and meet the effluent quality
requirements. The Municipality is required to report every year, and
the annual effluent quality criteria dictate how the Federal regulations
apply. If the facilities continue to meet the limits established then the
Municipality is not required to complete upgrades. If a facility does
not meet the limits, the Municipality must apply for a transitional or
temporary authorization to discharge effluent. Facilities requiring
temporary or transitional authorization are assigned a risk level
based on the effluent quality and quantity. The risk level then
corresponds to a certain time period permitted before the facility
must meet the effluent quality requirements.
The new mechanical treatment facility provides sewage treatment
capacity for growth and development.
The new mechanical treatment facility represents an improvement to
the environment with respect to effluent discharge quality. The
mechanical treatment plant will achieve the following:
- 55% reduction in total suspended solids discharged
- 25% reduction in total residual chlorine discharged
- 87% reduction in total phosphorus discharged
- 12% reduction in total ammonia nitrogen discharged
- 2013 year end report for the Federal
waste water regulations (online database)
- Table 3.1 "Targeted Environmental
Benefit", FCM Funding Agreement
14 2
What has the monitoring of the GB lagoons, for the
Federal regulations shown to date?
Please see answer to 14-1
14 3
Please provide the current lagoon daily capacity, the
capacity in the currently tendered Stantec design and the
capacity in Dillon's design. Also provide the capacity
allocated to Lambton Shores in each of these three
systems.
The current lagoon facility has an approved sewage treatment
capacity of 1,891 m
3
/day. The capacity apportionment is contested
with Lambton Shores' position that its ownership share is 1,497
m
3
/day. South Huron's position is that Lambton Shores owns 945.5
m
3
/day of capacity. This historic dispute has been put aside with the
establishment of the new J oint Agreement.
The original design completed by Dillon Consulting was for a sewage
treatment facility with a total capacity of 4,659 m
3
/day. Lambton
Shores capacity allocation was 48.4% or 2,255 m
3
/day.
The currently tendered facility designed by Stantec Consulting has a
total capacity of 2,473 m
3
/day. Lambton Shores' capacity allocation is
64.7% or 1,600 m
3
/day.
Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009))
Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting,
October 26, 2012)
60
Page 12 of 34
GBA STF Questions
14 4
When allocating design capacity to new development
how much capacity is allocated to each dwelling unit.
What is the technical support for this allocation,and how
does it compare to the allocation used by 10 surrounding
municipalities in South West Ontario? What allocation is
recommended by the Ontario sewage plant design
manual? (see section 8.4.4 for sewage flows without
extraneous flow, and section 5.5 for extraneous flows.
The two are added together to get the total sewage flow.)
Sanitary sewage flows for residential properties are allocated based
on "Municipality of Lambton Shores Infrastructure Design Guidelines
and Construction Standards" developed by Dillon Consulting (2002).
Section 4.2 outlines Hydraulic Design criteria. Section 4.2.1 (A)
directs developers to assume a design population of 3 people per
unit, unless otherwise specified. Lambton Shores commonly accepts
the 2011 census "average number of persons per census family" of
2.6 as reported by Statistics Canada for Lambton Shores. Section
4.2.1 (B) requires that a per capital flow rate of 400 L/cap/day be
used, exclusive of extraneous flows. This falls within the MOEs
accepted design criteria of 225-450 L/cap/day (exclusive of
extraneous flows) (Sec. 5.5.2.1, "Design Guidelines for Sewage
Works", Ontario MOE, 2008).
The calculation results in an average day flow of 1,040 L/day per
unit. For simplicity, this design capacity is rounded to 1,000 L/day per
unit (or 1 m
3
/day per unit).
Note:
Section 8.4.4 does not exist in the MOE's "Design Guidelines for
Sewage Works" (2008)
- Municipality of Lambton Shores
Infrastructure Design Guidelines and
Construction Standards (Dillon Consulting,
2002)
- Design Guidelines for Sewage Works
(Ontario MOE, 2008)
14 5
How much allocation has been requested by developers
and /or potential developers in Grand Bend in the last 2
years?
The Rice Development - 80 m3. Pitaeo is looking for sufficient
(undetermined) capacity for development of 45 acre site.
14 6
What is the anticipated cost expressed as" $/M3/day of
new capacity" of the Stantec design and the Dillon
design for both Lambton Shores and South Huron
individually?
The basis for the calculation below is Municipal allocation of total
tendered price (less contingency and HST) divided by municipal
allocation of total treatment capacity. The calculations for the original
project assume Bluewater's participation in the project.
- SH Allocation (30.2%) =$6,410,449.83
- LS Allocation (48.4%) =$10,273,701.05
- Total treatment capacity =4,659 m
3
/day
- SH Allocation =1,407 m3/day
- SH Actual +Committed Flows =465 m3/day
- SH "New" Capacity =942 m3/day
- Cost per unit =$6,805/unit of "new" capacity
- LS Allocation =2,255 m3/day
- LS Actual +Committed Flows =1,304 m3/day
- LS "New" Capacity =951 m3/day
- SH Allocation (30.2%) =$5,152,526.04
- LS Allocation (48.4%) =$10,273,701.05

61
Page 13 of 34
GBA STF Questions
15 1
Several years ago council provided $10,000 to support
an university study on the groundwater quality in zones 3
and 4. What were the results of that study?
At the April 8, 2013 Council meeting, Council approved a request
from the Southcott Pines Park Association to support a grant
application under the Great Lakes Guardian Fund for a water quality
study to measure the potential impacts that may be related to septic
systems in the area. This grant application was denied, and Council
received a re-scoped project proposal on April 17, 2014. The
proposed program is in partnership with Dr. Will Robertson from the
University of Waterloo. The Municipality has $10,000 committed in
the 2014 operating budget to support this project which is currently in
progress.
Meeting
Meeting
15 2
What happens to the nitrates in the sewage in zones 3
and 4? If it doesn't flow into the lake with the
groundwater, please explain the mechanism of removal,
in aerobic sandy soils with no carbon source, and no
harvesting of organic crops.
Groundwater flows near Lake Huron ultimately end up being
discharged to the lake. Groundwater monitoring has been completed
for Zone 3 and Zone 4 as a part of the collection systems
environmental assessments. These ground water monitoring results
were subsequently reviewed by hydrogeologists and surface water
specialists within the Ministry of the Environment and they concluded
that there is no current environmental impairment occurring as a
result of the study area being serviced by septic systems.
- Email from Craig Newton, Regional
Environmental Planner, Ministry of the
Environment, August 8, 2012

- SH Allocation =703.5 m3/day
- SH "New" Capacity =238.5 m3/day
- LS Allocation =1,127.5 m3/day
- LS Actual +Committed Flows =1,304 m3/day
- LS "New" Capacity =NONE
- Cost per unit =Not applicable.
- SH Allocation (35.3%) =$4,507,068.70
- LS Allocation (64.7%) =$8,260,831.30
- SH Allocation =873 m3/day
- SH "New" Capacity =408 m3/day
- Cost per unit =$11,046.74/unit of "new" capacity
- LS Allocation =1,600 m3/day
- LS Actual +Committed Flows =1,304
- LS "New" Capacity =296
- Cost per unit =$27,908.21/unit of "new" capacity
62
Page 14 of 34
GBA STF Questions
15 3
How many Kg/year of nitrogen (expressed as nitrates)
would 1500 homes (2.5 people/home) discharge in their
sewage?
Generic technical question better answered by Mimistry of the
Environment or Ministry of Natural resources. Not specific to this
particular project.
15 4
Does the GLEAM report show that the near shore water
along the entire Lambton Shores shoreline of Lake
Huron, is highly stressed by Nitrogen? Will this nitrogen
stress negatively affect the near shore water quality?
The GLEAM report is not a municipal report commissioned for the
purposes of the Grand Bend Area sewage treatment facility upgrade
project. As this is not an official municipal report, the municipality
does not offer comment on its findings.
15 5
Is the near shore water quality, along the LS shoreline,
important to our council? If the answer is yes, what have
they done to ensure the nitrate stress is reduced?
15 6
Approximately what % of the total LS taxes are paid by
taxpayers located between highway 21/lakeshore Rd and
the lake Huron beaches?
This identified area within the municipal boundary pays
approximately 57% of the Municipal portion of taxes in Lambton
Shores.
15 7
Once all the new sewage capacity in GB has been
allocated and all the units built,will the new STP be able
to treat all the sewage, including the sewage from all the
existing homes if they were all occupied full time?
The re-designed sewage treatment facility is able to treat average
daily flows of 2473 m
3
/day. During peak flows, the facility is designed
with peak flow shaving for flow equalization and flows are directed to
the lagoons which will operate in series with the facility. If/when
sewage flows exceed an average daily flow of 2473 m
3
/day the
facility will be required to be upgraded.
October 26, 2012).
- Telephone call with Stantec Consulting
(2014-07-15)
15 8
How much sewage capacity in the new GB STP is
allocated to the existing users. Based on the 900+
,existing sewer connections in GB, how many M3/Day
are allocated to each sewer connection and how does
that amount of sewage allocation compare to design
standards in Ontario.
Note, the Grand Bend sewage system is subjected to seasonal flow
variations with peaks in the summer, and lows in the winter. Capacity
allocation is considered on an annualized average daily flow which
understates the summer peak, and overstates winter flows.
The three year daily average flow for Grand Bend users is 374
m
3
/day (347 m
3
/day for private sewer connections, and 27 m
3
/day for
the Pinery Provincial Park). The current number connections to
system is 898. Sewage flows per connection is calculated as 0.386
m
3
/day/connection (or 386 L/day/connection).
Statistics Canada reports the population of Grand Bend as 2,102
persons in the 2011 Census. Based on a population of 2,102
persons with a total flow of 347 m
3
/day (or 346,764 L/day) average
daily per capita flow is calculated as 165 L/cap/day.
The MOE's design criteria for sewage flows is 225-450 L/cap/day
(exclusive of extraneous flows) (Sec. 5.5.2.1, "Design Guidelines for
Sewage Works", Ontario MOE, 2008). The current actual average
daily per capita flow for Lambton Shores customers connected to the
Grand Bend system is less than the MOE design criteria. This is
typical for sewer sheds with seasonal flows.
- LS sewer billing records
- Design Guidelines for Sewage Works
(Ontario MOE, 2008)
63
Page 15 of 34
GBA STF Questions
16 1
Who will be paying for the municipality's share of the
cost? I certainly hope that those of us on septic tanks will
not be expected to pay toward the sewage plant.
17 1
Gross cost of this project compared to the original tender
for the 1/2 build and full build?
Refer to 4 - 3
17 2
Net cost of this project to Lambton Shores compared to
the original tenders for the 1/2 build and full build?
17 3
Net cost of the Pump Station upgrade to Lambton
Shores compared to the original tendered options? Why
the change?
The pump station upgrades are a "new" component of this project
approved by Council on September 4, 2012. This component of the
project was not part of the original design. This component of the
project was added to upgrade components of the main pumping
station that have reached the end of their useful life, and to address
deficiencies identified in a consulting engineer's review of the facility.
The budget for the main pumping station upgrades is $1,741,724.00
and the net cost to Lambton Shores is $290,287.00
September 4, 2012 Lambton Shores
Council Meeting
17 4
Capacity available for new development in Lambton
Shores, excluding current unsued commitments (ie
Southbend & others)?
Lambton Shores' capacity allocation in the new sewage treatment
facility is 1,600 m
3
/day. Current daily average flows are 374 m
3
/day
and committed capacity is 930 m
3
/day for a total 1,304 m
3
/day. This
leaves 296 m
3
/day of sewage treatment capacity available for new
development.
17 5
Are there any discussions with the Pinery about capacity,
and if so, why?
Yes. The Municipality is in regular contact with the Pinery and
Ministry of Natural Resources regarding sewage flows as a part of
our normal operating procedures to review annual flow totals.
Original Net Cost LS
Half Build $2,974,800
Full Build $5,282,582
Current Net Cost LS
STP 3,349,678 $
PS2 290,287 $
Total 3,639,965 $
Original project assumes Bluewater In
All include expense and grant to date
All include engineering
All include full contingency
All include net HST expense
All include full FCM grant
All include the Pinery Park portion
64
Page 16 of 34
GBA STF Questions
17 6
What are the terms of agreement with South Huron
about this new facility?
Meeting
17 7
How will all costs incurred by Lambton Shores be
recovered on this facility? Is it the same as on other
sewage treatment facility?
18 1
I believe a problem exists with the Transfer Agreement
with the Province that does not seem to have been
addressed.
18 2
In the past South Huron always understood that Grand
Bend and subsequently Lambton Shores owned about
80% of the capacity of the plant, and conceded that and
conceded that Lambton Shores had majority say in what
happened with the STF. Unfortunately the Transfer
Agreement gives South Huron equal say (with Lambton
Shores) on what happens with the STF.
18 3
That issue was addressed when the new agreement with
Bluewater and South Huron was developed but
Bluewater dropped out and the Agreement seemed to
revert back to the 50/50% split. This Council seems not
to have addressed this issue. It was suggested that
Lambton Council approach the Minister for a change in
the agreement but that did not happen, so Lambton
Shores remains with about 70% to 80% of the capacity in
the plant but only 50% of the say in the plant.
18 4
Was this issue not rectified in the agreement (with
Bluewater and South Huron), when Bluewater backed
away? This could raise issues of who pays for operating
and repair, and possibly upgrading costs in the future to
the detriment of Lambton Shores taxpayers (at least
those who will find themselves paying for the STF). If
Lambton Shores not pursued a revised Transfer
Agreement that reflects the original capacity split, does
the agreement not put Lambton Shores in jeaprody?
A) Capital costs are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of
B) Annual operating costs will be apportioned based on actual flows
conveyed to the facility by each respective partner municipality.
C) Lifecycle costs are considered an "ownership cost" of the facility.
"Ownership costs" are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of
Meeting
65
Page 17 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 1
What was the Lambton Shores population being serviced
by the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility (lagoons)
in 2005? How was this number determined?
The serviced population was estimated to be 1,100 by Dillon
Consulting in the 2006 Master Plan (see page 10 of the Master
Plan). This was calculated by multiplying the total number of
connections by an estimate for persons per home. The total number
of connections was 693. The estimate for persons per home was
1.57 based on 2002 Ontario Municipal Directory information.
- Municipalites of Lambton Shores
Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend
and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing
Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February
21, 2006)
19 2
What is the current population of that service area? How
is this number determined?
Statistics Canada reports the population of Grand Bend as 2,102
persons in the 2011 Census. The current number of Lambton Shores
properties connected to the Grand Bend system is 898.
- LS sewer billing records
19 3
What criteria were used by Dillon Consulting in 2005 to
support the need for a mechanical upgrade to the Grand
Bend Sewage Treatment Facility lagoon system?
The 2006 master plan identified the need for an upgraded
centralized sanitary sewage treatment facility and associated
collection systems. Section 2 of the 2006 Master plan reviewed
existing conditions and predictions for the future. The following items
were reviewed:
- Engineering Considerations
- Cultural Resources Considerations
- Natural Features Considerations
- Socio-Economic Considerations
Section 4 of the 2006 Master Plan serves as Phase 1 of the EA
process where the problem and need is defined. The section acts as
a long form summary of the findings of Section 2, and the problem
statement is summarized as:
"The Grand Bend STF is quickly reaching its capacity, especially
during the peak season. Committed, currently proposed and future
growth in the Study Area must be serviced by municipal sanitary
sewage services to comply with Provincial policies and legislation
requiring environmental protection. More than 70% of the Study
Area's total existing population of 7,110 is serviced by septic
systems. Malfunctioning septic systems, as well as discharges from
the Grand Bend STF, are adversely affecting surface and
groundwater, including Lake Huron and the Ausable River, the Study
Area's most important natural and recreational assets. Septic system
failure rates are expected to be high over the next 20 years. Based
on these considerations, existing and future development in the
Sturdy Area requires short and long-term municipal sanitary sewage
servicing improvements."
21, 2006)
66
Page 18 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 4
Which Council resolution directed staff to engage the
services of Dillon Consulting to produce the 2005
'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master
Plan'?
Dillon was the engineer of record for the former Village of Grand
Bend and completed the design and construction administration for
the original sewage treatment lagoons, pump station, and collection
system. After amalgamation Dillon remained the engineer of record
for the sewage treatment facility, and the former Director of
Community Services (Mr. Paul Turnbull) confirms that Dillon was
directly assigned the work associated with the master plan and
environmental assessments.
Dillon was assigned the work for the sewage treatment plant final
design and construction administration upon approval of the former
Tri-Municipal Committee on March 20, 2009. Dillon was asked to
submit a proposal for the work, and Lambton Shores Council
approved the contract on May 19, 2009.
- Telephone conversation with Mr. Turnbull
- Minutes of the March 20, 2009 Tri-
Municipal Committee Meeting
Meeting
19 5
When did the 2005 Ontario Provincial Policy Statement
take effect?
On March 1st, 2005
19 6
In what time frame was the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton
Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan' produced by Dillon
Consulting? Which municipal staff participated in the
project?
The majority of the work for the master plan process was completed
between 2004-2006. The final report was titled "Municipalities of
Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area
Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan" and was published
February 21, 2006 by Dillon Consulting.
The key municipal staff from Lambton Shores who worked on this
project were:
Mr. J ohn Byrne (CAO)
Mr. Paul Turnbull (Director of Community Services)
19 7
Which Council resolution directed staff to engage the
services of Dillon Consulting to produce the 2006
'Municipalities of Lambton Shores, Bluewater and South
Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewer Servicing
Master Plan'?
67
Page 19 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 8
When did the municipality correspond with the County of
Lambton to determine the feasibility of upgrading the
Grand Bend lagoon system without implementing a
mechanical treatment system solution? Where is a
record of that correspondence?
Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan
(February 21, 2006, Dillon Consulting)
Environmental Study Report (March 2009, Dillon Consulting)
Environmental Study Report Addendum (October 26, 2012, Stantec
Consulting)
The County of Lambton was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a
part of the process to develop the 2006 master plan titled
"Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron
Consulting, February 21, 2006)". Appendix B documents agency
consultations.
part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend
Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental
Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)". Appendix C
documents agency consultations.
part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend
Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)".
Appendix II documents agency consultations.
21, 2006)
Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)
October 26, 2012)
68
Page 20 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 9
When did the municipality correspond with the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment to determine the feasibility of
improving the capacity of the Grand Bend Sewage
Treatment Facility lagoon system without implementing a
mechanical upgrade to the treatment system? Where is a
record of that correspondence?
Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan
(February 21, 2006, Dillon Consulting)
Environmental Study Report (March 2009, Dillon Consulting)
Environmental Study Report Addendum (October 26, 2012, Stantec
Consulting)
The Ministry of Environment was consulted as a stakeholder agency
as a part of the process to develop the 2006 master plan titled
"Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron
Consulting, February 21, 2006)". Appendix B documents agency
consultations.
as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend
Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)". Appendix C
documents agency consultations.
as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend
Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)".
Appendix II documents agency consultations.
21, 2006)
Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)
October 26, 2012)
69
Page 21 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 10
Which documents support the claim of environmental
compromise from septic system failure in Zone 3 and any
adverse impact on Lake Huron? Are they accessible to
the public?
were reviewed:
21, 2006)
19 11
What evidence does the municipality have that the
Province will impose a central sewer collection system in
Zones 3 and 4 in the future?
There is no evidence that the Province will impose a central
collection system on lots currently serviced by private septic systems.
New development is required to follow the Provincial Policy
Statements.
19 12
Prior to 2011,why was such a significant sewage capacity
allocated to Southbend Estates (whose draft
development plan is still unregistered) without a sunset
clause?
The agreement as executed in 2011 was endorsed by Council in
2008 when the final approval was given for the first phase. The
Council of the day was planning to expand GBSTF and granted
sanitary sewage capacity for Phase 1 of the Development. The
agreement states no additional sewage capacity will be available to
the lands until a new sewage treatment facility is constructed.
Sec. 12 of the Development Agreement
70
Page 22 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 13
What rationale did the municipality use to propose a
central sewage collection system for Zones 3 and 4?
were reviewed:
21, 2006)
19 14
Given the statements made in Ontario Minister of the
Environment J im Bradley's Summary of Key Issues in the
fall of 2013, and the recommendations of the municipal
Ad hoc Sewer Advisory Committee ,why has the
municipality not removed references to the need for a
central sewage collection system for Zones 3 and 4 from
the 5th draft of The Official Plan?
The Official Plan Steering Committee deferred all decisions
respecting sanitary servicing policies in Zones 3 and 4 to Council.
Council has now reviewed Draft 5 and set direction for servicing in
Grand Bend in Draft 6. The only reference to Zones 3 and 4 in Draft
6 of proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan, is in Section 13.3.2
under the recommendation of the Ad hoc Sewer Committee.
71
Page 23 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 15
Why was the project for the original design and
environmental assessment for the Grand Bend Sewage
Treatment Facility, as well as the environmental
assessment process for Zones 3 and 4, directlyassigned
to Dillon Consulting in contravention of Policy #20- 2002?
Dillon was the engineer of record for the former Village of Grand
Bend and completed the design and construction administration for
the original sewage treatment lagoons, pump station, and collection
system. After amalgamation Dillon remained the engineer of record
for the sewage treatment facility, and the former Director of
Community Services (Mr. Paul Turnbull) confirms that Dillon was
directly assigned the work associated with the master plan and
environmental assessments.
submit a proposal for the work, and Lambton Shores Council
approved the contract on May 19, 2009.
- Telephone conversation with Mr. Turnbull
Meeting
19 16
Why was the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton Shores
Sanitary Sewage Master Plan' project directly assigned
to Dillon Consulting?
19 17
Why was the 2006 'Municipalities of Lambton Shores,
Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area
Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan' project directly
assigned to Dillon Consulting?
19 18
Why was the contract for groundwater quality testing in
Zones 3 and 4 directly assigned to Golder & Associates?
Golder & Associates was the approved sub-consultant proposed by
Dillon Consulting in their proposal for engineering services that was
approved by Lambton Shores Council on May 19, 2009.
Meeting
19 19
On what basis or rationale did the municipality decide to
use a low pressure grinder pump central sewage
collection system for Zones 3 and 4?
Section 5.7 of the 2006 master plan reviewed the alternatives for the
proposed sanitary sewage collection systems and recommended a
low pressure sanitary collection system. A low pressure system was
recommended by Dillon because of the following identified
advantages:
- lower capital cost
- can accommodate very long runs of forcemains before another
pump is needed to increase pressure
- can accommodate low flows
- non-invasive construction
- suitable for all types of terrains
21, 2006)
19 20
What was the overall anticipated cost for the originally
proposed sewage treatment mechanical upgrade for the
Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility including design,
building and environmental assessment aspects?
For the full build the total estimated cost was $26,814,425.00
-includes net hst cost
-includes engineering
-includes contingency
72
Page 24 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 21
What are the specific costs associated with the originally
proposed sewage treatment mechanical upgrade facility
design and environmental assessment aspects to date?
What is Lambton Shores' cost?
Referring to TR-84-2013 and removing the Pump Station 2 review,
ESR design review and ESR addendum costs the total costs for the
originally proposed project were $1,836,911.20 - of that Lambton
Shores was responsible for $713,305.09.
This includes all eligible and non-eligible costs, net hst expense and
the grant has been deducted from the Lambton Shores net cost.
TR-84-2013 adjusting for new design
review
19 22
What was the overall cost for the environmental
assessment processes for Zones 3 and 4?
Zone 3 $307,743.84
Zone 4 $311,002.73
These are total cost for the EA with net HST included
19 23
How much has the design of the new down sized
treatment plant cost the municipality?
Stantec Consulting was assigned the work for the re-designed
sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration
upon approval of the Grand Bend STF J oint Board on November 12,
2013. The proposal was considered and approved by Lambton
Shores Council on November 21, 2013 at a total cost of $1,395,000
(excluding HST).
Bend Area J oint Board Meeting
November 21, 2013 Lambton Shores
Council Meeting
19 24
Was a revised environmental assessment necessary for
the new downsized plant, and if so, what were the costs
to the municipality associated with that?
Yes, the Environmental Assessment Act required an addendum to
the "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade
Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)" as a
result of the proposed re-design of the facility,
The net cost to Lambton Shores for the design review and
environmental assessment review was $12,832.72
19 25
Why did the municipality not determine an overall cost for
the low pressure central sewage collection system
proposed for Zones 3 and 4 prior to supporting the need
for the size of the originally proposed sewage treatment
mechanical upgrade design for the Grand Bend Sewage
Treatment Facility?
Required treatment plant capacity and collection system costs were
both considered in the 2006 master plan. Section 5.7 of the 2006
master plan reviewed the alternatives for the proposed sanitary
sewage collection systems and recommended a low pressure
sanitary collection system. Table 18 presented forecasted costs of
low pressure sewer servicing at $20,600,000 for Lambton Shores'
proposed system.
21, 2006)
19 26
What is the maximum amount or cap assigned by Build
Canada to the cost of the sewage treatment plant
mechanical upgrade project for funding eligibility?
The total eligible expenses for the current project; which is for the
treatment plant and pump station 2, are $21,600,000.00
By-law 93 of 2013 BCF Agreement
Amendment
By-law 83 of 2014 BCF Agreement
Amendment
19 27
What was the proposed project management fee to build
the original design mechanical upgrade for the Grand
Bend Sewage Treatment Facility?
submit a proposal for the work. The proposal was considered and
approved by Lambton Shores Council on May 19, 2009 at a total
cost of $1,921,200 (excluding GST).
Meeting
19 28
What is the anticipated project management fee
proposed to build the new down sized plant for the Grand
bend Sewage Treatment Facility?
Stantec Consulting was assigned the work for the re-designed
sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration
upon approval of the Grand Bend STF J oint Board on November 12,
2013. The proposal was considered and approved by Lambton
Shores Council on November 21, 2013 at a total cost of $1,395,000
(excluding HST).
Bend Area J oint Board Meeting
November 21, 2013 Lambton Shores
Council Meeting
73
Page 25 of 34
GBA STF Questions
19 29
What has it cost the municipality to build the
Goosemarsh Line low pressure sewage collection system
line? Has the project been fully paid for?
The Lambton Shores portion of the forcemain was $1,044,581.20.
(engineering and net hst included) The capital cost is financed and
the debt repayment is currently funded through the Sewer Operating
budget and some funds from Development Charges.
TR-52-2010
Development Charges Study
19 30
Are there any benefitting properties that have yet to
contribute to the cost of building the Goosemarsh Line
low pressure sewage collection system line? If so, what
is the amount of money still owed by these properties?
Why have these funds not been collected?
The forcemain was built to service the Pinery Park and the proposed
sewer expansion area as identified in the Development Charges
study and now known as zone 3 and 4. The project also included
sizing to service the subdivision known as South Bend which is
identified in their subdivision agreement. Item 33 (a) of the
subdivision agreement notes when payment is due - upon
registration of the plan.
19 31
What did it cost the municipality to produce the 2005
'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master
Plan'?
Total cost of the Lambton Shores Sewer Master Plan was
$63,291.44
19 32
What did it cost the municipality to produce the 2006
'Municipalities of Lambton Shores, Bluewater and South
Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewer Servicing
Master Plan'?
The Lambton Shores cost of the North End Sewer Master Plan was
$91,508.37
19 33
What did the groundwater testing project for Zones 3 and
4 completed by Golder & Associates cost the
municipality? Is there ongoing groundwater testing being
done by Golder and Associates for Zones 3 and 4? If so,
what are the costs associated with this project?
Zone 3 costs were $144,485.59
Zone 4 costs were $ 23,649.31
Costs include net hst
These costs are included in the EA process costs shown in 19-22
There is no current groundwater testing being completed by Golder &
Associates. The Municipality has decided to fund an alternative
groundwater monitoring program. At the April 8, 2013 Council
meeting, Council approved a request from the Southcott Pines Park
Association to support a grant application under the Great Lakes
Guardian Fund for a water quality study to measure the potential
impacts that may be related to septic systems in the area. This grant
application was denied, and Council received a re-scoped project
proposal on April 17, 2014. The proposed program is in partnership
with Dr. Will Robertson from the University of Waterloo. The
Municipality has $10,000 committed in the 2014 operating budget to
support this project which is currently in progress.
Meeting
Meeting
20 1
On page 189 under a alternatives I believe there's a
spelling error and that the word should be innovative
rather than innocative. Should this perception be
incorrect would you kindly explain to me what the word in
innocative is?
There was a transposition error, the correct word is "innovative". CCME Report - page 7
20 2
What would a government service partnerships be in
easy understandable terminology?
Government Service Partnerships use various combinations of
government partnerships such as municipal - municipal, provincial -
municipal, or federal - municipal to fund infrastructure projects.
CCME Report - page 2
74
Page 26 of 34
GBA STF Questions
20 3 In item B what is meant by Provincial State?
With regards to revolving loans the Provincial Government or State
Government may participate. State infrastructure banks are state
run banks in the United States that operate like private banks with
low-rate loans.
20 4
"Trust Funds" probably referred to reserve funds but
please clarify this.
Trust funds are not reserves or reserve funds which are generally
used by the municipality as part of their budgeting practices. Trusts
are "Special Funds" and exist where money or property are held by
the municipality or local board for the benefit of another.
Trust funds were only mentioned in the presentation because a
request was made by council to consider the alternatives presented
in a document provided by the Canadian Councils of Ministers. The
Watson presentation discussed the applicability and potential use as
it applied to this project.
Gary Scandlan
20 5
I presume that "Securitizations Funds" probably referred
to the issuance of securities. Would you kindly
explain/clarify this point?
Securitization funds use repackaged loans to sell securities which
entitle the owner of the securities to repay a portion or the total
amount of loan. The loans are pooled and the cash flow from loans
is used to pay the interest and principal on the securities.
20 6 Under D what is meant by the term "Contributions"?
Contributions are a non-repayable transfer of funds from the federal
government to the provincial and municipal governments. The funds
provided by the federal government are intended for a specific
purpose and must meet the terms of a Contribution Agreement.
20 7
In D there is a reference to Development Charges, back
can only be brought into play when the development
requires capacity in the Sewage Treatment Facility as I
understand. If this is not correct please explain why?
Development charges are imposed by the provisions of the by-law
i.e. the by-law defines the services and the areas which will pay for
the charges.
Watson Presentation - slide 4 Gary
Scandlan
20 8
The comments on page 190 of the agenda raise the
question, would this include the funds due to Lambton
Shores from the sale of Southbend Estates?
No - the allocation for the South Bend Construction Costs were
removed from the forcemain cost.
Watson Presentation - slide 5
20 9
At page 191 bullet 3, is confusing at best. This should be
clearer. Is Mr. Scandlan suggesting that the
Development Charges should be collected at the time of
signing the development/subdivision agreements?
Under the Development Charge Act, a council can collect the charge
for water, wastewater, storm and roads earlier than building permit
(i.e. at time of subdivision agreeement signing). For developments
proceeding through a plan of subdivision, it would increase the timing
of recovery if the muncipality collected the revenue at that time.
Gary Scandlan
20 10
At page 192 bullets 2 there is no mention of a definition
for "at some later point in time". Would you kindly explain
what this means?
Watson presentation slide 7 bullet 2 references the Municipal Act
and is written exactly as stated in the Act. The timing would be
determined by Council in the future.
Municipal Act, 2001 Sec.391(2)
20 11
Surely there must be a definition somewhere that an
ordinaryperson can rely on.
20 12
This appears almost if not actually the denial of natural
justice.
75
Page 27 of 34
GBA STF Questions
20 13
At page 195, bullet 1 Local Improvement has the benefit
of having the right of appeal to the OMB.
20 14
Bullet 2, under this section the application is only to a
very limited to a very narrow number of properties.
20 15
At page 196, Bullet 1it appears that what is being said is
that "Grant Funding Availability" is now veryunreliable. Is
this a correct reading of this section?
On slide 11 it is a statement that "in general" the availability of grants
has declined over the last 2 decades. Grants provided by senior
levels of government are based on specific programs and activities
they are targeting for the funding. Lambton Shores was fortunate to
secure funding in 2009 for this project.
Scandlan
20 16
At page 199 Allocation etc. item 2 what developments
are included in the 930 m(3)?
The following developments represent the 930 m
3
/day committed
capacity for Lambton Shores:
- Gill Road (River) (7 m3/day)
- Harbourside Village (22 m3/day)
- Government Road (5 m3/day)
- J ohnstone Phase 2 (29 m3/day)
- Lakeview Circle (1 m3/day)
- Pinery Provincial Park (net) (443 m3/day)
- Rice Development (140 m3/day)
- Riverbend Wharf (11 m3/day)
- Southbend Estates (260 m3/day)
- Wondergrove Developments (12 m3/day)
20 17
At page 200 item "less Bluewater $ 122,706 what does
this represent?
This is Bluewater's proportionate share of the original engineering
review and cost to date.
Watson Presentation - slide 15 TR-
84-2013
20 18
The reference to South Huron would appear to be their
capital share of the STF.
20 19
At page 201,reference is made to the Zone 3 & 4 Force
main. Why is this being mentioned?
Slide 16 includes the Goosemarsh forcemain which was constructed
to service the collection systems proposed in zone 3 & 4 and formed
part of the costs for the collection system project. The collection
system has been put on hold and no new funding model solution
provided.
20 20
Actually there is no EA for what was Zone 3. There is no
EA planned for this area. The force main in question can
only serve the Pinery Park because of its design.
20 21
Council has clearly stated that there will be only gravity
sewers in zone 4. Therefore why are we talking about
Zone 3 & 4 being responsible for this force main?
See 20 - 19
20 22
What is the exact meaning of "new only" as used in this
section?
New users not presently on the system Watson Presentation - slide 16 Gary
Scandlan
20 23
Please note that the users paid for this repair in their
user rates for 30 years, why are they paying a second
time?
76
Page 28 of 34
GBA STF Questions
20 24
At page 202, "and future users-" shouldn't it read plus
rates rather than or rates. How does Mr. Scandlan plan
to charge future users to pay rates?
Council may choose to recover these costs as a charge under the
Development Charges Act or Part 12 of the Muncipal Act. If Council
chooses not to have a capital charge then it would need to have the
costs recovered from existing ratepayers as part of there rates.
Scandlan
20 25
Zone 3 & 4 are shown as future users (Deferred
Benefits). When will Zones 3 & 4 see any benefit?
As required or determined by Council Municipal Act, 2001 Sec. 391(2)
20 26
At page 204, 2nd box "Wastewater Users" this is only
regarding the STF costs which reduce over a period of
time to zero. Why didn't the consultant explain that these
charges are in addition to the increase in operating costs
for the new STF over the lagoon system?
The chart presents the potential added impacts of the capital cost for
the STP under different funding options for Council. The capital
costs are shown on page 202 - exsiting benefit and future customer
benefit. These costs are then coverted to 20 year debt charges
based on the funding noted on 198. On page 202, the Existing User
impact is the added cost of the existing benefit costs being recovered
on either rates or taxes. Similarly, if Council chose not to use the
Development charges Act but to pay for these future benefit costs via
rates or taxes, the added costs are presented.
Watson Presentaion - slide 19
Gary Scandlan
20 27 Again at page 204,what divisor is being used?
For wastewater rates, 417,183 m
3
and for taxation, weighted current
value assessment of 1,957,138,903.
Gary Scandlan
20 28 Is the same divisor used in all calculations?
Yes Gary Scandlan
20 29 To be totally clear how was the divisor determined?
Wastewater rates are based on 2013 metered flows and assessment
was based on 2014 taxation data
Gary Scandlan
20 30
I don't see any mention of the increase required under
the Asset Management Plan (AMP). Why isn't that
pointed out very clearly as well?
The recommendations included in the Asset Management Plan have
not been approved by Council at this time.
As noted on page 187, the presentation purpose was to respond to
Council direction, i.e. "THAT Mr. Gary Scandlan provide Council with
possible scenarios for a funding mechanism for the sewer treatment
facility"
Council Meeting March 20, 2014
TR-18-2014
Gary Scandlan
20 31
I believe that all the charges referenced are on an annual
basis. Is that correct?
Yes - based on 20 year debt charges Gary Scandlan
20 32
At page 205, at Bullet 1How far in the future is council
expecting this benefit to occur?
Not determined by Council at this time. Watson Presentation - slide 20
20 33
At Bullet 2, Why should there be any cost to property
owners when the users of sewers in Lambton Shores
and the predecessors paid to create reserve funds?
Not determined by Council at this time. Watson Presentation - slide 20
20 34 How were these funds used if not for replacing the STF?
One Sewer Reserve Fund is established for all of our sewer
infrastructure. There have been several infrastructure replacements
over the years that have been funded from the Sewer Reserve Fund.
There has been no designated fund or allocation for the Grand Bend
lagoon replacement or plant construction. The Sewer Reserve Fund
is non project specific ; however, Council reviews the 10 year capital
budget projections annually during budget discussions.
20 35 At Bullet 3, why are there no reserve funds?
In addition to 20 - 34, there is a Sewer Reserve Fund; however, at
this time there has been no council decision to allocate Sewer
Reserve Funds to the project.
1
77
Page 29 of 34
GBA STF Questions
20 36 At Bullet 4 please explain what this item means?
Development Charges collected for a specific service must be used
for that type of service. The legislation does not allow for a refund of
Development Charges.
Development Charges Act
20 37
Given the actual cost per household, is this STF really
needed?
20 38
Has any thought been given to the economic impact of
this project to the citizens of Lambton Shores?
A question for Council
20 39
Has any report been done showing the potential impact
on property values on those properties that will be paying
these increased fees?
No
20 40
What is the impact on the base rate for waste water
service? (What will the new quarterly and annual rate be
for sewer service/waste water rate?)
Rates are under review and not approved for 2015 or forward. By-Law 06 of 2013 - last rates approved
2012 Rate Study
20 41
Since, it is conceded that this STF is in fact for
development and the Municipality of Bluewater only why
should the ordinary citizen be paying for developers to
make a greater profit and Bluewater to sit back with no
money in the project for the benefit they (Bluewater) is
receiving?
20 42
Why does the Municipality (Lambton Shores) not have
our share of the capital cost of the STF in our Sewer
Reserve Fund?
In addition to comments under 20 - 34, the lagoon system
replacement evolved into a tertiary treatment facility and Council
chose to fund from grants, rates, development charges and
connection fees.
20 43
Can Lambton Shores or more correctly the citizens of
Lambton Shores afford this STF?
20 44
Since Bluewater is a member of the J oint Sewer Board
and has access at any time to hook into the STF why are
they not paying a Deferred Benefit of some sort?
Bluewater is a party to the J oint Agreement because they have a
future interest in the facility should they decide to service a portion of
their municipality. There is no accommodation for Bluewater's future
flows in the current design thus a deferred benefit does not apply.
The re-designed facility has been designed to accommodate
Lambton Shores' and South Huron's current and future needs only.
Bluewater's future flows will have to be accommodated through an
expansion of the facility. The J oint Agreement is structured such that
Bluewater will be required to pay 100% of the costs of the expansion
that benefits them.
20 45
How will the funds paid by Bluewater or developers at a
later date be divided amongst the landowners who
actually loan these two entities the funds to ensure that
the capacity in the STF is available? Albeit, the loan is
forced on our (Lambton Shores) by other means than
voluntary.
Refer to 20-44.
20 46
There is another fairer way to ensure that Bluewater and
the developers pay their fair share later but I don't see
anything about that. Therefore I won't mention it.
78
Page 30 of 34
GBA STF Questions
20 47
This report does not appear to deal with the fact that
Lambton Shores will be paying 63% and South Huron will
be paying 37% of the operating cost of the STF. Watson
was not asked for that information. It however is very
important that the citizenry is aware of all the costs
associated with the STF before council takes the next
step in this project. Can anyone on council tell us what
the cost to the users will rise because of the increased
costs of operating this STF? Bear in mind using Mr.
Scandlan's figures of a low of $ 18,101,287 and a high of
$ 21,723,943 there will be a requirement of Life Cycle
Reserve Funds (LCRF) of 905,064.35 or $ 1,086,197.15
annually. This is without paying an operator, utilities or
chemicals etc.
20 48
Could we please receive the actual total costs related to
all aspects of this STF in enough detail so that everything
the citizens receive is verifiable?
Yes - costs to date were reported in detail in TR-84-2013 To date TR-84-2013
21 Table omitted
No Question
21 1 Duplicate of 20 1
Refer to 20 - 1
Refer to 20 - 2
Refer to 20 - 3
21 4
"Trust Funds" probably referred to reserve funds but
please clarify this. The presentation on the 15th of May
2014 clarified that that it was not reserve funds but "trust
funds" such as the cemetery trust funds.
Refer to 20 - 4
21 5
I understand from the discussion of the report that this is
a source for borrowing only. Will you please confirm if
this is correct?
Not clear on what "this" is - may refer to 20 - 4 and 20 - 5
Refer to 20 - 5
Refer to 20 - 6
21 8
Neither of the two immediate preceding statements were
explained at the council meeting on 15 May 2015.
These terms were only mentioned in the presentation because a
request was made by council to consider the alternatives presented
in a document provided by the Canadian Councils of Ministers. The
Watson presentation discussed the applicability and potential use as
it applied to this project.
Gary Scandlan
21 9 Duplicate 20 7
Refer to 20 - 7
21 10 Duplicate 20 8
Refer to 20 - 8
21 11
When I addresssed council regarding the South Bend
Estates "agreement" trying to get answers earlier this
year Mr. Weber stated that we (the municipality) were in
the process of collecting the funds which now exceed
$400,000 when the interest is calculated onto the funds
that were due when the agreeemtn was executed.
79
Page 31 of 34
GBA STF Questions
21 12
At page 191 bullet 3, is confusing at best. This should be
clearer. Is Mr. Scandlan suggesting that the
Development Charges should be collected at the time of
signing the development/subdivision agreements to
cover the municipal indebtedness earlier?
Refer to 20 - 9
Refer to 20 - 10
Refer to 20 - 11
Refer to 20 - 12
Refer to 20 - 13
Refer to 20 - 14
Refer to 20 - 15
Refer to 20 - 16
21 20
Mr. Scandlan mention the Piney Park as part of this
allocation. While the MNR had committed to this capacity
at some point the MNR will want the agreement
renegotiated since the actual use is a little more than
10% of the "allocation".
21 21
At page 200 item "less Bluewater $ 122,706 what does
this represent? I believe that this amount is the amount
paid by Bluewater earlier and is not refundable. Is that
correct?
In addition to the comments under 20 - 17, payment has been
received and staff is not aware of a reason to refund.
21 22
The reference to South Huron would appear to be their
capital share of the STF. Is that correct or is that South
Huron's earlier costs for studies for the STF?
The costs shown are costs incurred since 2009 forward for this
project as well as the estimated capital costs.
Refer to 20 - 19
21 24 What has the "Force Main" to do with Zone 3 & 4?
Refer to 20 - 19
21 25 Is this the Goosemarsh Sewer Line that is referred to?
Yes
Refer to 20 - 20
Refer to 20 - 20
Refer to 20 - 21
Refer to 20 - 22
Refer to 20 - 23
Refer to 20 - 24
Refer to 20 - 25
Refer to 20 - 26
Refer to 20 - 27
Refer to 20 - 28
Refer to 20 - 29
Refer to 20 - 30
Refer to 20 - 31
Refer to 20 - 32
Refer to 20 - 33
Refer to 20 - 34
80
Page 32 of 34
GBA STF Questions
21 42
How many dollars is sewer development charges have
been collected?
The following is a summary of the collection and application of the
sewer DC's from 2006 to 2013.
Balance at Dec.2000 $30,782.63
Collected $810,466.09
Interest earned $37,202.93
Applied to Debt repayment $225,677.83
Credits $2,036.43
2013 Year End balance $650,737.39
21 43
At Bullet 3, why are there not sufficient reserve funds on
hand to apply to this project?
Refer to 20 - 34 and 20 - 35
21 44 At Bullet 4, please explain what this item means?
Refer to 20 - 36
21 45
Costs related to all aspects of this STF in enough details
so that everything the citizens received is give in the
actual cost per household, is this STF really needed?
Refer to 20 - 48
Refer to 20 - 38
Refer to 20 - 39
Refer to 20 - 40
Refer to 20 - 41
21 50
Why does the Municipality (Lambton Shores) not have
Lambton Shores share of the capital cost of the STF in
our Sewer Reserve Fund given the amount DC charges
collected as well as the reserve funds set aside for this
purpose?
Lambton Shores does have a sewer reserve fund for the entire
sewer system within Lambton Shores and a DC fund for sewer.
21 51
Can Lambton Shores or more correctly the citizens of
Lambton Shores afford this STF given the capital costs
and the increased operating costs?
Refer to 20 - 44
Refer to 20 - 45
Refer to 20 - 46
Refer to 20 - 47
81
Page 33 of 34
GBA STF Questions
21 56
Could we please receive the actual total in a verifiable
form?
Yes - costs to date were reported in detail in TR-84-2013 TR-84-2013
21 57
Where are the sewer reserve funds (2 reserves) from
Grand Bend?
At the time of amalgamation the sewer reserve and reserve funds of
all former municipalities were combined and applied to the costs of
infrastructure replacement as required through the capital budget
process. The 2013 year end value of the Lambton Shores sewer
reserve / reserve fund is $684,223.00.
J an 1 2001 Balance Sewer R/RF $814,489.57
Revenue
User Rate contribution $1,383,103.46
Connection Fees $ 64,841.00
Interest $ 103,631.35
Expenses
Operating repairs, studies, IT $ 678,375.51
Road Related Replacements $ 91,858.38
Infrastructure Replacements $ 911,608.45
2013 Year End Balance $ 684,223.04
21 58
These reserves had a value of $565,680.53 at 1 J anuary
1997?
Correct
21 59
At page 8 of 10 of the Transfer Order (dated 7 February
2000 for the Grand Bend Sewer Lagoons, transferring
certain Piping,the lagoons and PS2, the Hon. Tony
Clements stated; "A Capital Replacement and
Rehabilitation Reserve Fund will be held by the
Administering Municipality for the purpose of ensuring
that sufficient funds are held to properly maintain the
system." I have calculated the value for 31 December
1999 using an average of 6% per annum payable on a
six month basis. This is a low calculation figure but
provides a good indication of the value at amalgamation.
The total came to $ 696,827.93 which will be a very close
approximation as I might be slightly out. Where are these
funds?
The original transfer order for the Grand Bend Area Wastewater
Treatment System outlined the various financial and budget related
functions of the Grand Bend Area J oint Sewage Board and set it up
so that there would be common system wide financial processes in
place. South Huron and Lambton Shores elected to modify the
proposed financial activities and each member municipality chose to
look after finances on their own (i.e. setting rates, billing, and
establishing reserves). Lambton Shores has established a sewer
reserve.
21 60
This is especially true when South Huron's contributions
to match Lambton Shores contributions are added to the
equation. South Huron's contribution of $ 696,827.93
plus (+) Lambton Shores contribution created a total fund
of $ 1,393,655.86 as required by Minister Clement.
21 61
Additionally there were the Reserve funds built into the
sewer service rates for this purpose as well as for the
other STFs in Lambton Shores along with the ongoing
Reserve monies from South Huron. How much does this
add up to?
Refer to 21-57 for the Lambton Shores Sewer Reserve information.
South Huron Reserves are reported in their financial statements and
not consolidated in ours.
82
Page 34 of 34
GBA STF Questions
21 62
Perhaps, I should ask how much it should have added up
to in the Minister Clement's mandated Reserve Fund?
21 63
Then there is the question of "Development Charges". A
portion of all "DCs" are supposed to be reserved in what
is now called a Life Cycle Reserve Fund (LCRF). How
much has accrued in this fund?
Development Charges and a Life Cycle Reserve Fund are two
different funds. The 2013 year end balance of each fund was:
DC - $650,737.39 refer to 21 - 42
Sewer Life Cycle RF for all infrastructure - $167,873.72
Sewer general R/RF for all infrastructure - $516,349.32
21 64
How can this community proceed when the citizens
appear to be in the position of having paid their share of
the original cost of the original STF and a large amount
of funding toward a new STF and now are being told that
most of these funds are no longer available?
22 1 Who pays for this just grand bend or everybody?
23 1
What is the current status regarding municipal sewer
hookup in my zone ie are they still planned, if so, when,
which type has been selected, what cost(s) I will incur,
etc.?
The servicing horizon for residential properties located in Zone 3 and
Zone 4 is currently forecasted at 20+years in the future.
23 2
Or are we staying on septic for the foreseeable future or
a defined timeline after which sewer hook up is
mandatory?
Refer to 23 - 1
24 No definite questions.
83

Report CAO 16-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Kevin Williams, CAO

RE: Municipal Responsibility Related to the Roads of Armstrong East

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CAO 1 6 -2014 regarding Municipal
responsibility related to the Roads of Armstrong East be
received.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with requested background and legal considerations
related to the municipalitys responsibilities/options related to associated with the
Roads of Armstrong East.

BACKGROUND

The Armstrong East Committee met on April 24, 2014, and through report CL 40-
2014 advanced the following motion to Councils meeting of May 15
th
:

THAT Lambton Shores explore the possibility of gifting the
Armstrong East Municipal Rights of Way to the ABCA or
Parks Ontario or a Homeowners Association.

Prior to considering the possibility of gifting the Rights of Ways, Council requested
additional information through the following resolution:

Carried 14-0515-26
THAT staff obtain a legal opinion on Municipal responsibility on
options for the roads of Armstrong East.

This report is provided to fulfill this request.

The road allowances on Armstrong East have been established as part of registered
plan 578. They are owned by the Municipality; however they are unopened and have
never been assumed through by-law.

84
This type of road is considered a public highway, whether or not they have been used
as, or constructed as roads. As such, the roads are open to the public for use.
What is a public highway?

Under the Municipal Act 2001, s. 1(1) a highway is defined as a common and
public highway and, except as otherwise provided, includes a portion of a
highway.

The Province goes further to define a highway in Municipal ownership under
Municipal Act 2001, s.26 as:

1. All highways that existed on December 31, 2002.
2. All highways established by by-law of a municipality on or after January 1, 2003.
3. All highways transferred to a municipality under the Public Transportation and
Highway Improvement Act.
4. All road allowances made by the Crown surveyors that are located in
municipalities.
5. All road allowances, highways, streets and lanes shown on a registered
plan of subdivision, 2001, c.25, s.26.

The Province then defines Municipal highway ownership under Municipal Act 2001,
s. 30 as :A highway is owned by the municipality that has jurisdiction over it subject to
any rights reserved by a person who dedicated the highway or any interest in the land
held by any other person, 2001, c.24, s.30.

It is noted that the Province did repeal Municipal Act, 2001, s. 31 in 2007, which is the
definition of what constitutes a highway and replaced it with enhanced wording in s. 26
and s. 30 as above. The wording enhancements in these sections were the Provinces
attempt to remove uncertainty about what does and does not constitute a highway.

Although no longer in effect, the previous wording also supports the municipal position
on assumption.

Municipal Act 2001, s.31 provided that:

A municipality may by by-law establish a highway;
After January 1, 2001, land may only become a highway by virtue of a by-law
passed under s.31 and not by the activities of the municipality or any other
person in relation to the land, including the spending of public money (with
exceptions);
Unopened road allowances and streets shown on a registered plan of
subdivision are not assumed for the purposes or the non-repair
provisions of s. 44 of the 2001 Act, until an assumption by-law is passed
for them; and
Widenings become part of the highway upon the acquisition for same.

85
Who controls use of a public highway?

The use of unassumed roads that are captured under the definition of highway in
section 26 (5) of the municipal Act can be restricted under section 35.

The Municipal Act 2001, R.S.O. s.35 reads:

Without limiting sections 9 (Natural Personal Powers), 10 (Broad authority,
single-tier municipalities), and 11, (Broad authority, lower-tier and upper-
tier municipalities) a municipality may pass by-laws removing or restricting
the common law right of passage by the public over a highway and the
common law right of access to the highway by an owner of land abutting a
highway.

In summary, and with respect to Cottage access issues on Armstrong Eastthis access
is/has been available to property owners by an un-maintained , un-opened municipal
road allowance dedicated through a registered plan of subdivision.

If the road allowance has not been assumed, then there is no duty to maintain.

Furthermore, the municipality has the right to pass by-laws that determine, or restrict,
the types of use that the public may enjoy on these roads.

As stated, the municipality does have the right to impose restrictions on use of its land
as per Section 30 of the Municipal Act. It could do this for reasons of public safety,
environmental protection or to mitigate impacts such as noise. It could restrict certain
usesor more simply pass a bylaw to assume the road allowance as a public walkway
and restrict other types of access.

It must be noted that since the roads are technically public highways and since
Lambton Shores has not passed a bylaw approving the use of All Terrain vehicles on its
roads, this use is not legal. In addition, the Highway Traffic Act in the Operation of off-
Road vehicles on Highways On Reg. 316/03 says that the offroad vehicle shall not be
operated in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause risk to safety, harm or
discomfort to any person, harm to property flora, destruction of natural environment.
These factors all need to be considered if it is Councils wish to consider the passing of
an ATV bylaw in any location. Conversely, any change or restriction to current use,
legal or otherwise, should be well considered, documented, and communicated before
the imposition of change.

Gifting?

The Armstrong East Committee resolution to consider gifting the rights of way to a
third party would need to be carefully considered. Council would have to close the
roads under section 34 of the municipal Act before disposing of ("gifting") the land. This
closure could trigger concern from some members of the public who could in turn allege
86
an economic loss (due to elimination of the highway) and would no doubt make a claim
for injurious affection:

injurious affection means,
... (b) where the statutory authority does not acquire part of the land of an owner,
(i) such reduction in the market value of the land of the owner, and
(ii) such personal and business damages,

Council is advised that in the absence of consent from all affected owners to the
closing, we would likely have to convey an easement ("right of way") over the closed
road allowances to each owner before gifting the land to a third party. Those easements
would in turn greatly reduce the ability of the new owner to control the use of the land.
This would be a serious consideration for any third party agency that may be interested
in considering the gift. If the third party were an association of agreeable owners,
consent from those affected might be possible.

Assumption of the roads?

Council could further consider factors associated with assumption of the highways
(roads). Most likely this action will cause an expectation that the municipality would
undertake, or at least authorize, improvements. These authorized improvements will
then carry a duty of care and subsequently a potential liability for the municipality.

Although the exact history of why the Armstrong East roads are where they are is not
known, it is known that road allowances were traditionally laid out in plan view by
surveyors, without much regard for topography and other factors
(physical/environmental) that would inhibit or prevent actual road construction. When
developing a plan of subdivision, it is not unusual that less desirable lands are
dedicated to the municipality while more attractive and marketable lands are retained for
development. Regardless, simply because a road allowance is shown on a plan does
not mean that there will ever be a travelled road there. The Council would benefit from
information about the appropriateness of any assumption and/or improvement of the
Armstrong East Roads.

In considering any decision to assume the roads, it is suggested that the decision
should be informed by study. The study will answer questions like:

Is it appropriate for sand to be moved, or surfaces placed to facilitate the
passage of particular types of vehicles and if so what types of vehicles?
What improvements could be undertaken with the least deleterious impact on the
dunes?
Is winter maintenance necessary or appropriate?
Are there seasons when, for environmental reasons, vehicles should not be
permitted on these roads?

There is little doubt that Armstrong East is unique and the municipality has an obligation
to look after the public interest. This could include a responsibility for environmental
87
stewardship that should be shared with the property owners. In order to understand the
types of activities that may or may not be appropriate, the attributes of the local
environment would need to be investigated in a fashion similar to an environmental
assessment. If ongoing or requested activities associated with the roads are shown to
materially damage the environment, then an appropriate action for Council may be to
step in to actually protect the environment. Should the study find some level of
improvement warranted, even if subject to limitations aimed at protecting the
environment, then such actions could be undertaken by the municipality or even as a
local improvement or on some other basis where benefiting owners pick up the direct
cost.


a) Status quo, which is the unregulated use of vehicles by some of the residents;
b) Regulate the use of vehicles; or
c) Ban the use of vehicles; or
d) Undertake an study to determine the environmental impacts of different existing
and planned uses for the Armstrong East Roads; or
e) Declare closed and gift the roads of Armstrong East (not recommended)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This report has been provided at the request of Council to provide information on the
legal responsibilities and options available with respect to the roads of Armstrong East.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There are no direct financial impact with the recommendation as written, however all of
the identified alternatives, save and except status quo, will carry costs for study, legal
review, and/or implementation. These costs can be better identified with clear direction
from Council.

CONSULTATION

Carol McKenzie, Municipal Clerk
Barry Card, Solicitor

88

Report PL Report 21-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan
Review of Public Comments

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT comments related to Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton
Shores Official Plan be received; and

That the summary of staff suggestions (Appendix A) resulting
from the public review be incorporated into Draft 7 of the
proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan; and

That direction be provided with respect to the items listed in
Appendix B and any other changes required to be
incorporated in Draft 7; and

That Draft 7 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan be
finalized and returned to Council at the October 2
nd
meeting
for Councils consideration and possible adoption.

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report summarizes comments that have been received to date respecting the
Lambton Shores Draft Official Plan and provides some recommendation to Council
respecting the comments.

BACKGROUND

Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan was received for discussion and
Public consultation by Council on June 5, 2014. Two Public Open Houses were held.
The first was held at the Grand Bend Public School on July 17, 2014 with 55 Persons in
attendance. The second Public Open House was held at The Shores Recreation Centre
on July 24, 2014 with 29 persons in attendance.

On August 14, 2014 a Public Meeting under Section 17 of the Planning Act was held at
the Legacy Centre with 23 people presenting their opinions of the Draft Plan to Council.
89

This report will:

summarize the public comments received to date on Draft 6 of the proposed
Lambton Shores Official Plan;

explain what the related Draft 6 policy provides as it relates to the public
comment;

provide recommendation and guidance to Council on the issues identified
though the public process; and

seek Council direction on the disposition of the comments and changes to the
Draft Official Plan.

General Comments

Council will recall that the purpose of an Official Plan is to provide direction for future
development within the Municipality. The Official Plan is used to assess development
applications. Development is defined in The Provincial Policy Statement as

the creation of a new lot, a change in land use or the construction of buildings
and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, such as an Official
Plan and/or Zoning By-law amendment, Plan of Subdivision/Condominium
approval, Site Plan approval and minor variance. Development does not include
activities to create or improve infrastructure.

Comments Received

1. Ecological Buffers and Natural Heritage Features Related to Agriculture

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by:

Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1)
Eugin Burgin 6666 Hickory Creek Line (Correspondence 2)
Ruth Ann Wallace 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3)
Ron MacDougall - Lambton Federation of Agriculture
John Zekveld Christian Farmers Association 4622 London Line, Wyoming
Shelia Thompson 489 Main Street, Thedford
Don McCabe - Federation of Agriculture
Cheryl DeVries Ontario Land Owners Association
Robert Johnston St. Clair Township

90
respecting the requirements for ecological buffers associated natural heritage
features and the impacts of these buffers on agriculture. The concern that was
communicated is that Official Plan policies will result in 100s of acres of farm land
being forced out of production as a result of application of buffer zones around
Natural Heritage features

Staff Response

Section 3.4.2.7 - Ecological Buffers Zones, Section 3.5 - Development Approvals
Process and Environmental Impact Studies and Section 4.4 - Environmental Farm
Management of the draft Official Plan address ecological buffers as they relate to
natural heritage features.

Section 3.4.2.7 specifies various buffer zones from natural heritage features and
new development. Section 3.5 defines buffer zone areas used to determine if new
development proposed adjacent to natural heritage features is required to prepare
an environmental impact study. Finally, Section 4.4 encourages agricultural uses to
provide buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. All of these section support
Councils stated strategic priority of environmental protection.

To be clear there is no requirement for existing agricultural uses to provide buffers.
The Official Plan supports and protects existing agriculture as follows:

Section 3.1 - Goals and Objectives (Natural Heritage Systems) of the Draft
Official Plan contains the following provision as it relates to existing
agricultural uses:

Consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (see definition,
Section 2.5) the Lambton Shores Official Plan permits existing
agricultural uses to continue in natural heritage areas (see
definition, Section 2.5). New agricultural uses are not permitted nor
will existing agricultural uses be permitted to expand in a natural
heritage areas.

Section 3.3.1- Hazards states the following:

Excluding buildings and structures, uses permitted in hazard areas
include:

o existing agriculture;

o conservation, forestry and wildlife management;

o parks and open space, including beaches and passive recreation;

91
o existing golf courses and parking areas. Any new golf courses and
parking areas or expansions/extensions require Conservation
Authority approval

o notwithstanding the above some of these uses may not be
permitted if located on or adjacent to wetlands, ESAs, ANSIs or
other significant components of the natural heritage system.

Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) states:

Consistent with the PPS, development, infrastructure, public service
facilities and site alteration, as defined in Section 2.5 are not permitted
in ESAs. Permitted uses include:

Non-agricultural uses, that existed on the day of adoption of this
plan but no expansions are permitted;

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESAs, but shall
not be expanded;

Passive recreational uses, including pedestrian trails, provided
such trails are designed, constructed and managed to minimize
impacts on the ESA;

The harvesting of trees in accordance with responsible
forestry management practices, as outlined in Section 17.4.

Section 3.4.2.4 Significant Woodland states;

With the exception of the Natural Environment area in North
Bosanquet, development and site alteration are not permitted in
woodlands designated Natural Environment. New infrastructure and
public service facilities are also not permitted. Woodlots may be
used for agricultural purposes, such as timber harvesting and
maple sugar operations, in accordance with good forestry and
Environmental Farm Management practices. Existing
agricultural uses are also permitted with the exception of
livestock grazing. Minor tree clearing, to make farming
operations easier or to round out crop fields, is allowed
subject to the County of Lambton Tree-Cutting By-law.
Stewardship programs for woodlots are included in Section 3.6.

Section 4.7 Woodlots (Agricultural Policies) states:

It is the policy of the Municipality that development in wooded parts of
the Agricultural Area, including all major woodlots, be discouraged.
92
Land severances for non-farm related uses and amendments to the
Zoning By-law to permit non-farm uses will generally not be allowed.

This Plan recognizes the importance of trees to agriculture due to their
wind protection and moisture holding capabilities. Existing woodlots
will be protected in accordance with the Lambton County Tree
Protection By-law that regulates the cutting of certain trees and
woodlots.

This Plan encourages reforestation and conservation of woodlots.

In consideration of the foregoing, Draft 6 of the Official Plan has been written so that
existing agricultural uses can continue and are not generally impacted or restricted
by the Natural Heritage Polices in the Plan, including buffer zones, as is required by
Section 2.1.9 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which states:

Nothing in Policy 2.1 (Natural Heritage) is intended to limit the ability of
agricultural uses to continue.

Staff Suggestions

A. In order to provide more clarity that Section 3.4.2.7 Ecological Buffer Zones and
Section 3.5 Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies
apply to development and site alteration, these two sections could be combined
into one section. (1A)

B. The Second Bullet in Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESAs) which currently states:

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESAs, but shall not
be expanded;

could be revised as follows:

Existing Agricultural uses may continue within or adjacent to
ESAs, but shall not be expanded). (1B)

C. During Councils review of the Official Plan, Council discussed buffer zones and
supported the current Section 4.4 as it only encourages agricultural uses to
provide buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. It seems this Section has
caused a lot of fear that such provisions will be forced on the agricultural
community in the future. Council needs to determine if they want this section to
remain in the Plan. (1C)

93
2. Lands Designated Residential Beyond 20 Years In North Bosanquet
Planning Area

Public Comments

A number of concerns have been expressed respecting the designations of lands on
the west side of Ipperwash Road, they are as follows:

a) Philip Walden represents the owner of two parcels of land located east of
Goosemarsh Line, north of Canal Street and west of Burwell Road, identified as
Properties 1 and 2 on Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2). Draft 6 of the proposed
Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands Future Residential Beyond
20 years with the balance of the lands being designated Agricultural. Small
portions of the north parts of lands also lie within the Significant Woodlot
designation.

Mr. Walden is requesting that these lands be placed in a Residential
designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for development.
He indicates that large scale development of the lands would not be permitted by
the servicing policies of the Official Plan as there are no municipal sanitary
services in the area. He suggested that limited development of the lands be
allowed in compliance with the servicing policies of the Official Plan which allows
limited development of up to 5 new dwellings on septic systems. The area is
serviced with municipal water, hydro, and gas. He believes the policy is far too
restrictive and believes this a reasonable comprise.

b) Stan and Antoinette Pachlarz, 9931 Walker Road, (Correspondence 4) own two
properties located on the south side of Goosemarch Line, south of Walker Road,
identified as Properties 3 and 4 Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2). Draft 6 of the
proposed Lambton Shores Official designates the west 300 ft. of the Pachlarzs
properties Future Residential Beyond 20 years with the balance of the lands
being designated Agricultural. The north part of the land also lies within the
Significant Woodlot designation.

The Parchlarzs are requesting that the west 300 ft. of their lands remain in a
Residential designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for
development. They also request that the significant wood lot designation be
removed as they state that the trees on the property are mainly wild cherry, with
a thick underbrush and in their opinion have no future value as a woodlot.

They indicate that it is their intention to create estate-sized lots at some time in
the future.

The West 300 ft. of the Pachlarzs property is currently zoned Residential 6 (R6)
in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. A single detached dwelling is a permitted
94
use in the zone on a lot with a minimum lot area of 4,000 m and a minimum lot
frontage of 30 metres.

c) Scott MacGregor, 9727 Lakeshore Road, (Correspondence 5) who indicated he
is a Zone 4 representative, stated that he and his neighbours have looked at the
maps and do not like the future residential zoning (designation) on the area north
of Greenaway Road. He indicated that this area is already built up and should be
zoned as it is. He indicates he feels this is a cash grab by the Municipality.

Staff Comments

Current Official Plan

a) Walden Lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands Residential
Constraint A with the Significant Woodlot designation affecting portion the
north area of the lands.

b) Pachlarz Lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the west 300 ft. of each of
the Pachlarz properties Residential with the balance of the lands being
designated Agricultural Constraint The north part of the lands also lie within
the Significant Woodlot designation.

c) McGregor and surrounding lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands north of
Greenway Road Mixed Commercial and Residential. Uses permitted in this
designation include agriculture, including accessory dwellings and facilities
such as greenhouses, produce storage and sales and similar activities,
commercial uses catering to the tourist trade, travelling public and the local
market, single detached dwellings, public and private parks including
campgrounds and trailer parks, and small scale institutional uses.

Some lands within the Highway 21 corridor on Schedule A-2 North Bosanquet
have been placed in a Future Residential (beyond 20 years) and Future
Development Special Policy Area designation. The policies respecting this
designation can be found in Section 5.7.4. Generally, the policies indicate that the
lands are not needed for development for the next 20 years and thus will not be
developed until residential development in Grand Bend (Phase 1) as shown on
Schedule A1 is substantially complete (90%). In the interim, permitted uses
include the existing residential and commercial uses. New development will consist
of minor residential and commercial infilling only, including one
residence/commercial use per lot, with no new lot creation. Any new development
95
proposal shall be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study in compliance
with Section 3.10.

The Future Residential Special Policy Area A lands are located in the flood fringe
between the floodway and regulatory flood level. These lands will be developed in
accordance with the policies included in Section 6.6 - Residential Special Policy
Areas. However, no development is expected to occur over the lifetime of this
Official Plan.

The Future Development designation was placed on the lands to ensure that
development was directed to the urban area of Grand Bend, which has municipal
sanitary and water services and other community services. It is recognized that
Lambton Shores has a significant surplus of residentially designated lands and that
development should be encouraged in serviced areas. The plan also recognizes that
the lands comprise part of a natural heritage area and may have species at risk
issues, which could pose a regulatory barrier to development proceeding.

Council may recall that the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared did not allow
new lot creation except on municipal sanity and water services. Council has revised
Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development
of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water.

Staff Suggestion

To be fair and equitable, this limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on
private individual septic systems could also be offered to lands designated for Future
Residential development. As such Council could designate the lands to Residential
and rely on the servicing policies to limit large scale development. (2)

3. Natural Environment Area Along Highway 21 on Schedule A2 North
Bosanquet

Public Comments

a) Mr. Theo Rood and his wife, of Grand Bend Produce, (Correspondence 6, 7 and
8) owns three undeveloped properties, lying north of their existing business
located at the north east corner of Walker Road and Highway 21 (see properties
5, 6 and 7, Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2)). In order to provide for future
expansion of his business he would like his land put back into the agricultural
designation.

b) Mr. Ross Hayter, Les and Wendy Kobayashi and Paul and Susan Sovie,
(correspondence 7 and 8) own properties lying north of Walker Road (see
properties 8, 9, 10 and 11 Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2)). They have requested
that they be permitted to sever each of the properties into two lots.
96

Staff Comments

Some lands within the Highway 21 corridor on Schedule A-2 North Bosanquet
have been placed in a Natural Environment designation. The designation reflects
the properties location within a significant wood lot. The policies respecting this
designation can be found in Section 3.4.2.4 on Page 46 of the Draft Plan. Permitted
uses in this designation include one dwelling per lot, with no new lot creation. The
policies also indicate that only a minimal amount of the existing tree cover and
natural vegetation may be cleared for dwelling construction, including septic system,
if applicable. Tree removal will be addressed in any development approval and
development agreement. No access from these properties from Highway 21 is
permitted.

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands Agriculture and
Significant Woodlot.

The Natural Environment designation was placed on the lands to ensure that the
significant woodlots are protected. One dwelling per lot is permitted. The designation
also recognized that the lands comprised part of a natural heritage area and may
have species at risk issues, which could pose a regulatory barrier to development
proceeding.

As Council will recall, the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared, did not allow new
lot creation except on municipal sanitary and water services. Council however, has
revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited
development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal
water.

Staff Suggestion

a) Staff support Mr. Roods request to change the designation on his lands back to
Agriculture from Natural Environment. (3A)

b) To be fair and equitable, and given the size of the lots (10 Acres) staff support
the owners request to allow each of the lots to be divided into two lots for single
detached dwelling purposes, subject to the Section 3.5 - Development Approvals
Process and Environmental Impact Studies policies of the Draft Official Plan, that
will limit and negative impact to the natural heritage features and ensure
compliance with the Species at Risk Act. (3B)

A letter was also received at the Public Meeting, rom Mr. Ian Wilkinson on, behalf of
Mr. Rood, Mr. Hayter, Mr. Kobayashi and Mr. Sovie (Correspondence 8) in objection
to the plan which is attached for Councils information.

97
Due to the nature of the letter, Staff requested that the Municipal Solicitor, Mr. Cards
respond. His response is attached (Correspondence 9).

4. Commercial Constraint Lands Port Franks

Public Comments

Mr. Jay Trothen, owner of the lands at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and
Poplar Avenue in Port Franks which is the site of Christina`s restaurant,
(Correspondence 10) has expressed concerns that the new commercial special
policy area policies do not provide for residential uses within this Port Franks
commercial area, as the current official plan policies do. He requested that similar
policies allowing residential uses in this commercial designation be included in the
Draft Official Plan.

Staff Comments

Lands lying along Riverside Drive, east of Poplar Avenue and west of Erie Street in
Port Franks have been placed in a Commercial Special Policy Area designation in
the Draft Official Plan. The lands in this designation are subject to flooding and
include existing marinas and small scale local and tourist oriented uses, as well as
some residential uses. The policies for this land use designation recognize existing
uses and permit new commercial uses similar in type and scale to the existing
permitted uses.

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands Commercial
Constraint. Permitted uses include general commercial uses including retail stores,
restaurants, offices, banks, personal service stores and similar commercial uses.
The policies also provide for the establishment of limited amount of new freestanding
residential uses, provided the new residential uses are compatible with the existing
commercial development and do not preclude new commercial development

Staff Suggestion

Staff can support the concern of Mr. Trothen and if Council agrees, will redraft the
Commercial Special Policy Area policies to allow residential uses. (4)

5. Ipperwash ANSI Boundaries

Public Comments


Brian Richardson - 6780 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 11)
98
Mark Rupke - 6757 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 12)
J.W Gerald Rupke - 6753 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 13)
Leonard and Carol Hensley 9794 East Parkway Drive and Lot 70, Plan 402, East
Parkway Drive (Correspondence 14)
Catherine Stevens Lot 69, Plan 402, East Parkway Drive; (Correspondence 14)
Janet Aiken 6786 East Parkway (2 Lots) and Lot 71, Plan 402 (Correspondence
15)

respecting the expansion of the Ipperwash ANSI.

Staff Comments

The boundary of the Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash has
been expanded in Draft 6 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan. Specifically, the
boundaries have been expanded at the front of the properties lying east of
Richardson Drive on the south side of East Parkway Drive as well as on the lakeside
lots in this general area.

The boundaries of ANSI`s are established by the Province. The expanded ANSI
boundary was added to Draft 6 map schedules based on mapping information
available at the County of Lambton. In light of the concerns, the County of Lambton
Planning Technician, who revised the schedules, has confirmed the accuracy of the
ANSI boundary with the Province. The Province has confirmed that the ANSI
boundary is correct.

The front part of the lands and the lake lots were not previously shown in current
Official Plan as being part of the ANSI. The lands are designated as Ipperwash
Residential with the Natural Heritage Schedule showing it located in the ANSI.

Staff Suggestion

If Council wishes to treat this area like that part Grand Bend Residential designation
adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel (which is a Provincially Significant Wetland),
policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation to allow one single
detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area
without providing any environmental reporting. (5)

6. 9843 Army Camp Road

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by property owners Al Hannahson and Randal Jago,
respecting lands known municipally as 9843 Army Camp Road and located at the
south west corner of Army Camp Road and East Parkway Drive. They feel their
development rights are being taken away by the proposed Official Plan.
99

Staff Comments

The Draft Official Plan designates the north of the lands or approximately 600 ft.
of the lands as residential. The balance of the lands is designated ESA
(Environmentally Sensitive Area) to reflect the sensitive nature of the lands and their
location within a provincially designated Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest.
Much of the land lies within the area regulated by the St Clair Region Conservation
Authority and is subject to a flooding hazard from the Lower Dufus Drain. It is the
regulated area that overlays the residential designation which appears to be causing
some concern, as it does not appear to be within the floodplain of the Lower Dufus
Drain. The entire property lies within the extended ANSI as determined by the
Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Current Official Plan designated the north of the lands or approximately 600
ft. Residential. Most of the balance of the lands is designated Hazard and
Environmental Protection. A small triangle of land at the south end of the property
is also designated Residential.

Staff Suggestions

As suggested in 5 above, perhaps like that part of the Grand Bend Residential
designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel, which is a Provincially Significant
Wetland, policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation which
allows one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located
in this area without providing any environmental reporting. However, if the owners
want to pursue new lot creation on the property, an environmental impact study
would be required as the PPS and the Draft Lambton Shores Official Plan does not
permit development within an ANSI unless it can be determined that there is no
negative impact on the feature. (6)

Staff has contacted the SCRCA to determine why the north area of the lands lies
within their regulated area.

7. Increased General Regulations Lands

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace (Correspondence 1) respecting
what he believes to be increased general regulation lands.

Staff Comments

The Schedules to Draft 6 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan show the areas
regulated by the two Conservation Authorities having jurisdiction in Lambton Shores.
100
The Regulation limits shown on the Schedules reflect the areas that the
Conservation Authorities have delegated authority over by virtue of Ontario
Regulation 171/06 as approved by the Government of Ontario. The areas are not
being expanded only shown as they exist by regulation today.

Staff Suggestions

No change is recommended.

8. Lands On Eric Street in Northville

Public Comments:

Mr. Philip Walden represents the owner of three undeveloped parcels of land located
on either side of Eric Street in Northville, identified as Properties 12, 13 and 14 on
Attachment 2 (Schedule A-3). Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official
designates the lands Hazard Area with an overlay of Regulation Area.

Mr. Walden indicates that the lands were designated Residential Constraint A
which recognizes that the lands are located in the floodplain, but allowed
Residential, after a floodplain study was completed by the Ausable Bayfield
Conservation Authority, as a Special Policy Area under the Provincial Policy
Statement. Mr. Walden is requesting that land be placed in a Residential Special
Policy Area A designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for
development. He indicates that large scale development of the lands would not be
permitted by the servicing policies of the Official Plan as there are no municipal
sanitary services in the area. He suggested that limited development of the lands be
allowed in compliance with the servicing policies of the Official Plan which allows
limited development of up to 5 new dwellings on septic systems. The area is
serviced with municipal water, hydro, and gas.

Staff Comments

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands Residential
Constraint A.

Staff has reviewed this request and finds that in the first draft of the Proposed
Lambton Shores Official Plan the lands were designated Hazard and Environmental
Protection. After reviewing the First Draft Council directed the lands be placed in
the Future (beyond 20 Years) Residential Development Special Policy Area A
designation.

As stated previously, the Future Development designation was placed on the lands
to ensure that development was directed to the urban area of Grand Bend, which
has municipal sanitary and water services and other community services. It is
101
recognized that Lambton Shores has a significant surplus of residentially designated
lands and that development should be encouraged in serviced areas.

Council may recall that the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared did not allow
new lot creation except on municipal sanity and water services. Council has revised
Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development
of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water.

Staff Suggestions

As directed by Council during review of Draft 1 of the Plan the land should be placed
in a Residential Special Policy Area designation. Further, to be fair and equitable,
the limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic
systems could also be offered to these lands. As such Council could designate the
lands to Residential Special Policy Area A and rely on the servicing policies to
limited large scale development. (8)

9. Residential Section 5.4

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Planning
Consultants and Concept Construction, respecting Section 5.4, bullet 13 on Page
89. Ms. Doornbosch would like to see single lot creation and single detached and
semi-detached dwellings exempt from the requirement for site plan control.

Staff Comments

Section 19.9 Site Plan Control of the Draft Official Plan addresses site plan control
in Lambton Shores. Paragraph 2 of that Section 19.9, which is at the top of page
213, specifically exempts residential uses including single detached, semi-detached
and duplex dwellings and additions to these residential uses from Site Plan Control.

Staff Suggestions

Perhaps for future clarity, this bullet could be amended to read:

All new residential development will be subject to Subdivision and Site Plan
control, except as exempted in Section 19.9 and may be required to prepare a
Sustainability Plan, as outlined in section 15.1.5.(9)

102
10. Section 7.3 Industrial Site Design Policies

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Michelle Doornbosch, - Zelinka Priamo Planning
Consultants and Concept Construction, respecting Section 7.3 Site Design Policies
for our Industrial Designation policies, specifically, bullets 5 and 8. She indicates that
the requirements are not generally found in Official Plans and should be removed.

Staff Comments

Section 7.3 - Bullet 5 states:

The width of the buildings fronting faade shall be at least 30% of the lot width.

Section 7.3 Bullet 8 states:

A minimum of 10% of the site will be landscaped and consists or appropriately
managed naturalized areas using native plants. Existing trees and hedgerows will be
preserved where possible.

Council will recall that they had considerable discussion respecting site design
policies in the draft Official Plan. It was the consensus of the majority of Council that
the site design policies would remain in the plan, but that the following statement
would be added at the beginning of the section:

Noncompliance with these provisions does not require an amendment to this
section, however, Council will use these policies to evaluate new industrial
development.

Staff Suggestions


11. Ipperwash Road - Ipperwash

Public Comments

1. Gerry and Shelia Pyne, 9447 Ipperwash Road (Correspondence 16), expressed
concern respecting the change of the designation on the front part of their
property from Agriculture to Residential. They are concerned that the change in
designation will affect their rate of taxation, resulting in an increase in taxes. They
are also concerned that the change will result in their horse farm not being
permitted.

103
2. Renee Henderson, 9569 Ipperwash Road (Correspondence 17), is concerned
with the Natural Heritage designation placed on her lands. She asks the following
questions:

1. Why is my parcel of land not being considered for Residential designation?
2. What is different about my property that qualifies it to be Natural Environment
comparing it to all other properties on the west side of Ipperwash Rd. that are
zoned Residential
3. What are the zoning by-laws that apply to Natural Environment designation
and where can I access this information?
4. What affect does Natural Environment designation have on any future
development of this property?
5. What adverse effect could this designation have on my property value and
resale potential?
6. Who if anyone, has visually surveyed my land to verify the Wetlands area that
has been added to the Official Plan draft?

The draft is not a true representation of the actual property. These large areas
of wetlands do not exist.

Staff Comments

1. Gerry and Shelia Pyne

With respect to the Pynes concern related to an increase in taxation, the
Municipal Finance Department was consulted and they advised that the actual
use of the property determines how the taxation rate is determined. The Official
Plan designation does not affect that.

With respect to the retention of the horse farm, it is a legal use which has the
right to continue, despite a change in designation. At this time the actual
Agricultural 1 zoning on the lands is not being changed. This zone permits
agriculture which is the current use of the property.

This information has been conveyed to the Pynes, who are satisfied.

2. Renee Henderson

The Residential designation proposed along the west side of Ipperwash Road,
was intended to recognize the existing uses of the front portion of the properties
(see Attachment 3). Additional lot creation was not anticipated when the Draft
Official Plan was originally prepared as it did not allow new lot creation in areas
without municipal sanitary services. This area does not have municipal sanitary
services. Council has revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official
Plan to allow limited development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage
services and municipal water.
104

The rear portion of the Henderson lands is located within the ANSI and the south
portion of the front of the lands is subject of a provincially designated wetland as
well as designated significant woodlot. The lands also lie within the area
regulated by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority. The current Natural
Environment designation recognizes the significant natural heritage features
existing on the lands. The policies respecting lands designated Natural
Environment permits one dwelling per lot.

The current Official Plan designates the front portion of the Henderson land as
Agriculture with the rear being designated Hazard and Environmental
Protection to recognize its location within an ANSI. The lands are also
designated Significant Woodlot. The current plan did not allow residential
development to occur.

The wetland designation on the lands was established by the Ministry of Natural
Resources.

Staff Suggestions

The Henderson lands, as well as the residential designation on the west side of
Ipperwash road have been reviewed and staff recommends the following:

1. The north part of the front portion of the Henderson lands could be placed in a
Residential designation. The dwelling on the Henderson property lies in this
location and the area has been cleared. Future lot creation on the Henderson
lands and on the other lands designated for residential purposes is subject of the
natural heritage policies and any new development will have to prove that there
is no negative impact on the natural heritage features. This will require that an
environmental impact study be prepared (See Attachment 4). (11A)

2. The depth of the residential designations on other properties on the west side of
Ipperwash Road could be reduced so that the west boundary of the Residential
designation is the east boundary of the ANSI. The lands within the ANSI should
be designated Natural Environment (See Attachment 4). (11B)

12. Archeological

Public Comments

Concerns have been expressed by:

Graeme Wallace 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1); and
Ruth Ann Wallace 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3)

105
respecting the mapping of archeological areas and the requirements for an
archeological study. It is the Wallaces opinion that the requirement for an
archeological study greatly increases the costs to land owners attempting to use
their own land. Mr. Wallace also wonders how the archeological evaluation was
done.

Staff Comments

Archeological evaluations are required to support new development. Section 2.6 of
the Provincial Policy Statement states:

2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural
heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands
containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological
potential unless significant archaeological resources have been
conserved.

2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote
archaeological management plans and cultural plans in
conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.

2.6.5 Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal
communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological
resources.

In order for Council to be satisfied that new development applications comply with
Provincial Policy, Archeological Assessment reports are required. Archeological
assessment reports are required in the current official plan under Section 23.1.3,
which states:

The Municipality will require the completion of archeological surveys
for development proposed in areas where such features are believed
to exist and require the excavation of these sites and/or where
suitable, the preservation of the significant sites

When Official Plan review was commenced, Fisher Archeological Consulting was
retained to prepare a background report. The Archeological map included in the
Draft Official Plan was prepared by the consultants.

Staff Suggestions

106

13. Name for Agricultural Area

Public Comments

Ruth Ann Wallace, 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3), has expressed concern that
the agricultural area of Lambton Shores has not been named, like the other Planning
Areas in the Official Plan. She suggests that Rural Agricultural Bosanquet or
Central Bosanquet be considered.

Staff Comments - None

Staff Suggestions

Council direction is required in this matter.

14. Sustainability Plans

Public Comments


Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1)
Michelle Doornbosch - Zelinka Priamo Planning Consultants and Concept
Construction

respecting the inclusion of a requirement for a sustainability plan supporting
development applications.

It is Mr. Wallaces opinion that requiring sustainability plans for new development will
create chilling effects on development, it will send developers away and the added
burden of time delays and expense will be detrimental to Lambton Shores.

Michelle Doornbosch questioned the need for Sustainability Plans. She indicated
that they are an added cost to developers and are subject to subjective opinion. She
indicated that no developer is going to develop a site which is not sustainable, so the
requirement for a sustainability plan is redundant and unnecessary. She asks if the
sustainability plan will be reviewed and approved or is it just a requirement for the
sake of process. She indicated that there is no level of measure and there needs to
be a more detailed process outlined for review. She also indicated that the three
major building blocks for sustainability: sustainable community form, sustainable
land use and infrastructure and sustainable site, Building and design elements are
not even addressed in the sustainability plan table.

Staff Comments
107

Council has had considerable discussion respecting requirements for sustainability
plans. It was Councils decision to leave the requirement for sustainability plans in
the Draft Official Plan, subject to a clause which was added which allowed Council to
determine if a sustainability plan would be required for each development
application.

With respect to the process used to review a sustainability plan, Official Plans set
the policy for requiring reports in support development of applications. They do not
contain a process for review. Process and review of reports is an administrative
process that will be established by Council and municipal staff once the requirement
for sustainability plans is contained in the Official Plan.

Finally, it has been suggested that there is no connection between the three major
sustainability building blocks; Sustainable Community Design; Sustainable Land Use
and Infrastructure Planning; and Sustainable Site, Building and Design Elements
and the Table 6 - Sustainability Plan Components and examples of Measures. I
disagree. There are many connections. For example; the natural heritage system
protection, energy supply and infrastructure components; particularly land
dedication for pedestrian and bicycle paths, promotion of alternative to car use;
street design to optimize energy efficiency all are related to sustainable community
form. Further, the water conservation and storm water control components relate
sustainable infrastructure Planning. Finally the efficient site and buildings component
relates to sustainable urban design.

Staff Suggestions


15. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line
(Correspondence 1), respecting the inclusion of a requirement for a Cultural
Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for any development in Forest, Main Street
Grand Bend and downtown Arkona and Thedford. It is Mr. Wallaces opinion that
requiring these reports is too lengthy and expensive. He indicates that the towns are
not so old so that they require extensive heritage evaluation before progressing with
a new project. He indicates that the Royal Bank and Forest Community Health
Centre have been constructed without such studies.

Staff Comments

Section 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement states:
108

2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural
heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site
alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property
except where the proposed development and site alteration
has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the
heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be
conserved.

In order for Council to be satisfied that new development applications comply
with Provincial Policy, Section 14.22 of the Draft Official states:

A Cultural Heritage Inventory Evaluation Report (CHER) may be
required for any development, site alteration, infrastructure and public
service facilities, as defined in Section 2.5, that potentially directly affect a
significant built heritage resource or cultural landscape. The CHER
completed in accordance with Ministry of Culture Guidelines.

A CHER may be required for any development in the Historic Village
Areas shown on Schedule D. These areas are located in Forest, Grand
Bend, Port Franks, Arkona and Thedford.

All new development and urban spaces will be designed to be in
character with historic streetscapes, as identified in Lambton Shores
Community Design Plan (2008). Historic streetscapes include downtown
Forest, Main Street in Grand Bend and downtown Arkona. A CHER may
be required for any development affecting these areas.

There is no mandatory requirement to prepare a CHER for every development
application in the municipalitys historic downtowns. The policy would require one be
prepared if a proposed development proposed was identified as potentially affecting
a significant built heritage resource or cultural landscape.

Mr. Wallace is correct that CHERs were not required for the Royal Bank and the
Community Health Centre. Such reports were not required because the
development as proposed was seen to respect the historic streetscape and built
heritage resources.

Staff Suggestions

109

16. Intensification and the Reduction of Development Lands

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line
(Correspondence 1), respecting intensification and a significant reduction in land
designated for development. He indicates that a target density of 7 units per acre is
too high. He indicates it will result in very small lots.

Staff Comments

The target density of 7 units will not be comprised of single detached dwellings. It is
intended to represent an average that includes other forms of housing, such as
townhouses, semi-detached dwellings apartment buildings. As has been discussed
in considering other addressed concerns, large lot development is still enabled
through the policy framework of the draft official plan.

Staff Suggestions


17. Lakeshore Areas 1 and 2 as they affect 6492 West Parkway Drive

Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Patricia Marshall 6492 West Parkway Drive
(Correspondence 18), respecting the hazard designation along the Lake Huron
Shoreline

Staff Comments

The shoreline policies in the official plan reflect provincial policy as it relates to the
hazardous shoreline of the great lakes. Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy
statement provides:

3.1 Natural Hazards

3.1.1Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of:

a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shoreline of the Great Lakes
which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and /or
dynamic beach;
110

3.1.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within:

a) the dynamic beach hazard;

c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles
during times of flooding hazard, erosion hazard and/or dynamic
beach hazard unless it has been demonstrated that the site has
safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and
the natural hazard.

The St Clair Region Conservation Authority regulates the Lake Huron Shoreline.
They have completed a shoreline study of the hazards. The boundaries of the
Lakeshore Area 1 and 2 designations are the result of the study which is based on
Provincial Policy.

Staff Suggestions


18. Allocation of Sewage Capacity

Public Comments

Mr. Ernest Lewis of Grand Bend commented that sewage allocation has not been
addressed.

Staff Comments

Sewage allocation is reviewed when development applications are considered by
Council. Council conditions of approval and the subdivision agreements set out how
capacity allocation will be dealt with.

Section 19.7, contains general policies relating to subdivision development. They
direct Council to consider the adequacy of infrastructure when assessing subdivision
development applications. Further it provides direction on how long subdivision
approval should continue, if development has not commenced.

The policies provide Council the flexibility to determine what is appropriate for each
development based on specific requirements and situations.

Staff Suggestions


111
19. Other General Comments Received

Other comments of a more general nature were received and are summarized as
follows;

Mrs. Eleanor Davis has expressed concern respecting reference in the Official Plan
to sustainable development. (Correspondence 19 and 20)

Mr. Bob Sharen expressed concern that in his opinion the Draft Official Plan does
not respect tourism or agriculture. He is concerned about the impact the draft plan
will have on taxation and personal property rights. He is also concerned about the
conservation authorities regulations.

Mr. Bob Pattison expressed concern that the draft official plan was severely
restricting development rights along the Old Ausable Channel, which would reduce
the value of property and as a result impact tax revenues. He objects to the use of
the terms sustainable, sustainability and climate change. He considered the private
property rights are being eroded. (Correspondence 21)

20. Addressed Concerns

Mr. Rick Frayne, of Grand Bend expressed concern at the Grand Bend Public Open
House respecting the impact the 22 metre setback from the Old Ausable Channel,
contained in the Grand Bend Residential Policies, might have on his property. Staff
provided mapping to Mr. Frayne showing how the buffers would affect his property.
Upon reviewing this information Mr. Frayne advised staff that his concerns were
addressed.

112

APPENDIX A

Staff Suggestions
1A In order to provide more clarity that Section 3.4.2.7 Ecological Buffer Zones and
Section 3.5 Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies apply
to development and site alteration, these two sections could be combined into one
section.

1B The Second Bullet in Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESAs) which currently states:

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESAs, but shall not be
expanded;

could be revised as follows:

Existing Agricultural uses may continue within or adjacent to ESAs,
but shall not be expanded)

2 To be fair and equitable, this limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on
private individual septic systems could also be offered to lands designated for Future
Residential development. As such Council could designate the lands to Residential
and rely on the servicing policies to limit large scale development.
3A Staff support Mr. Roods request to change the designation on his lands back to
Agriculture from Natural Environment.
3B To be fair and equitable, and given the size of the lots (10 Acres) staff support the
owners request to allow each of the lots to be divided into two lots for single detached
dwelling purposes, subject to the Section 3.5 - Development Approvals Process and
Environmental Impact Studies policies of the Draft Official Plan, that will limit and
negative impact to the natural heritage features and ensure compliance with the
Species at Risk Act.
4 Staff can support the concern of Mr. Trothen and if Council agrees, will redraft the
Commercial Special Policy Area policies to allow residential uses.
5 If Council wishes to treat this area like that part Grand Bend Residential designation
adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel (which is a Provincially Significant Wetland),
policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation to allow one single
detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area
without providing any environmental reporting.
6 As suggested in 5 above, perhaps like that part of the Grand Bend Residential
designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel, which is a Provincially Significant
Wetland, policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation which allows
one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this
area without providing any environmental reporting. However, if the owners want to
pursue new lot creation on the property, an environmental impact study would be
required as the PPS and the Draft Lambton Shores Official Plan does not permit
113
development within an ANSI unless it can be determined that there is no negative
impact on the feature. (6)

8 As directed by Council during review of Draft 1 of the Plan the land should be placed in
a Residential Special Policy Area designation. Further, to be fair and equitable, the
limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic systems
could also be offered to these lands. As such Council could designate the lands to
Residential Special Policy Area A and rely on the servicing policies to limited large
scale development.
9 Perhaps for future clarity, this bullet could be amended to read:

All new residential development will be subject to Subdivision and Site Plan
control, except as exempted in Section 19.9 and may be required to prepare
a Sustainability Plan, as outlined in section 15.1.5.

11A The north part of the front portion of the Henderson lands could be placed in a
Residential designation. The dwelling on the Henderson property lies in this location
and the area has been cleared. Future lot creation on the Henderson lands and on the
other lands designated for residential purposes is subject of the natural heritage
policies and any new development will have to prove that there is no negative impact
on the natural heritage features. This will require that an environmental impact study
be prepared
11B The depth of the residential designations on other properties on the west side of
Ipperwash Road could be reduced so that the west boundary of the Residential
designation is the east boundary of the ANSI. The lands within the ANSI should be
designated Natural Environment

114
APPENDIX B

Issues Requiring Council Direction
1C During Councils review of the Official Plan, Council discussed buffer zones and
supported the current Section 4.4 as it only encourages agricultural uses to provide
buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. It seems this Section has caused a lot of
fear that such provisions will be forced on the agricultural community in the future.
Council needs to determine if they want this section to remain in the Plan
13 Council direction required on naming Agricultural Area

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168

Report DCS 63-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services

RE: School Zone Speed Limit Review

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT DCS 63-2014 regarding School Zone Speed Limits be received;
and

THAT school zones be established in the following areas:

Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road.

MacDonald Street, from 40 MacDonald Street to 99 MacDonald Street.


George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane; and

THAT a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h be established for these areas,
enforceable from 8:00am 4:30pm on school days, September 1 June
30; and

THAT staff prepare the necessary by-law to amend the speed limit in
these areas for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council meeting.

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report presents a summary of the Municipalitys ability to establish reduced speed
limits in school zones, and recommends a reduced speed limit and the applicable
school zones based upon the requirements of the Highway Traffic Act and relevant
traffic engineering literature.

169
BACKGROUND

At the May 15, 2014 meeting Council received correspondence from Grand Bend Home
and School articulating concerns about the speed of traffic on Gill Road in the area of
the Grand Bend Public school. Council requested that staff report on the requirements
to establish a community safety zone, and at the June 5, 2014 meeting the following
resolution was passed:

Carried 14-0606-26
THAT the area of Gill road, from Main Street East to 660 feet (200 metres) south
of Main Street East be designated as a Community Safety zone, and staff are
directed to prepare the required by-law.

On June 19, 2014 Council enacted by-law# 68-2014 designating a section of Gill Road
as a community safety zone. As a measure to increase traffic safety in the area of
schools in Lambton Shores Council requested that staff report on the Municipalitys
ability to reduce speed limits within all school zones located in Lambton Shores:

Carried 14-0703-29
THAT staff prepare a report on reducing vehicular speed limits within all Lambton
Shores school zones as a complement to the Community Safety Zone
designation.

The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) sets out the default speed limits for various roadways in
Section 128. This section also provides the Municipality with the authority to modify
speed limits in school zones. Please see attachment #1 for the applicable sections of
the HTA. Section 128.(1) designates a speed limit of 50 km/h for built-up urban areas.
Section 128. (2) provides a municipality with the ability to pass a by-law to establish a
speed limit that is different than what is set out in 128.(1) for roadways under the
municipalitys jurisdiction. Section 128.(5) provides the municipality to establish reduced
speed limits for school zones, with the following conditions:

The reduced speed limit is only applicable in the school zone which can be
established on a roadway that adjoins the entrance to, or exit from, a school;
The school zone is delineated within 150 m in either direction beyond the limits of
the land used for the purposes of the school;
The reduced speed limit is only applicable on days which school is normally held;
The Municipality may prescribe specific times that the reduced speed limit is
enforceable.

Various alternatives for the reduced speed limits in Lambton Shores school zones are
discussed below.

170

Speed Limit
The draft notice of motion presented to Council indicated a desire to reduce the speed
limit in school zones to 30 km/h.

Staff has researched Ontario precedents and has found that it is common reduced
speed limits in school zones to be either 40 km/h or 30 km/h. The Transportation
Association of Canada (TAC) reports that operating speeds under 40 km/h are generally
not practically achieved unless significant traffic calming measures are implemented.
This is supported by research published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
that reports speed compliance rates can be as low as 10-15% in school zones that are
posted at 30 km/h. Practitioner literature reports research findings that drivers travel at a
speed at which they feel is safe given the particular characteristics of a roadway. Simply
posting a reduced speed limit has not been found to be effective at reducing driver
speeds.

Research has found higher driver compliance rates in a 30 km/h school zone speed
limit when the speed limit of the approaching road section is 40 km/h. A 40 km/h speed
limit is typically established for local residential roadways where land access to private
property is the primary function of the road and traffic movement is a secondary
consideration. For the roadways affected by this review, it is staffs opinion that the
majority serve a dual function of land access and traffic movement, the current 50 km/h
speed limits are justified, and a reduction of speed limits to 40 km/h to accommodate
school zone speed limits of 30 km/h would not be warranted.

As a result of the considerations above, staff recommends an incremental approach of
establishing a speed limit of 40 km/h for school zones. A speed limit of 30 km/h may be
artificially low for the areas affected given the surrounding speed limit of 50 km/h.
Further, it is expected that there could be a low compliance rates by drivers in a 30 km/h
zone. This presents a risk to pedestrians as there may be a false sense of security with
a 30 km/h speed limit despite the prevailing speed of traffic being higher.

School Zone Locations
Lambton Shores is currently home to four elementary schools and one secondary
school. The proposed school zone for each school is articulated below based on the
criteria established in Section 128.(5) of the Highway Traffic Act. The HTA stipulates
that a school zone can only be established on a roadway that adjoins the entrance to or
exit from a school. The HTA further stipulates that the school zone is delineated 150 m
in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes of the school.

A diagram of each of the proposed school zones is shown in Attachment #2 and each
zone is further described below:

171
Bosanquet Central Public School
Located on County Road #9. Lambton Shores cannot establish a
reduced school zone speed limit for this location.

Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road.



George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane.

Time Period for Enforcement
The HTA sets out that the reduced speed limit is only enforceable when school is
normally held. Staff has researched the enforceability periods established by other
municipalities, and how these are communicated. There appears to be a wide range of
statements used to identify when the reduced limit is enforceable.

For days of enforceability, most statements are non-specific to accommodate for annual
variations to school schedules. For time of enforceability, staff has found two common
approaches: limit enforceability to normal drop-off and pick-up times, or have the
reduced limit be enforceable for the duration of the school day. In staffs opinion, full day
enforceability is preferred so that recess times and lunch hours are also covered by the
reduced limit. Research published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers reports
that signage which communicates the actual time of enforcement is the most effective at
achieving a higher driver compliance rate.

It is recommended that the reduced speed limit be enforced with the following
statement, which will be reflected by in the signage purchased:

Enforceable from 8:00am 4:30pm on School Days, September 1 June 30

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Staff recommends that school zones be established in the following areas:

Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road
(which is 150 m from the schools property line).

172

St. John Fisher Catholic ElementarySchool


With a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h, enforceable from 8:00am 4:30pm on school
days, September 1 June 30.

As noted above, simply posting a reduced speed limit may not result in reduced driver
speeds. Active enforcement is an important factor, and, if approved, staff will notify the
OPP of the speed limit changes. In addition, each of the affected school zones will have
scheduled times when Community Services will dedicate the speed indicating trailer to
its respective speed zone in an effort to make drivers aware of their speed.

Staff will return with the authorizing by-law at the next Council meeting to put these
changes into effect. Once passed, the by-law will be provided to the OPP for
enforcement of the new speed limits.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Cost will be incurred to purchase and install new speed limit signs if this proposal is
approved by Council. The Community Services department budgets for roadside
signage as a part of the annual operating budget, and the costs of this speed limit
change can be accommodated within the approved operating budget.

CONSULTATION

When preparing this report, staff corresponded with the Lambton-Kent District School
Board, the St. Clair District Catholic School Board, the Chatham Kent Lambton
Administrative School Services, and the County of Lambton. The following is a
summary of the comments received:

Lambton-Kent District School Board:
Supportive on the reduction of speed limits in the areas of schools.

St. Clair District Catholic School Board:
Supportive of reduced speed limits for the purposes of safety, but have not
researched the topic sufficiently to form an opinion. Deferential to the
municipalitys decision.

173

Chatham Kent Lambton Administrative School Services:
Responsible for school bus transportation of both boards, among other services.
Supportive on the reduction of speed limits in the areas of schools.

County of Lambton
The County has a policy of not supporting Community Safety Zone (CSZ)
requests. The County has researched this matter and available research
literature indicates that the establishment of a CSZ does not improve road safety.

ATTACHMENTS
1. Highway Traffic Act, applicable sections.
2. Aerial views of the proposed school zone areas.

174
Highway Traffic Act:

128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,
(a) 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a local municipality or within a
built-up area;
(b) despite clause (a), 80 kilometres per hour on a highway, not within a built-up
area, that is within a local municipality that had the status of a township on
December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001,
would have had the status of a township on January 1, 2003, if the
municipality is prescribed by regulation;
(c) 80 kilometres per hour on a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation
and Highway Improvement Act, whether or not the highway is within a local
municipality or built-up area;
(d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance
with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);
(e) the maximum rate of speed set under subsection (10) and posted in a
construction zone designated under subsection (8) or (8.1); or
(f) the maximum rate of speed posted on a highway or portion of a highway
pursuant to section 128.0.1. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (1); 2006, c. 11,
Sched. B, s. 6 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (1).

Rate of speed by by-law
(2) The council of a municipality may, for motor vehicles driven on a highway or
portion of a highway under its jurisdiction, by by-law prescribe a rate of speed different
from the rate set out in subsection (1) that is not greater than 100 kilometres per hour
and may prescribe different rates of speed for different times of day. 2006, c. 32,
Sched. D, s. 4 (3).

Rate in school zones
(5) The council of a municipality may by by-law,
(a) designate a portion of a highway under its jurisdiction that adjoins the
entrance to or exit from a school and that is within 150 metres along the
highway in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes
of the school; and
(b) for motor vehicles driven, on days on which school is regularly held, on the
portion of a highway so designated, prescribe a rate of speed that is lower
than the rate of speed otherwise prescribed under subsection (1) or (2) for
that portion of highway, and prescribe the time or times at which the speed
limit is effective. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 128 (5); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table;
2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 29 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (6).
175
Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road (which is
150 m from the schools property line).

176

177

178

179




RE: Policy #66 Community Grants Amendments and Draft Secondary
Sponsorship Policy

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT DCS 65-2014 regarding Policy #66 Community Grants
and the draft Seconday Sponsorship Policy be received; and

THAT the amendments to Policy #66 Community Grants be
approved; and

THAT the draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy be adopted
and implemented for 2015 with a budget consideration of
$2,000.00 be included during budget deliberations.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report summarizes the annual review of the Policy #66 Community Grants and
recommends the implementation of a Secondary Sponsorship Policy per the following
Council resolution:

13-0114-20 Carried

That staff draft a policy for Council approval on sponsoring events that do
not qualify under the current Municipal grant policy.

BACKGROUND

Community Grant Program
The Lambton Shores Community Grant Program provides limited financial assistance to
community groups within Lambton Shores to assist with events and programs. The
program also provides for in-kind services such as fee waivers, staff assistance and
equipment use.

Each year, the policy undergoes an internal review, and recommendations are made
based on past experiences and needs. In 2014, the changes are minor and of an
administrative nature. The chart below identifies the specific changes and a copy of the
policy can be reviewed in Attachment 1.
180

Section Current Change Rationale
Eligibility #4 One-time special
requests for
assistance will be
considered on an
individual merit basis.
Examples of these
types of requests
would be flood or ice
storm disaster relief
requests either locally
or on a broader
scope.

One-time special
requests for
assistance will be
considered on an
individual merit basis.
Eliminate examples
provided as provincial
funding is more likely
to assist in these
circumstances.
Municipal Review #1 All requests for
financial donations
and in-kind grants will
be considered having
regard for the
Municipalitys current
budget.
Add: The Municipality
reserves the right to
adjust requested
dollar amounts based
on the annual budget
allocation.
Council approves a
budgeted amount
annually for the
program. Requested
amounts may be
adjusted to allow
more groups to
benefit from financial
support.

The Community Grant Program describes six areas for funding:
1) Agricultural / Rural Affairs
2) Arts / Culture / Community Heritage
3) Community / Special Events
4) Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness
5) Supporting Youth / Seniors
6) Tourism / Economic Development

In order to be eligible for a financial grant or in-kind donation, groups must be based in
Lambton Shores (some exceptions for County-based groups), and must be non-profit.
For-profit groups, political organizations, individuals, special interest groups and adult
sports leagues are ineligible for funding. In addition, uniforms, travel, equipment rentals
and rent (other than municipal facilities) are ineligible expenses.

Secondary Sponsorship Program
Occasionally, requests for assistance are submitted after the Community Grant deadline
of October 31 has passed. Currently there is no official mechanism in place to respond
to these requests.

A secondary sponsorship policy would help to address these issues and provide local
organizations with some flexibility when seeking financial support from the Municipality.
181
A copy of the draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy is included in Attachment 2 and is
proposed as a compliment to the existing Community Grant program.

The draft policy proposes that a budget of $2,000.00 per year be established for the
Secondary Sponsorship Policy. Further, it recommends that individual requests are
limited to a maximum of $500.00 to ensure that a minimum of four groups would have
the opportunity to benefit from the program per year.

Under the policy, requests will not be considered for municipal sponsorship unless the
event/program is developed after the deadline of the Community Grant Program has
passed. Funding will not be provided to a group that has already received funding
through the Community Grant Program in the same year. Additionally, funding through
this policy will not be provided more than one time per year to any group.

The draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy provides a mechanism to provide financial
support to events or programs that are developed after the Community Grant Program
deadline has passed. Requests will be accepted on an ongoing basis throughout the
year until the budgeted amount has been spent. Community Services staff will receive
all requests and determine funding eligibility based on the criteria and categories
described in Policy #66 Community Grants. Staff will be able to approve grant requests
through the Secondary Sponsorship Policy as they will be $500.00 or less, as outlined
in Policy #25 Donations.


1. No contribution from Lambton Shores. Requests of this nature would not be
considered and the organization would need to use other resources for financial
support.

2. Include one-time sponsorship requests into the existing Community Grant
Policy. In order to allow for flexibility, this option is not recommended as specific
eligibility criteria and deadlines have been established for the grant policy.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

It is recommended that the revisions to Policy #66 Community Grants be approved.
Further, it is recommended that the Secondary Sponsorship Policy be adopted and
implemented in 2015 with a budget consideration of $2,000.00 for the program. With a
$500.00 per request limit, this would allow at least four groups to receive assistance per
year.

The amount will be reviewed annually during the budget process to determine if the
amount needs to be increased or decreased based on the number of requests received.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
182

The Municipality budgets for the Community Grant program in its annual budget, and
the final budget amount is subject to Council approval. The recommended changes to
the Community Grant program have no direct financial impact, but clarify that the
Municipality can adjust grant requests to achieve the approved budget allocation.

A budget allocation of $2,000.00 per year is recommended for the draft Secondary
Sponsorship Policy.

CONSULTATION

Community Services staff contacted area municipalities that participate in the South
Western Ontario Recreation Facilities Association (SWORFA) for comparable
sponsorship programs; however, no municipalities reported having a similar program
available.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Policy #66 Community Grants
2. Draft Policy Secondary Sponsorship Program

183
Municipality of Lambton Shores
Policy #:
Effective Date:

DRAFT Secondary Sponsorship Policy

Purpose

The Municipality of Lambton Shores has adopted a Secondary Sponsorship Policy to
establish a program to provide limited financial assistance to community groups and
organizations. The purpose of this policy is to provide a means of supporting activities
or special events deemed to provide a public good to the residents of Lambton Shores
that are organized after the annual Community Grant program review.

Eligibility

As part of the annual budget process Council will consider a $2,000 commitment to
support this policy. Support will only be in the form of a financial donation. Applications
will be considered starting at the beginning of the fiscal year and reviewed on a bi-
monthly basis to determine eligibility. Sponsorships will be limited to a maximum
$500.00 per request.

Requests will not be considered for municipal sponsorship unless the event/program is
developed after the deadline of the Community Grant program has passed. Events
developed or in the planning stage prior to the annual Community Grant program
deadline must apply for municipal assistance under that program.

Requests for sponsorship of new events will be given first priority. Funding for recurring
events will only be considered for the inaugural event. Funding for recurring events in
their second iteration or later will be considered under the Community Grant program
and not this program. Applications under this program will be considered up until the
annual budget allocation is fully spent.

The activity or event must fall under the funding categories and eligibility criteria that
have been established for the Community Grant Program. The funding categories are
as follows:

1. Agriculture / Rural Affairs
2. Arts / Culture / Community Heritage
3. Community / Special Events
4. Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness
5. Supporting Youth / Seniors
6. Tourism / Economic Development

Community Services staff will review the request against the edibility criteria and
guidelines set forth in the Community Grant Policy #66 to determine if a sponsorship
request is to be approved.

184
Requests may be submitted at anytime during the year, however funding is limited to
the annual amount that is allocated to this program budget. Funding will not be provided
to a group that has received assistance through the Community Grant program in the
same year. Funding will not be provided to a group who has already received
assistance under this program in the same year. Funding under this program will not be
provided two years in a row. Groups and organizations interested in receiving funds for
future programs will be encouraged to apply under the Community Grant program.

Requesting Municipal Sponsorship

Requests for municipal sponsorship must be made by submitting the requisite
application form, attached as Appendix A to this policy. The form and accompanying
documents shall be submitted to:

The Municipality of Lambton Shores
Community Services Department
9575 Port Franks Road, RR 1
Thedford, ON N0M 2N0

Accountability

1. Community groups or organizations approved for a municipal sponsorship will be
held accountable for the expenditure of the funds in accordance with the stated
objectives/plans. Requests in future years will be reviewed based on past
demonstrated fiscal responsibility of the community group or organization.

2. Funds granted under this program are not transferable between projects or
groups without prior municipal approval, and must be used for the specific
purposes outlined.

3. Project Evaluations Forms (provided) must be completed and submitted to the
Community Services Department within two months of the completion of the
event or project.

Municipal Recognition

Organizations receiving a municipal sponsorship shall acknowledge the Municipalitys
contribution through printed material or other promotional means. The Municipalitys
logo is available from the Community Services Department.

Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed on an as needed basis by the Community Services
Department.

185
Appendix A

Lambton Shores Sponsorship Application Form

Applicants must review the Community Grant Policy and Lambton Shores Secondary
Sponsorship Policy prior to submitting an application.

1. Applicant Information
Organization Name: ____________________________________________________
Contact Name: ____________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Telephone Number: ____________________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________________________________

2. Assistance Requested
Financial Donation: $ _________________ (maximum $500.00)

3. Funding Categories
Which funding category are you applying for?
o Agriculture / Rural Affairs
o Arts / Culture / Community Heritage
o Community / Special Events
o Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness
o Supporting Youth / Seniors
o Tourism / Economic Development

4. Project Description

4.1. Provide a brief description of the event, program or project.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4.2. For what specific purposes are the requested grant funds to be utilized within your
organization?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
186
4.3. Who will benefit from the proposed event, project or program (i.e. children, seniors,
persons with disabilities, low income residents, etc.)?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Organizational Details

5.1. Provide a brief history of your organization, and indicate if it is incorporated as a non-
profit organization.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.2. What are the general objectives / services of your organization?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.3. In what geographical area does your organization operate?

____________________________________________________________________________

5.4. Do volunteers participate in your organization? If yes, indicate the number of volunteers
and type of involvement.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.5. List the Executive Officers of your organization:

Name Position Town

6. Financial Information

6.1. Has your organization received funding from the Municipality in prior years?
YES NO
187
If yes, indicate past amounts:
Year Amount

6.2. What other steps are being taken to provide revenue (include any other grants that the
organization has received, admission fees, donations, etc.).

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

6.3. Provide a budget for the event, program or project and / or the organization, and the
organizations financial statement from the previous year or financial statement from the
previous years event.

6.3.1.1. For groups showing a surplus, a statement of the intended use of the
surplus
6.3.1.2. For groups showing a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be
eradicated

7. Terms and Conditions

In the event that a grant is awarded, the applicant agrees to the following:

To provide a written statement of the use of funds within two months of the event, project
or program.
To complete the Project Evaluation Form (provided) within two months of the completion
of the event, program or project.
To acknowledge the support of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in all printed material
and through other promotional means.
The funds will be used only for the purposes described in this application.
To inform Council if the project is delayed or changed substantially for any reason.
In the event the project does not go forward, the applicant will return those funds granted
for the proposed project.

I agree to the terms and conditions outlined above. The information contained in this application
is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. I acknowledge that the contents of this
application may be discussed in an open Council forum.

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________
Print Name Title/Position Signature

_________________________
Date
188
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures

______________________________________
(Name of Organization)

For the Year Ending ________________

Sources of Revenue Current Budget Last Year Actual

(list separately) $ ___________ $ ___________
(Include ticket sales, user fees, donations
Fund raising events, service charges, including all
municipal, provincial and federal grants, etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
___________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Revenues: $ ___________ $ ___________
Expenditures: ( ie permit fees, printing etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Expenditures: $ ___________ $ ___________

Surplus/Deficit ___________ ___________

Surplus/Deficit from prior year: ____________ ___________

Cash on Hand: ____________ ___________

189
SAMPLE BALANCE SHEET
Lambton Shores' Seniors
Family Fun Day
STATEMENT OF INCOME
October 30, 2008

SAMPLE BALANCE
SHEET
INCOME

DONATIONS

Opening Balance

$ 201.15

Lambton Wildness

200.00

Sponsor- Municipality of Lambton Shores 100.00

Sponsor - Canadian Workers

100.00

Sponsor - Harley James Dental

100.00

Sponsor - The Little Store on the
Corner

100.00

Registration

355.00

Cookie Sales

152.00
Total Donations and Income

1308.15

EXPENSES

Advertising

158.50

Brochures, Signage

700.00

Fuel

20.00

Baking Supplies

80.75

T-Shirts

250.00
TOTAL EXPENSES

1209.25
NET INCOME TO BE APPLIED TO NEXT YEAR'S EVENT

$ 98.90

190
Appendix B

Municipality of Lambton Shores Project Evaluation Form
Applicant Information:

Contact Name: ____________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________________________________

Project/Event Description:
____________________________________________________________________________

What specific results were achieved through the funding of your project?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Did this grant benefit the community as anticipated or expected?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

As a result of this grant did your organization increase or enhance partnerships and
collaborations with other groups in the community? Explain.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

If you received a financial grant, attach a financial report that outlines the project income
(funding) and expenditures. Invoices for the event, program or project must also be
included.

**Attach photos of the completed event, project or program

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________

_________________________
Date

191
Policy # 066
Effective Date: September 11, 2012
Repeals Policy # 035

Community Grant Program

Purpose

The Municipality of Lambton Shores has adopted a Community Grant Program to
provide limited financial assistance to community groups and organizations within the
Municipality to assist with activities or special events, in recognition of the value of these
groups to the well-being and growth of the community and in helping the Municipality
retain a strong community focus.

Funding Options and Criteria

Each year, as part of the annual budget process, Council will determine the financial
commitment to the Community Grant Program. Council will also establish a budget
amount for in-kind services such as rental fee waivers, staff support and equipment
supply.

A maximum of $2,000.00 per request has been established for financial
contributions
A maximum of $2,500.00 per request has been established for in-kind services
Capital projects for municipal property will not be funded through the Community
Grant Program. Capital project requests must be submitted in writing to the
Director of Community Services and will be assessed for eligibility based on
budget projections and capital planning within the Municipality. A meeting with
the organization may be required at staffs discretion. Capital project requests
are to be submitted by August 1 of the year preceding the proposed project for
Council consideration.
In-kind support will be limited to the use of Municipal property at reduced or no
cost, waiving of permit fees, municipal staff support, loan of municipal equipment,
and 3
rd
Party Liability Insurance Coverage. In-kind support will not include
equipment rental fees or payment of invoices. Any refundable deposits (i.e.
damage deposits) will not be waived.
The Director of Community Services, at his/her discretion, may require
organizations to provide volunteer support to assist staff when in-kind services
192
are granted and/or when in-kind services exceed the maximum grant amount.
This will be coordinated on an individual case basis.

Categories for Funding

1. Agriculture / Rural Affairs
2. Arts / Culture / Community Heritage
3. Community / Special Events
4. Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness
5. Supporting Youth / Seniors
6. Tourism / Economic Development

Applications

1. All grant applications shall be submitted on the approved Community Grant
Application Form.

2. All application forms and supporting documents must be received by the
Community Services Department no later than October 31 each year.

3. Application forms will be available in Municipal offices and on the Municipal
website by September 1 each year.

4. Availability of application forms will be advertised on the Municipal website,
through weekly email updates, and in the Living in Lambton Shores weekly
advertisement in local newspapers.

5. Grant application forms shall include:

a. The name of the organization, and the contact information (name,
address, email address and telephone number) of a person who can
answer questions regarding the information submitted in the application
b. Financial assistance or in-kind donation request
c. Description of the event, program or project
d. Details of the organization
e. Financial information including a budget for the event/project/program and
the financial statement from the previous year from either the event or the
organization
i. If report shows a surplus, a statement of intended use of the
surplus
193
ii. If report shows a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be
eradicated
f. Financial reporting
g. Project evaluation

Eligibility

1. Applicants, with the exception of local elementary and secondary schools, must
be non-profit community groups and organizations.

2. Organizations must be based in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, with at least
a majority of members being municipal residents. Membership and programs
must be open to all residents, and services, programs and activities must be of
benefit primarily to Lambton Shores residents.

3. The organization should have demonstrated support from some other source
than public funds (i.e. through ticket sales, membership fees, provincial/federal
funding or community donations).

4. One-time special requests for assistance will be considered on an individual
merit basis.

5. County organizations may be considered for a Municipal grant if the
program/event provides a clear benefit and/or service to Lambton Shores
residents.

6. If a parent organization is making an application for a financial grant and/or in-
kind contribution, the affiliated organizations must prove eligibility for in-kind
services and/or financial grants, if the requested services will directly impact
them.

Ineligible for Funding

1. Groups that have failed to comply with reporting requirements from previous
grants

2. Requests for contributions to fund prior year deficits incurred by the organization

3. Organizations which are profit oriented
4. Organizations with a political mandate
194

5. Special interest groups and clubs

6. Individuals

7. Travel, accommodation, uniforms, personal equipment, rent (excluding Municipal
facilities), or debt repayment

8. Attendance at conferences, workshops or seminars

9. Requests for grants from recreational sports groups (with the exception of minor
sports), individual athletes or teams for a competition or to subsidize participation
in a sports event

10. Retroactive funding will not be considered

Council may grant special consideration to entities that do not meet all of the above
criteria, but are unique in nature and fulfill a specific need in the community.

The granting of financial assistance in any year is not to be regarded as a commitment
by the Municipality to continue such assistance in future years. In addition, the
Municipality will not provide guaranteed funding beyond the current year. In making
grants, the Municipality may impose `conditions as it deems fit.

Municipal Review

1. All requests for financial donations and in-kind grants will be considered having
regard for the Municipalitys current budget. The Municipality reserves the right
to adjust requested dollar amounts based on the annual budget allocation. Under
normal circumstances, only one request per organization is to be considered in a
calendar year.

2. Applications will be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with
this policy.

Incomplete applications will be returned to the organization with a list of the
additional information required. Completed applications must be submitted no
later than October 31, incomplete applications received on or after this date will
not be considered for a grant.

195
Applications that do not comply with this policy will be returned with an
explanation as to why the request does not comply.

3. All grant requests will be assessed in terms of the need for the project; cost
effectiveness, financial viability, contribution to the quality of life in the community
and community involvement/response.

4. Staff are authorized to administer requests for donations of less than $500.00, as
per Policy 25-2002 Requests for Donations Under $500.00.

5. Council will make the final decision on all donations valued over $500.00, and
may make exceptions to any criteria as it deems necessary.

Accountability

1. Applicants awarded a grant will be held accountable for the expenditure of the
funds in accordance with the stated objectives/plans. Grants in future years will
be reviewed based on past demonstrated fiscal responsibility of the applicants.

2. Funds granted under this program are not transferable between projects or
groups without prior Council approval, and must be used for the specific
purposes outlined.

3. Accountability statements must be completed and submitted to the Community
Services Department within two months of the completion of the event or project,
but in all cases, by October 31.

Year-end financial statements are to be submitted by January 31 of the year
following the grant.

4. Project Evaluations Forms (provided) must be completed and submitted to the
Community Services Department within two months of the completion of the
event or project.

Municipal Liability Insurance Coverage

In support of the efforts of volunteers, community groups and organizations, the
Municipality may extend its liability insurance coverage to the directors and volunteers
associated with community events. The insurance coverage offered would protect the
196
organizers from third party liability claims by those who sustain an injury or property
damage by participating in or attending the event.

Groups wishing to be covered under the Municipal Insurance Liability Coverage are
required to provide details on the event, including the date, location, activities, names of
volunteers and the directors (which is to include at least one Municipal Councillor), a
copy of the operating budget, and how the proceeds from the event will be distributed.
Within 60 days of the event, final financial and event information is to be submitted to
the Municipality. The information provided will be submitted to Council and if the event
meets the Municipal criteria, a resolution will be passed allowing them inclusion under
our insurance program, and the group is informed of the coverage provided and the
reporting requirements.

Municipal Recognition

Organizations receiving financial and or in-kind grants shall acknowledge the
Municipalitys contribution through all printed material and other promotional means.
The Municipalitys logo is available from the Community Services Department.

Application Dates

Application forms will be available on the Municipal Website and in Municipal offices by
September 1 each year.

Completed applications must be received by the Community Services Department on or
before October 31 each year.

Publication

Notice of availability of applications and application deadlines will be posted on the
Municipal Website, in Living in Lambton Shores weekly newspaper advertisements and
through weekly email updates.

Reporting

All groups receiving a financial and/or in-kind grant from the Municipality of Lambton
Shores must complete a Project Evaluation Form (provided), to be submitted to the
Community Services Department no more than two (2) months after the completion of
the event, program or project, or by October 31 of the grant year whichever comes
first.

Groups must submit a financial report outlining the project income and expenditures,
and must attach any invoices relating to the project, event or program.
Administered by the Director of Community Services
197

Lambton Shores Municipal Grant/Assistance Application Form

Note: Eligible organizations must submit the completed application form to the Community
Services Department on or before October 31 to be considered for a community grant.

Applicants must review the Community Grant Policy prior to submitting an application.

1. Applicant Information
Contact Name: ____________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________________________________

2. Assistance Requested
Financial Donation: $ _________________ (maximum $2,000.00)
In Kind Services: $ _________________ (maximum $2,500.00 calculate total using
the chart below)

Service Quantity/Hours Rate Total
Rental Fee Waiver Fee schedule
available from the
Community Services
Department

Application Fee
Waiver
Fee schedule
available from the
Community Services
Department

Parking Pass (Grand
Bend Beach)
$20.00/day
Snow Fence Drop Off
to be set up by
group
$80.00/hr
Equipment Drop Off $80.00/hr
$26.00/hr extra
operator

Staff support $26.00/hr
3
rd
Party Liability
Insurance Coverage
No Fee
Other

198
** Note: groups are asked to estimate the number of hours/types of services required.
The Community Services Department may make adjustments based on actual hours
and/or experience from past events.
Volunteer support may be required to assist with equipment set up/take down at the
discretion of the Director of Community Services or his/her designate.

3. Funding Categories
Which funding category are you applying for?
o Agriculture / Rural Affairs
o Arts / Culture / Community Heritage
o Community / Special Events
o Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness
o Supporting Youth / Seniors
o Tourism / Economic Development

4. Project Description

4.1. Provide a brief description of the event, program or project.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4.2. For what specific purposes are the requested grant funds to be utilized within your
organization?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4.3. Who will benefit from the proposed event, project or program (i.e. children, seniors,
persons with disabilities, low income residents, etc.)?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Organizational Details

5.1. Provide a brief history of your organization, and indicate if it is incorporated as a non-
profit organization.
199
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.2. What are the general objectives / services of your organization?

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.3. In what geographical area does your organization operate?

____________________________________________________________________________

5.4. Do volunteers participate in your organization? If yes, indicate the number of volunteers
and type of involvement.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5.5. List the Executive Officers of your organization:

Name Position Town

** Note: if requesting 3
rd
Party Liability Insurance Coverage, a member of Council must be listed
as one of the Executives.

6. Financial Information

6.1. Has your organization received funding from the Municipality in prior years?
YES NO
If yes, indicate past amounts:
Year Amount

200

6.2. What other steps are being taken to provide revenue (include any other grants that the
organization has received, admission fees, donations, etc.).

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

6.3. Provide a budget for the event, program or project and / or the organization, and the
organizations financial statement from the previous year or financial statement from the
previous years event.

6.3.1.1. For groups showing a surplus, a statement of the intended use of the
surplus
6.3.1.2. For groups showing a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be
eradicated

7. Terms and Conditions

In the event that a grant is awarded, the applicant agrees to the following:

To provide a written statement of the use of funds within two months of the event, project
or program.
To complete the Project Evaluation Form (provided) within two months of the completion
of the event, program or project.
To acknowledge the support of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in all printed material
and through other promotional means.
The funds will be used only for the purposes described in this application.
To inform Council if the project is delayed or changed substantially for any reason.
In the event the project does not go forward, the applicant will return those funds granted
for the proposed project.

I agree to the terms and conditions outlined above. The information contained in this application
is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. I acknowledge that the contents of this
application will be discussed in an open Council forum.

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________

_________________________
Date
201
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures

______________________________________
(Name of Organization)

For the Year Ending ________________

Sources of Revenue Current Budget Last Year Actual

(list separately) $ ___________ $ ___________
(Include ticket sales, user fees, donations
Fund raising events, service charges, including all
municipal, provincial and federal grants, etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
___________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Revenues: $ ___________ $ ___________
Expenditures: ( ie permit fees, printing etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________
_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Expenditures: $ ___________ $ ___________

Surplus/Deficit ___________ ___________

Surplus/Deficit from prior year: ____________ ___________

Cash on Hand: ____________ ___________

202
SAMPLE BALANCE SHEET
Lambton Shores' Seniors
Family Fun Day
STATEMENT OF INCOME
October 30, 2008

SAMPLE BALANCE
SHEET
INCOME

DONATIONS

Opening Balance

$ 201.15

Lambton Wildness

200.00

Sponsor- Municipality of Lambton Shores 100.00

Sponsor - Canadian Workers

100.00

Sponsor - Harley James Dental

100.00

Sponsor - The Little Store on the
Corner

100.00

Registration

355.00

Cookie Sales

152.00
Total Donations and Income

1308.15

EXPENSES

Advertising

158.50

Brochures, Signage

700.00

Fuel

20.00

Baking Supplies

80.75

T-Shirts

250.00
TOTAL EXPENSES

1209.25
NET INCOME TO BE APPLIED TO NEXT YEAR'S EVENT

$ 98.90

203

Municipality of Lambton Shores Project Evaluation Form
Applicant Information:
Contact Name: ____________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________________________________

Project/Event Description:
____________________________________________________________________________

What specific results were achieved through the funding of your project?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Did this grant benefit the community as anticipated or expected?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

As a result of this grant did your organization increase or enhance partnerships and
collaborations with other groups in the community? Explain.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

If you received a financial grant, attach a financial report that outlines the project income
(funding) and expenditures. Invoices for the event, program or project must also be
included.

**Attach photos of the completed event, project or program

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________

_________________________
Date
204



FROM: Brent Kittmer, P.Eng., Director of Community Services

RE: 2014 Drinking Water Inspection Reports

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 66-2014 regarding the 2014 Drinking
Water Inspection Reports be received for Councils
information.
__________________________________________________________
SUMMARY

This report presents the 2014 Annual Drinking Water Inspection Reports for the
Lambton Shores drinking water systems as prepared by the Ministry of the
Environment. This report is presented to Council for information so that Council is aware
of the safe operation of the municipal water systems as necessary under Section 19 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.

BACKGROUND

The Municipality of Lambton Shores owns two large municipal drinking water systems
servicing its residents. These drinking water systems are subject to requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and are inspected by the Ministry of the Environment at
least once per year to ensure their compliance with applicable legislation. Both systems
were inspected by the Ministry of the Environment on July 10, 2014.

The two systems are referred to as the East Lambton Shores Distribution System and
the West Lambton Shores Distribution System.

Operations Management International, Canada (OMI) is contracted to carry out the
operation and maintenance activities associated with Lambton Shores drinking water
systems. They are required to perform the necessary tasks to ensure the municipal
systems provide safe and compliant drinking water to its users.

Both systems received final inspection ratings of 100%, meaning that there were no
non-compliances observed during the inspection.


This report is presented for informational purposes only. No alternatives are presented.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This report is presented for informational purposes only. There are no recommended
actions

205
FINANCIAL IMPACT

There are no financial impacts related to this report.

CONSULTATION

Ministry of the Environment, Sarnia District, Drinking Water Branch

ATTACHMENTS
East Lambton Shores Distribution System 2014 Inspection Report
West Lambton Shores Distribution System 2014 Inspection Report

206
WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Ministry of the Environment
Inspection Report
1-BD0N0 Inspection Number:
Jul 10, 2014 Date of Inspection:
260006581 Site Number:
Inspected By: Paul Tersteege
207
Drinking Water Inspection Report
Owner Information
Signatures
Inspection Summary
Appendices
Inspection Details
Non-Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Actions Required
Table of Contents
Description
2
2
2
Summary of Best Practice Issues and Recommendations
Appendix 1 - Inspection Rating Report
Appendix 2 - Area Map
Appendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tag and Set Points
Appendix 4 - Summary of Reported Sample Results
Appendix 5 - Drinking Water System Dossier - Excerpts
Appendix 6 - Contacts
Introduction 4
Treatment Processes 4
Treatment Process Monitoring 5
Operations Manuals 5
Logbooks 6
Security 6
Certification and Training 6
Water Quality Monitoring 7
Water Quality Assessment 7
Reporting & Corrective Actions 8
9
10
11
4
208
OWNER INFORMATION:
7883
AMTELECOM PARKWAY
FOREST
ON N0N 1J0
Street Number:
Street Name:
Unit Identifier:
City:
Province: Postal Code:
Company Name: LAMBTON SHORES,THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
INSPECTION DETAILS:
WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Site Name:
Site Address: LAMBTON SHORES
County/District: Lambton Shores
MOE District/Area Office: Sarnia District
Health Unit: LAMBTON HEALTH UNIT Health Unit:
Conservation Authority N/A
MNR Office: N/A
Category: Large Municipal Residential
Inspection Type: Unannounced
Inspection Number: 1-BD0N0
Date of Inspection: Jul 10, 2014
Date of Previous Inspection: Jun 05, 2013
Site Number: 260006581
COMPONENTS DESCRIPTION
West Lambton Shores Distribution System Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
Lambton Shores is supplied by two municipal water systems the East and the West Lambton
Shores Distribution Systems. In order to understand this large municipal residential system, one has
to appreciate components inside and outside of Lambton Shores that are part of other area water
systems.
Comments:
1. Townsend Line Meter Chamber Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The south and westerly part of Lambton Shores receives water from the Lambton Area Water Supply
System (LAWSS) via a meter chamber at the northwest corner of Townsend Line and Hwy 21. The
water received by the Municipality originates from a water treatment plant in Sarnia. The water is
conveyed across Lambton County via arterial mains and the East Lambton Booster Station.
.
Comments:
Inspection Report
Page 2 of 11 on 31/07/2014 (dd/mm/yyyy) Report Generated for terstepa
Site #: 260006581
Date of Inspection: 10/07/2014 (dd/mm/yyyy)
WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 209
2. Forest Standpipe Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
From their chamber, LAWSS has a 300mm main that extends along Townsend Line to their 3,841m3
standpipe in Forest.
Comments:
3. Emergency Interconnection with LHPWSS Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The Municipality owns a 300mm watermain that stretches along Hwy 21 from Townsend Line to West
Ipperwash Road (where there is an emergency interconnection with the Lake Huron Primary Water
Supply System).
Comments:
4. Continuous Analyser Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The Municipality has a chlorine analyser in their main sewage lift station at 55 Clyde Street in Forest.
The analyser continuously monitors the free chlorine residual in the Municipalitys water distribution
system, and is equipped with an alarm.
Comments:
5. Bulk Water Station Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The Municipality has a bulk water filling station at 7875 Rawlings Road in Forest.
Comments:
MOE DWS Mapping Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type: DWS Mapping Point
Not Applicable
Comments:
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
INSPECTION SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
*
The primary focus of this inspection is to confirm compliance with Ministry of the
Environment legislation and authorizing documents such as Orders and Certificates of
Approval, as well as evaluating conformance with Ministry drinking water related policies
and guidelines during the inspection period.
This report is based on an inspection of a "stand alone connected distribution system".
This type of system receives treated water from a separately owned "donor" system. This
report contains all of the elements required to assess key compliance and conformance
issues associated with a "receiver" system to ensure that the system was not being
operated or managed in a "deficient" condition, as defined under O. Reg. 172/03. The report
does not contain items associated with the inspection of the donor system, such as source
waters, intakes/wells and treatment facilities.
This drinking water system is subject to the legislative requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 2002 (SDWA) and regulations made therein, including Ontario Regulation 170/03,
"Drinking Water Systems" (O.Reg.170/03). This inspection has been conducted pursuant to
Section 81 of the SDWA.
Your system was chosen for a focused inspection during this inspection cycle because
inspection findings over the past three years were such that the number of violations were
minimal or non existent, there were few or no orders issued to you that were of significance
in the maintenance of water potability and there were no deficiencies as defined in O. Reg.
172/03. The undertaking of a focused inspection at your drinking water system during this
year's inspection cycle does not ensure that a similar type of inspection will be conducted
at any point in the future.
On July 10, 2014, the Officer conducted an unannounced inspection, and met with the
Municipality's Operating Authority to obtain documents for review.
.
TREATMENT PROCESSES
*
Records confirmed that the water treatment equipment which provides chlorination or
chloramination for secondary disinfection purposes was operated so that at all times and all
locations in the distribution system the chlorine residual was never less than 0.05 mg/l free
or 0.25 mg/l combined.
Section 1-5 in Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the Municipalitys treatment
facilities/equipment to be capable of providing a free chlorine residual of 0.2mg/L at all locations
within the distribution system. Further, Section 1-2 requires the equipment to be operated so that
the free chlorine residual is never less than 0.05mg/L.
The West Lambton Shores Distribution System does not include any treatment equipment of its
own; however, the Municipality does have a continuous analyser in Forest monitoring the chlorine
residual in the distribution system.
The Officer did not note any concerns in the chlorine residual data provided to him for review.
.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
TREATMENT PROCESS MONITORING
*
The secondary disinfectant residual was measured as required for the distribution system.
The West Lambton Shores Distribution System makes use of a continuous analyser in Forest to
satisfy the chlorine residual monitoring requirements in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03.
.
*
Continuous monitoring equipment that was being utilized to fulfill O. Reg. 170/03
requirements was performing tests for the parameters with at least the minimum frequency
specified in the Table in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 and recording data with the
prescribed format.
Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes a minimum time interval for testing of
chlorine and turbidity by continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour).
Alternatively, where monitoring equipment tests more frequently, the monitoring equipment may
record the minimum, maximum, and the mean results for periods equal to the prescribed intervals.
The Operating Authority confirmed data from the continuous monitoring equipment captures data at
30-second intervals and stores it on the Municipalitys lsscadaLambtonShores.local server. The
Operating Authority provided daily and monthly summary reports, and had their consultant provide
5-minute data for review.
.
*
All continuous analysers were calibrated, maintained, and operated, in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions or the regulation.
Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires owners to ensure the accuracy of their
continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., chlorine residual, turbidity) through checks and, where
necessary, calibrations. (Besides the equipment referenced in Schedule 6 as requiring routine
calibration, the Ministry recommends owners check and calibrate all continuous monitoring
equipment in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.)
The available documents indicated operators are regularly assessing the equipment.
.
OPERATIONS MANUALS
*
The operations and maintenance manuals contained plans, drawings and process
descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient operation of the system.
Section 28 of O. Reg. 128/04 requires owners and operating authorities to ensure operators and
maintenance personnel have ready access to comprehensive operations and maintenance
manuals that contain plans, drawings and process descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient
operation of the system. As such, these documents should encompass all of the subsystems to
which they apply, and they should include up-to-date descriptions and plan/drawings.
As noted in the Officers previous inspection, the Operating Authority has a manual readily
available. The manual includes a chronology of modifications to the document.
.
*
The operations and maintenance manuals did meet the requirements of the Permit and
Licence or Approval issued under Part V of the SDWA.
Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the use and operation of municipal drinking water
systems must comply with the applicable licence. As a number of the required elements are
addressed within other sections of this report, the Officer's scope was limited to ensuring the
availability of the Licence and Permit, and procedures for,
- monitoring and recording parameters related to the performance of the water system
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
OPERATIONS MANUALS
- the operation and maintenance of treatment and/or monitoring equipment
- dealing with complaints and emergencies
.
LOGBOOKS
*
Records or other record keeping mechanisms confirmed that operational testing not
performed by continuous monitoring equipment was being done by a certified operator,
water quality analyst, or person who suffices the requirements of O. Reg. 170/03 7-5.
Pursuant to Section 7-5 in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, only qualified personnel (e.g., certified
operators or water quality analysts) appear to be performing operational tests.
.
SECURITY
*
The owner had provided security measures to protect components of the drinking-water
system.
The Ministry recommends owners adopt various measures to secure their supplies, and treatment
and storage facilities from intruders and potential sources of contamination. While this standalone
distribution system does not include any treatment or storage facilities (included within this
inspection), it includes a bulk water station at the intersection of Highway 21 and Rawlings Road.
The station is readily accessible to vehicles; however, keyed meters control its usage.
The Municipality and Operating Authority have not reported any events that would suggest a need
for additional security measures.
.
CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING
*
The overall responsible operator had been designated for each subsystem.
O. Reg. 128/04 prescribes a system for classifying municipal residential systems. The Regulation
includes a corresponding system for certifying operators. Further, Section 23(1) requires the
appointment of an "overall responsible operator" for each subsystem.
The Operating Authority has appointed an "overall responsible operator". Further, the Operating
Authority has appointed one backup for the "overall responsible operator".
.
*
Operators in charge had been designated for all subsystems which comprised the drinking-
water system.
Section 25(1) of O. Reg. 128/04 requires the appointment of one or more "operator-in-charge" for
each subsystem. The Operating Authority advised they permit all qualified operators to serve in
this capacity. When acting as an operator-in-charge, they have directed their operators to note the
same in the logbook.
.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
*
All microbiological water quality monitoring requirements for distribution samples were
being met.
Results reported by the Municipalitys laboratory indicate the number of distribution samples
collected for testing microbiological parameters exceeds the minimum number required by Section
10-2 of Schedule 10 in O. Reg. 170/03.
.
*
All trihalomethanes water quality monitoring requirements prescribed by legislation were
conducted within the required frequency.
Results reported by the Municipalitys laboratory indicate operators have been collecting
distribution samples for testing trihalomethanes as prescribed in Section 13-6 of Schedule 13 and
Section 6-1.1(4) of Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 (i.e., at least once every three months with a
minimum of 60 days between samples and a maximum of 120 days between samples).
.
*
All sampling requirements for lead prescribed by schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 were
being met.
The Officer understands that based upon their last sample results, the Municipality is eligible to
collect distribution samples at a reduced frequency. E.g., Schedule 15.1 in O. Reg. 170/03 requires
Standard sampling per Section 15.1-4 until a system qualifies for Reduced sampling per Section
15.1-5. If not more than 10 per cent of the results exceed half the limit for lead, the collection of
plumbing samples can be discontinued altogether. Distribution sampling would continue to be
required at a reduced frequency and numbers per Sections 15.1-5(9) and (10).
.
*
Records confirmed that chlorine residual tests were being conducted at the same time and
at the same location that microbiological samples were obtained.
Sampling records indicate operators test the chlorine residual at the same time and location they
are collecting microbiological samples as required by Section 6-3(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg.
170/03.
.
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
*
The audit samples collected by the inspector met the applicable Ontario Drinking Water
Quality Standards and/or the aesthetic objectives or operation guidelines.
The Ministry's laboratory confirmed they did not detect any coliform bacteria, including Escherichia
coli, in the Officers audit sample.
*
Records show that all water sample results taken during the review period met the Ontario
Drinking Water Quality Standards (O. Reg. 169/03).
Per the summary of reported sample results appended to this report, all of the test results reported
by the Municipality's laboratory since the last inspection were within the limits prescribed in the
Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards.
.
REPORTING & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
*
Where required continuous monitoring equipment used for the monitoring of chlorine
residual and/or turbidity triggered an alarm or an automatic shut-off, a qualified person
responded in a timely manner and took appropriate actions.
Where continuous chlorine residual or turbidity monitoring equipment malfunctions, loses power,
alarms or results in a shutdown, the Ministry requires prompt and appropriate action.
The Officer reviewed the results of the chlorine residual testing in the distribution system captured
by the monitoring system. The Officer did note some null values related to communication faults,
and some outliers generated when work was being performed on the system. However, the Officer
did not note evidence of actual events where the chlorine residual dropped to the point where
action was required.
.
*
All changes to the system registration information were provided within ten (10) days of the
change.
After drinking water systems were registered, Section 10.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 required owners to
notify the Director of any changes to the profile information within 10 days. The Officer provided
the attached Drinking Water System Dossier, and asked about any recent changes to the
Municipalitys profile.
The Operating Authority noted the Ministry should not have removed Dale Wright as the Operating
Authority's "Alternate Contact". Further, they provided a copy of an earlier profile listing Rick Marsh
as the "Primary Contact" and Dale Wright as the "Alternate Contact". The Officer has forwarded
this information to the Ministry's registration team.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED
This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the
inspection period, as well as actions required to address these issues. Further details pertaining to these
items can be found in the body of the inspection report.
Not Applicable
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICE ISSUES
Not Applicable
This section provides a summary of all recommendations and best practice issues identified during the
inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. In the
interest of continuous improvement in the interim, it is recommended that owners and operators develop an
awareness of the following issues and consider measures to address them.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
SIGNATURES
Inspected By: Signature: (Provincial Officer):
Paul Tersteege
Reviewed & Approved By: Signature: (Supervisor):
Gary Johnson
Review & Approval Date:
Note: This inspection does not in any way suggest that there is or has been compliance with
applicable legislation and regulations as they apply or may apply to this facility. It is, and remains,
the responsibility of the owner and/or operating authority to ensure compliance with all applicable
legislative and regulatory requirements.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006581
WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
2014.07.3
1 15:35:03
-04'00'
218
219
Ministry of the Environment - Inspection Summary Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2014-2015)
DWS Name: WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DWS Number: 260006581
DWS Owner: Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality Of
Municipal Location: Lambton Shores
Regulation: O.REG 170/03
Category: Large Municipal Residential System
Type Of Inspection: Adhoc
Inspection Date: July 10, 2014
Ministry Office: Sarnia District

Maximum Question Rating: 209

Inspection Module Non-Compliance Rating
Treatment Processes 0 / 21
Operations Manuals 0 / 28
Logbooks 0 / 14
Certification and Training 0 / 14
Water Quality Monitoring 0 / 51
Reporting & Corrective Actions 0 / 25
Treatment Process Monitoring 0 / 56
TOTAL 0 / 209

Inspection Risk Rating 0.00%

FINAL INSPECTION RATING: 100.00%
Inspection Rating Record Generated On 31-JUL-14 (Inspection ID: 1-BD0N0).
R:\Public\DW\DW-08 Compliance\Shared Comp Data\Inspection Ratings 1415\Gary Johnson\1415 WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1-BD0N0.pdf
220
221
222
Appendix 3 - Continuous Monitori ng Tag and Set Points
223
Cont|nuous Mon|tor|ng: arameter and Set o|nt

West Lambton Shores D|str|but|on System

arameter Locat|on 1ag Low A|arm n|gh A|arm Un|ts
lree Chlorlne 8esldual loresL S1 LSlWAl1001 0.20 3.00 mg/L

224
225
Summary of Reported Results
Mi nistry of the Environment
Safe Drinking Water Branch
Category: LMRS
Source: Distribution
MOE Area: Southwestern Region, Sarnia District
DW System: 260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System
Health Unit: Lambton Health Unit
Microbiological - Number of Samples Collected Each Month
Location: Distribution:West Lambton Shores Distribution System
Month EC TC HPC HPC/EC
Type: Distributed Drinking Water Filter: >= J an 1, 2013
Yes 2014 J ul 15 15 6 40%
Yes 2014 J un 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2014 May 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2014 Apr 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2014 Mar 25 25 10 40%
Yes 2014 Feb 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2014 J an 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 Dec 25 25 10 40%
Yes 2013 Nov 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 Oct 23 23 9 39%
Yes 2013 Sep 22 22 9 41%
Yes 2013 Aug 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 J ul 25 25 10 40%
Yes 2013 J un 21 21 8 38%
Yes 2013 May 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 Apr 25 25 10 40%
Yes 2013 Mar 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 Feb 20 20 8 40%
Yes 2013 J an 25 25 10 40%
Microbiological - Exceedances
Sampled EC TC HPC Sample ID
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes 2012-Aug-21 0 1 10 < 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED
Trihalomethanes Samples
Sampled Sample ID Results Days Elapsed
260006581
Filter: >= J an 1, 2013
Yes 2014-Apr-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0UG/L 84
Yes 2014-J an-14 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0UG/L 98
Yes 2013-Oct-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 57.0UG/L 91
Yes 2013-J ul-09 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 49.0UG/L 98
Yes 2013-Apr-02 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0UG/L 84
Yes 2013-J an-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 32.0UG/L
Page 1 of 2 260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary
226
Lead - Distribution Samples
Avg Max Count Sample Period
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 2 0.23 0.23 2012-J un-15 2012-Oct-15
Yes to 2 0.17 0.13 2011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15
Yes to 4 0.69 0.26 2009-J un-15 2009-Oct-15
Yes to 4 6.95 2.11 2008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15
Yes to 1 0.73 0.73 2008-Oct-16 2008-Dec-14
Yes to 4 137.00 34.89 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
17 137.00 8.85 Summary:
Lead - Non-Residential Plumbing Samples
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 2 0.08 0.08 2012-J un-15 2012-Oct-15
Yes to 2 0.17 0.11 2011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15
Yes to 4 2.62 1.69 2009-J un-15 2009-Oct-15
Yes to 4 0.51 0.26 2008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15
Yes to 4 1.33 0.69 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
16 2.62 0.68 Summary:
Lead - Private Residential Samples
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 20 0.73 0.34 2012-J un-15 2012-Oct-15
Yes to 20 0.41 0.23 2011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15
Yes to 42 2.33 0.55 2009-J un-15 2009-Oct-15
Yes to 40 6.36 0.66 2008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15
Yes to 42 28.60 1.66 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
164 28.60 0.79 Summary:
Lead - Exceedances
Sample ID Sampled
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Results
Yes 1D2F2 TAP-PR 12 FRANCES KITCHEN 1ST 2008-Oct-06 28.6UG/L
Yes 12433 DW MAIN & GEORGE SAMPLE STATION SAMPLE STA 2008-Oct-06 137UG/L
Laboratories testing Routine Parameters
Laboratory Parameter Group Testing Period
Yes Chemical/Physical 2009-Mar-23 2012-Oct-04 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Inorganic Chemical 2008-Jun-17 2012-Oct-04 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Microbiological 2008-Jan-02 2008-May-27 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Organic Chemical 2008-Jan-15 2014-Apr-08 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Microbiological 2008-Jan-02 2014-Jul-15 and Sgs Environmental Services - London
Page 2 of 2 260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary
227

This page has been intentionally left blank.
228
Appendix 5 - Dri nking Water System Dossier - Excerpts
229
021 - Drinking Water System Dossier for 260006581
as of 08-JUN-2014
Drinking Water System Profile Information
DWS # 260006581
Registration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) 2002/09/18
DWS Status Active DWS
DWS Expiry Date (yyyy/mm/dd)
MOE Assigned Name West Lambton Shores Distribution System
Category LMRS
Regulation Short Name O.REG 170/03
DWS Type Distribution System
Source Type Distribution
Address Lambton Shores
Region Southwestern Region
District Sarnia District
Municipality Lambton Shores
Public Health Unit Lambton Health Unit

DWS OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
Concession Plan Number
Lot
Geographic Township
Population: 3,200
Number of Private Residences:
Number of Service Connections:
Rated Daily Capacity (L/S) 26.6
Number of DFs Served: 0
LSN Compliance Status: Complete LSN
Date of Last Sample (as per DWIS) 3 June, 2014
24/7 Contact Omi Answering Service
24/7 Contact Info p: (888)3991643, f: - , e: - , c: - , pg: -

DWS OWNER INFORMATION
Owner Legal Name Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality Of
Owner Business Name Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality Of
Owner Address 7883 Amtelecom Parkway ,Forest,Ontario,N0N 1J0
Owner Contact Brent Kittmer, Director Of Community Services
Owner Contact Info p: (519)2431400, f: (519)2433500, e: bkittmer@lambtonshores.ca
Owner Alternate Contact Jeff Wolfe, Manager Of Projects And Infrastructure
Owner Alternate Contact Info p: (519)2431400, f: (519)2433500, e: jwolfe@lambtonshores.ca

DWS OPERATING AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Op. Authority Legal Name Operations Management International Canada Inc. (Lambton Shores)
Op. Authority Business Name Operations Management International Canada Inc. (Lambton Shores)
Op. Authority Address 7550 Brush Rd ,Lambton Shores,Ontario,N0N 1J5
Op. Authority Contact Rick Marsh, Senior Project Manager
Op. Authority Contact Info p: (519)7862421, f: (519)7862433, e: rmarsh@lambtonshores.ca
Op. Authority Alternate Contact
Op. Authority Alternate Contact Info

WLIS PROFILE INFORMATION
Municipal DWS ID 128
Municipal DWS Name East and West Lambton Shores Distribution System
Municipal DWS Owner ID 48

9-Jun-14 - 1 - 3:51:01 PM
230
021 - Drinking Water System Dossier for 260006581
Laboratory Service Notification (LSN) Information

Chemical/Physical
O. Reg. 170 Parameter Name LSN Effective Date Lab Name
Alkalinity 2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Inorganic Chemical
Lead 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Microbiological
Escherichia Coli 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - London
2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Fecal Coliforms 2006-07-26 Sgs Environmental Services - London
Heterotrophic Plate Count (Hpc) 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Total Coliform 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Total Coliform Background 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Organic Chemical
Trihalomethanes (Total) 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
9-Jun-14 - 6 - 3:51:01 PM
231

This page has been intentionally left blank.
232
233
Contacts
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-243-1400
Fax:
519-243-3500
Email:
jwolfe@lambtonshores.ca
Name:
J eff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager
Address:
7883 Amtelecom Parkway
Forest, ON N0N 1J 0
Rol e:
Owner
mber:
2
Company:
CH2M Hill Canada Limited
Phone:
519-527-1004
Fax:
519-527-0295
Email:
joe.arnold@ch2m.com
Name:
J oe Arnold, Senior Project Manager
Address:
30 Welsh Street
Seaforth, ON N0K 1W0
Rol e:
Overall Responsible Operator
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
richard.marsh@ch2m.com
Name:
Rick Marsh, Senior Project Manager
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Lambton Shores, ON N0N 1J 5
Rol e:
Operating Authority
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
shawn.young@ch2m.com
Name:
Shawn Young, Project Manager Intern
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Rol e:
Operating Authority
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
dale.wright@ch2m.com
Name:
Dale Wright, Lead Operator
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Rol e:
Operating Authority
mber:
2
Company:
Lambton Public Health
Phone:
519-383-8331 ext 3507
Fax:
519-383-7092
Email:
chad.ikert@county-lambton.on.ca
Name:
Chad Ikert, Public Health Manager
Address:
160 Exmouth Street
Point Edward, ON N7T 7Z6
Rol e:
Public Health
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-383-8331 ext 3576
Fax:
519-383-7092
Email:
theresa.warren@county-lambton.on.ca
Name:
Theresa Warren, Health Inspector
Address:
160 Exmouth Street
Rol e:
Public Health
mber:
2
Company:
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Phone:
519-245-3710
Fax:
519-245-3348
Email:
gsankar@scrca.on.ca
Name:
Girish Sankar, Water Resources Engineer
Address:
205 Mill Pond Crescent
Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9
Rol e:
Source Protection
mber:
2
Company:
Phone:
519-383-3797
Fax:
519-336-4280
Email:
paul.tersteege@ontario.ca
Name:
Paul TerSteege, Water Inspector
Address:
1094 London Road
Sarnia, ON N7S 1P1
Rol e:
Compliance - SDWA
234
EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Inspection Report
1-BD0MF Inspection Number:
Jul 10, 2014 Date of Inspection:
260006568 Site Number:
Inspected By: Paul Tersteege
235
Owner Information
Signatures
Inspection Summary
Appendices
Inspection Details
Non-Compliance with Regulatory Requi rements and Actions Required
Table of Contents
Description
2
2
2
Summary of Best Practice Issues and Recommendations
Appendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tags and Alarm Set Points
Introduction 5
Treatment Processes 5
Treatment Process Monitoring 7
Distribution System 8
Operations Manuals 9
Logbooks 9
Security 9
Certification and Training 10
Water Quality Monitoring 10
Water Quality Assessment 11
Reporting & Corrective Actions 11
Other Inspection Findings 12
13
14
15
5
236
OWNER INFORMATION:
7883
AMTELECOM PARKWAY
FOREST
ON N0N 1J0
Street Number:
Street Name:
Unit Identifier:
City:
Province: Postal Code:
Company Name: LAMBTON SHORES,THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
INSPECTION DETAILS:
EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Site Name:
Site Address: LAMBTON SHORES
County/District: Lambton Shores
MOE District/Area Office: Sarnia District
Health Unit: LAMBTON HEALTH UNIT Health Unit:
Conservation Authority N/A
MNR Office: N/A
Category: Large Municipal Residential
Inspection Type: Unannounced
Inspection Number: 1-BD0MF
Date of Inspection: Jul 10, 2014
Date of Previous Inspection: Jun 05, 2013
Site Number: 260006568
COMPONENTS DESCRIPTION
East Lambton Shores Distribution System Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
Lambton Shores is supplied by two municipal water systems the East and the West Lambton
Shores Distribution Systems. In order to understand this large municipal residential system, one has
to appreciate its relationship with area water systems.
The easterly part of Lambton Shores receives water from the Lake Huron Primary Water Supply
System (LHPWSS). While Grand Bend can be supplied through a metered connection from the water
treatment plant, the valve to that chamber is normally closed. Currently, this system primarily receives
water through a connection to twin mains near B Line in South Huron.
Comments:
1. B Line Valve Chamber Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
From the connection to the LHPWSS, the Municipality has a 600mm main on B Line that enters a
chamber housing an adjustable pressure-reducing valve. The chamber also houses a flow meter.
Comments:
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 237
2. Hwy 21 and Grand Bend Valve Chambers Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
A 600mm main connects to a second chamber near Pinetree Drive and Hwy 21 that houses a flow
meter and a control valve that regulates flow based upon the water level in the Northville Tower. The
SCADA system allows for monitoring and online operation of the control valve.
A flow meter monitors the discharge to the main extending southwest along Hwy 21 to Northville/Port
Franks where a 450mm main branches off to supply the Northville Elevated Tower.
The Hwy 21 Valve Chamber is also connected to a neighbouring chamber, equipped with a pressure
reduce valve, that supplies the 350mm main running north along Hwy 21 to serve Grand Bend and
area.
Neither pressure nor flows are monitored within this chamber. Flows into the Grand Bend area are
estimated by subtracting flow directed toward Northville from the total flows passing through the B
Line chamber.
Comments:
3. Northville Water Tower Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The property housing Lambton Shores Northville Office is also the site of the 3,725m3 Northville (or
Bosanquet) Water Tower that was built in 1997. The Tower maintains pressure in Port Franks, along
the shoreline between Ipperwash and the Hwy 21 Valve Chamber, and down to the Northville Booster
Pumping Station.
The Tower is equipped with a standby generator in the event of power failure, and a chlorination
system to maintain the residual around 1.55mg/L. The residual is continuously monitored by an
analyser that is equipped with an alarm, and the SCADA system housed in the municipal building
records the water level and chlorine residual.
The Municipality also operates a bulk water filling station at this location.
From the Tower, a 300mm line runs south along Northville Road delivering water to the Northville
Booster Pumping Station.
Comments:
4. Emergency Interconnection with LAWSS Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
From Northville, the main reduces in size to 450mm, and it continues southwest to serve the
Ipperwash area. This main is interconnected to the 300mm main supplied by the Lambton Area Water
Supply System, in a chamber near Hwy 21 and West Ipperwash Road.
Comments:
5. Northville Booster Pumping Station Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
An above ground water booster pumping station, located at 7810 Ravenswood Line, is equipped with
two centrifugal pumps, a standby generator, and pressure sensors.
The Station receives water from the Northville Tower, and the pumps (that normally alternate between
active and standby duty), are used to fill the Arkona Standpipe via a 300mm main.
Comments:
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
6. Arkona Stand Pipe Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
The 1,300m3 standpipe is equipped with level controls to trigger the Northville Booster Pumping
Station. Once filled, standpipe maintains pressure for Arkona and the rural area back to the Northville
Booster Pump Station.
(A chlorine residual analyzer at the Arkona Sewage Treatment Plant is used to monitor the chlorine
residual in the distribution system.)
Comments:
7. Coultis Road Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type:
This facility is also known as the Thedford and the Gordon Road Reservoir and Booster Pumping
Station. It includes a 909m3 underground reservoir southwest of the intersection of Ravenswood Line
and Coultis Road. The Reservoir is gravity fed from the Northville Elevated Tower via a 250mm main
and a control valve in a chamber just ahead of the reservoir.
The Reservoir discharges by gravity to a 227m3 well in a booster station on the east side of Coultis
Road. The Station is equipped with four vertical turbine pumps to maintain pressure in the community
of Thedford. The pumps are staged to run as pressure decreases, with the fourth pump coming on for
fire flows.
The Station is equipped with a standby generator, and the discharge is equipped with flow and
pressuring monitoring equipment. The Station is also equipped with standby chlorination equipment,
and a chlorine residual analyser.
There is a 150mm line coming from Parkhill (which also receives water from the LHPWSS) that can
be used as an emergency supply. As there are a few customers supplied directly from this line, a
19mm connection from the line to the reservoir is left open to maintain water quality.
Comments:
MOE DWS Mapping Site (Name):
Type: Sub Type: DWS Mapping Point
Not Applicable
Comments:
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
INSPECTION SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
*
The primary focus of this inspection is to confirm compliance with Ministry of the
Environment legislation and authorizing documents such as Orders and Certificates of
Approval, as well as evaluating conformance with Ministry drinking water related policies
and guidelines during the inspection period.
This report is based on an inspection of a "stand alone connected distribution system".
This type of system receives treated water from a separately owned "donor" system. This
report contains all of the elements required to assess key compliance and conformance
issues associated with a "receiver" system to ensure that the system was not being
operated or managed in a "deficient" condition, as defined under O. Reg. 172/03. The report
does not contain items associated with the inspection of the donor system, such as source
waters, intakes/wells and treatment facilities.
This drinking water system is subject to the legislative requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 2002 (SDWA) and regulations made therein, including Ontario Regulation 170/03,
"Drinking Water Systems" (O.Reg.170/03). This inspection has been conducted pursuant to
Section 81 of the SDWA.
Your system was chosen for a focused inspection during this inspection cycle because
inspection findings over the past three years were such that the number of violations were
minimal or non existent, there were few or no orders issued to you that were of significance
in the maintenance of water potability and there were no deficiencies as defined in O. Reg.
172/03. The undertaking of a focused inspection at your drinking water system during this
year's inspection cycle does not ensure that a similar type of inspection will be conducted
at any point in the future.
On July 10, 2014, the Officer conducted an unannounced inspection, and met with the
Municipality's Operating Authority to obtain documents for review.
.
TREATMENT PROCESSES
*
The owner had ensured that all equipment was installed in accordance with Schedule A and
Schedule C of the Drinking Water Works Permit.
Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment, replacement or alteration of a
municipal drinking water system must be done in accordance with a Drinking Water Works Permit.
Schedule A of the Municipalitys Permit identifies the use of treatment at two locations in the East
Lambton Shores Distribution System.
The Operating Authority confirmed there have been no changes to the chlorination equipment used
at either the Northville Elevated Tower, or the Coultis Road Reservoir and Booster Pumping
Station. The sodium hypochlorite feed system at the Northville Tower consists of two chemical
metering pumps (one on duty, one on standby) that draw from a 200L tank, and the sodium
hypochlorite feed system at the Coultis Road facility consists of one chemical metering pump that
draws from a 110L tank.
.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
TREATMENT PROCESSES
*
The owner/operating authority was in compliance with the requirement to prepare Form 1
documents as required by their Drinking Water Works Permit during the inspection period.
Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment or alteration of municipal drinking
water systems must comply with the applicable approval or permit, including the completion of a
Form 1 in response to the addition or alteration of watermains.
The Officer reviewed examples of the documents, and noted they appeared to be complete.
.
*
Records confirmed that the water treatment equipment which provides chlorination or
chloramination for secondary disinfection purposes was operated so that at all times and all
locations in the distribution system the chlorine residual was never less than 0.05 mg/l free
or 0.25 mg/l combined.
Section 1-5 in Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the Municipalitys treatment
facilities/equipment to be capable of providing a free chlorine residual of 0.2mg/L at all locations
within the distribution system. Further, Section 1-2 requires the equipment to be operated so that
the free chlorine residual is never less than 0.05mg/L.
The East Lambton Shores Distribution System has continuous analysers in Arkona, at the
Northville Tower, Northville Booster Station and at the Thedford Pumping Station. These analysers
are used for both compliance and/or operational purposes.
Data for chlorine residual readings captured in Arkona were not available as 5-minute data;
however, the Operating Authority did provide the daily minimum, average and maximum readings.
As such, the Officer cross-referenced dates with values below the low alarm set point with logs
entries. In almost every instance, the low readings stemmed from abnormal readings recorded
during meter calibrations.
The Officer also assessed the 5-minute data for the three channels the Operating Authority
provided. Again, he noted several momentary spikes that could be discounted. The Officer also
noted the readings from the Northville Booster Station froze at the end of March. Log records
indicated operators found the instrument was not providing reliable readings, and they opted to
take the unit offline until the unit was serviced in June.
.
*
The Operator-in-Charge had ensured that all equipment used in the processes was
monitored, inspected, and evaluated.
To ensure the treatment process equipment is performing appropriately, Section 26(2) of O. Reg.
128/04 requires operators-in-charge to monitor the equipment, and to document its operating
status. In this case, the Municipalitys SCADA system is of assistance in documenting the
performance of various components of the system. Further, the Operation Logs document various
maintenance activities performed by operators.
Lastly, the Officer understands the Operating Authority makes use of a computerized maintenance
management system to generate weekly work orders identifying facilities and equipment requiring
work, along with details of the work to be performed. (An examination of this system was not
included within the scope of this inspection.)
.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
*
The secondary disinfectant residual was measured as required for the distribution system.
The East Lambton Shores Distribution System has four continuous analysers. These analysers
are used for both compliance and/or operational purposes. I.e., while readings from a discharge
where treatment is provided cannot be used to satisfy the chlorine residual monitoring
requirements in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, all of these readings are of value when assessing
the performance of a system.
(Operators also perform tests with handheld analysers when collecting samples from the
distribution system for microbiological testing.)
.
*
Operators were examining continuous monitoring test results and they were examining the
results within 72 hours of the test.
Section 6-5 in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires an examination of results captured by
continuous monitoring equipment within 72 hours of the tests. The Operating Authority's
documents indicated that operators usually begin each day by reviewing the SCADA trends and
printing a daily report. When abnormal values arise, the Officer noted the daily reports usually
included brief explanations, and occasionally printouts of the daily trends.
.
*
All continuous monitoring equipment utilized for sampling and testing required by O. Reg.
170/03, or approval or order, were equipped with alarms or shut-off mechanisms that
satisfied the standards described in Schedule 6.
Subsections 6-5(1)5i and 6-5(1.1)1 in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the use of alarms or
interlocks. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that in the event of a malfunction, loss of
power, etc., a certified operator will take prompt and appropriate action to resolve the concern, or
an interlock stop the flow of water to consumers.
The Officer assessed both prescribed and other operational parameters monitored by this system.
A listing of these parameters, and the associated alarm set points, is appended to this report.
.
*
Continuous monitoring equipment that was being utilized to fulfill O. Reg. 170/03
requirements was performing tests for the parameters with at least the minimum frequency
specified in the Table in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 and recording data with the
prescribed format.
Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes a minimum time interval for testing of
chlorine and turbidity by continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour).
Alternatively, where monitoring equipment tests more frequently, the monitoring equipment may
record the minimum, maximum, and the mean results for periods equal to the prescribed intervals.
The Operating Authority confirmed data from the continuous monitoring equipment captures data at
30-second intervals. The Operating Authority provided daily and monthly summary reports, and
had their consultant provide 5-minute data for review.
.
*
All continuous analysers were calibrated, maintained, and operated, in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions or the regulation.
Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires owners to ensure the accuracy of their
continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., chlorine residual, turbidity) through checks and, where
necessary, calibrations. (Besides the equipment referenced in Schedule 6 as requiring routine
calibration, the Ministry recommends owners check and calibrate all continuous monitoring
equipment in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.)
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
Log entries indicate operators are calibrating or assessing the continuous chlorine analyzers
several times each month. The Operating Authority noted that operators routinely calibrate their
handheld units, and compare results from the continuous analysers to results from handheld units
in order to ensure the continuous analysers are not drifting out of calibration.
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
*
Existing parts of the distribution system that were taken out of service for inspection, repair
or other activities that may lead to contamination, and all new parts of the distribution
system that came in contact with drinking water, were disinfected in accordance with
Schedule B, Condition 2.3 of the Drinking Water Works Permit.
Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment and alteration of municipal
drinking water systems must comply with the Permit which includes the disinfection of the system
components that are added, altered or repaired in accordance with an AWWA standard (e.g., C651,
C652 and/or C653), or an equivalent. (Note: Procedures differing significantly from the AWWA
standards may require approval by a Director designated under Part V of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.) Consequently, the Overall Responsible Operator should ensure operators and contractors
record sufficient details to permit them to confirm compliance.
The Officer noted entries regarding repairs. Many were related to repairs of curb stops, valves that
can be used to isolate a premise from the municipal system.
.
*
Based on the records available the owner was able to maintain proper pressures in the
distribution system.
The Ministry strongly recommends the industry standard calling for the maintenance of a minimum
residual pressure in the distribution system of 140kPa (20psi) during peak flow. Further, the
Ministrys Drinking Water Works Permit prohibits additions or alterations that would adversely
affect a distribution systems ability to maintain a minimum pressure of 140kPa at ground level at
all points in the distribution system under maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions.
Water is supplied to the East Lambton Shores Distribution System under pressure by the Lake
Huron Primary Water Supply System. To maintain pressure, the Municipality makes use of
elevated storage at the northern and southern ends of this system, and two pumping stations in the
middle. The Municipalitys SCADA system captures pressure data at the valve chamber supplying
their system and at the two booster stations. Further, the system captures water level data at the
two elevated storage facilities.
(Note: Several months of data were unavailable for the Northville Booster Station. Records
indicate that the two pressure transmitters were irreparably damaged by lightening.)
Based on the available information, the Officer did not note evidence of significant pressure drops
in the system.
.
OPERATIONS MANUALS
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
OPERATIONS MANUALS
*
The operations and maintenance manuals contained plans, drawings and process
descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient operation of the system.
Section 28 of O. Reg. 128/04 requires owners and operating authorities to ensure operators and
maintenance personnel have ready access to comprehensive operations and maintenance
manuals that contain plans, drawings and process descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient
operation of the system. As such, these documents should encompass all of the subsystems to
which they apply, and they should include up-to-date descriptions and plan/drawings.
As noted in the Officers previous inspection, the Operating Authority has a manual readily
available. The manual includes a chronology of modifications to the document.
.
*
The operations and maintenance manuals did meet the requirements of the Permit and
Licence or Approval issued under Part V of the SDWA.
Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the use and operation of municipal drinking water
systems must comply with the applicable licence. As a number of the required elements are
addressed within other sections of this report, the Officer's scope was limited to ensuring the
availability of the Licence and Permit, and procedures for,
- monitoring and recording parameters related to the performance of the water system,
- the operation and maintenance of treatment and/or monitoring equipment, and
- dealing with complaints and emergencies.
.
LOGBOOKS
*
Records or other record keeping mechanisms confirmed that operational testing not
performed by continuous monitoring equipment was being done by a certified operator,
water quality analyst, or person who suffices the requirements of O. Reg. 170/03 7-5.
Pursuant to Section 7-5 in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, only qualified personnel (e.g., certified
operators or water quality analysts) appear to be performing operational tests.
.
SECURITY
*
The owner had provided security measures to protect components of the drinking-water
system.
The Ministry recommends owners adopt various measures to secure their supplies, and treatment
and storage facilities from intruders and potential sources of contamination. The Municipality has
varying levels of security associated with the different components of its system. For example, the
Northville Water Tower is located on property that is occupied by the Northville municipal office. As
such, personnel are present during the day. Further, access to the Tower is controlled by a key
code activated gate to restrict vehicular access to the tower. Some components like the Arkona
Water Tower have perimeter fencing, while others have partial fencing. All facilities had locked
entrances.
Lastly, the Operating Authority reported that they have not had problems with vandalism, and the
Officer is unaware of any events or damage suggesting a need for additional security measures.
.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING
*
The overall responsible operator had been designated for each subsystem.
O. Reg. 128/04 prescribes a system for classifying municipal residential systems. The Regulation
includes a corresponding system for certifying operators. Further, Section 23(1) requires the
appointment of an "overall responsible operator" for each subsystem.
The Operating Authority has appointed an "overall responsible operator". Further, the Operating
Authority has appointed one backup for the "overall responsible operator".
.
*
Operators in charge had been designated for all subsystems which comprised the drinking-
water system.
Section 25(1) of O. Reg. 128/04 requires the appointment of one or more "operator-in-charge" for
each subsystem. The Operating Authority advised they permit all qualified operators to serve in
this capacity. When acting as an operator-in-charge, they have directed their operators to note the
same in the logbook.
.
*
Only certified operators made adjustments to the treatment equipment.
The Operating Authority advised that pursuant to Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03, subsection 1-
2(2)5, only individuals who are certified as Drinking-Water System Operators under O. Reg.
128/04, are permitted to make adjustments to the treatment equipment. Further, the Operating
Authority confirmed that any new personnel who are awaiting receipt of certification are not
authorized by them to adjustment the treatment equipment.
.
*
All microbiological water quality monitoring requirements for distribution samples were
being met.
Results reported by the Municipalitys laboratory indicate the number of distribution samples
collected for testing microbiological parameters exceeds the minimum number required by Section
10-2 of Schedule 10 in O. Reg. 170/03.
.
*
All trihalomethanes water quality monitoring requirements prescribed by legislation were
conducted within the required frequency.
Results reported by the Municipalitys laboratory indicate operators have been collecting
distribution samples for testing trihalomethanes as prescribed in Section 13-6 of Schedule 13 and
Section 6-1.1(4) of Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 (i.e., at least once every three months with a
minimum of 60 days between samples and a maximum of 120 days between samples).
.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
*
All sampling requirements for lead prescribed by schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 were
being met.
Per the attached summary, samples were collected during the review period. The Officer
understands the Municipality is eligible to collect distribution samples at a reduced frequency. E.g.,
Schedule 15.1 in O. Reg. 170/03 requires Standard sampling per Section 15.1-4 until a system
qualifies for Reduced sampling per Section 15.1-5.
Note: If not more than 10 per cent of the results exceed half the limit for lead, the collection of
plumbing samples can be discontinued altogether. Distribution sampling would continue to be
required at a reduced frequency and numbers per Sections 15.1-5(9) and (10).
.
*
Records confirmed that chlorine residual tests were being conducted at the same time and
at the same location that microbiological samples were obtained.
Sampling records indicate operators test the chlorine residual at the same time and location they
are collecting microbiological samples as required by Section 6-3(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg.
170/03.
.
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
*
The audit samples collected by the inspector met the applicable Ontario Drinking Water
Quality Standards and/or the aesthetic objectives or operation guidelines.
The Ministry's laboratory confirmed they did not detect any coliform bacteria, including Escherichia
coli, in the Officers audit sample.
.
*
Records show that water sample results taken during the review period met the Ontario
Drinking Water Quality Standards (O. Reg. 169/03), with the following exceptions:
Per the summary of reported sample results appended to this report, the Municipalitys laboratory
noted 4 adverse test microbiological results during the inspection review period. The sample
station in front of the standpipe in Arkona was the source of two adverse test results. Despite
flushing, occasionally false positives can arise from insects taking up residence in the sample
stations. In light of adverse results in July of previous years, the Operating Authority has opted to
discontinue using this station in the summer.
.
*
Corrective actions (as per Schedule 17) had been taken to address adverse conditions,
including any other steps that were directed by the Medical Officer of Health.
Schedule 17 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes generic corrective actions in response to adverse test
results and/or indicators of improper disinfection including consulting with, and taking any
additional measures prescribed by the Medical Officer of Health (Health Unit). (Reporting and
corrective action related to lead sampling is discussed within Schedule 15.1)
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
Following the last inspection, samples collected June 25, 2013 and August 6, 2013 from the Arkona
Water Tower tested adverse. A sample August 8, 2013 on Dietrich Crescent in Grand Bend tested
adverse, and a sample collected December 18, 2013 on West Parkway Drive in Ipperwash tested
adverse. In each instance, corrective action was taken. (Similarly, sampling was conducted
following damage to mains in the Grand Bend and Thedford area on April 8, 2014 and July 17,
2014.)
.
*
All required notifications of adverse water quality incidents were immediately provided as
per O. Reg. 170/03 16-6.
.
*
All changes to the system registration information were provided within ten (10) days of the
change.
After drinking water systems were registered, Section 10.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 required owners to
notify the Director of any changes to the profile information within 10 days. The Officer provided
the attached Drinking Water System Dossier, and asked about any recent changes to the
Municipalitys profile.
The Operating Authority noted the Ministry should not have removed Dale Wright as the Operating
Authority's "Alternate Contact". Further, they provided a copy of an earlier profile listing Rick Marsh
as the "Primary Contact" and Dale Wright as the "Alternate Contact". The Officer has forwarded
this information to the Ministry's registration team.
.
OTHER INSPECTION FINDINGS
*
The following issues were also noted during the inspection:
The "Summary of Best Practices Issues and Recommendations" section at the end of this report
includes recommendations related to concerns outside the scope of the specific questions raised
during the inspection.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED
This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the
inspection period, as well as actions required to address these issues. Further details pertaining to these
items can be found in the body of the inspection report.
Not Applicable
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICE ISSUES
This section provides a summary of all recommendations and best practice issues identified during the
inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. In the
interest of continuous improvement in the interim, it is recommended that owners and operators develop an
awareness of the following issues and consider measures to address them.
The following issues were also noted during the inspection:
Northville Booster Station Instrumentation Failure
As the Municipality encountered the loss of a chlorine analyzer and two pressure transmitters at this
location, they brought in an electrical engineer to evaluate the grounding/surge protection. To ensure the
reliability of their monitoring system, we would encourage them to continue to work to resolve any
electrical issues.
Recommendation:
1.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
SIGNATURES
Inspected By: Signature: (Provincial Officer):
Paul Tersteege
Reviewed & Approved By: Signature: (Supervisor):
Gary Johnson
Review & Approval Date:
Note: This inspection does not in any way suggest that there is or has been compliance with
applicable legislation and regulations as they apply or may apply to this facility. It is, and remains,
the responsibility of the owner and/or operating authority to ensure compliance with all applicable
legislative and regulatory requirements.
Inspection Report
Site #: 260006568
EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
2014.07.31
15:38:40
-04'00'
250
251
Ministry of the Environment - Inspection Summary Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2014-2015)
DWS Name: EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DWS Number: 260006568
DWS Owner: Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality Of
Municipal Location: Lambton Shores
Category: Large Municipal Residential System
Type Of Inspection: Adhoc
Inspection Date: July 10, 2014
Ministry Office: Sarnia District

Maximum Question Rating: 342

Inspection Module Non-Compliance Rating
Treatment Processes 0 / 60
Distribution System 0 / 21
Operations Manuals 0 / 28
Logbooks 0 / 14
Certification and Training 0 / 28
Water Quality Monitoring 0 / 51
Reporting & Corrective Actions 0 / 49
Treatment Process Monitoring 0 / 91
TOTAL 0 / 342

Inspection Risk Rating 0.00%

FINAL INSPECTION RATING: 100.00%
Inspection Rating Record Generated On 31-JUL-14 (Inspection ID: 1-BD0MF).
R:\Public\DW\DW-08 Compliance\Shared Comp Data\Inspection Ratings 1415\Gary Johnson\1415 EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1-BD0MF.pdf
252
253

254
Appendix 3 - Conti nuous Monitoring Tags and Alarm Set Points
255
Continuous Monitoring: Parameters and Set Points

East Lambton Shores Distribution System

Parameter Location Tag Low Alarm High Alarm Units
Free Chlorine Residual Northville ET LSNEAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L
Free Chlorine Residual Northville BS LSNBAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L
Free Chlorine Residual Thedford PS LSTPAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L
Free Chlorine Residual Arkona Distribution LSAWAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L
Pressure Hwy 21 VC Inlet LSGVPIT002 350 1,100 kPa
Pressure Hwy 21 VC Outlet LSGVPIT001 250 1,000 kPa
Pressure Northville BS Inlet LSNBPIT001 140 1,000 kPa
Pressure Northville BS Outlet LSNBPIT002 180 1,200 kPa
Pressure Thedford PS LSTPPIT001 180 1,000 kPa
Flow B Line VC LSGVFIT001 -- -- L/s
Flow Hwy 21 VC LSGVFIT002 -- -- L/s
Flow Thedford PS LSTPFIT001 -- -- L/s
Water Level Northville ET LSNELIT001 7.0 12.0 m
Water Level Thedford PS LSTPLIT001 2.5 3.4 m
Water Level Arkona SP LSARLIT001 27.0 32.0 m

256
257
Summary of Reported Results
Mi nistry of the Environment
Safe Drinking Water Branch
Category: LMRS
Source: Distribution
MOE Area: Southwestern Region, Sarnia District
DW System: 260006568, East Lambton Shores Distribution System
Health Unit: Lambton Health Unit
Microbiological - Number of Samples Collected Each Month
Location: Distribution:East Lambton Shores Distribution System
Month EC TC HPC HPC/EC
Type: Distributed Drinking Water Filter: >= J an 1, 2013
Yes 2014 May 64 64 24 38%
Yes 2014 Apr 80 80 28 35%
Yes 2014 Mar 70 70 26 37%
Yes 2014 Feb 64 64 24 38%
Yes 2014 J an 56 56 22 39%
Yes 2013 Dec 86 86 30 35%
Yes 2013 Nov 64 64 24 38%
Yes 2013 Oct 66 66 25 38%
Yes 2013 Sep 77 77 29 38%
Yes 2013 Aug 76 76 24 32%
Yes 2013 J ul 80 80 30 38%
Yes 2013 J un 70 70 26 37%
Yes 2013 May 74 74 27 36%
Yes 2013 Apr 80 80 30 38%
Yes 2013 Mar 64 64 24 38%
Yes 2013 Feb 64 64 24 38%
Yes 2013 J an 86 86 32 37%
Microbiological - Exceedances
Sampled EC TC HPC Sample ID
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes 2013-Dec-16 0 1 10 < 123E6 DW WEST PARKWAY DRIVE
Yes 2013-Aug-12 0 1 10 < 153A8 DW DIETRICK CRES SS
Yes 2013-Aug-6 0 11 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2013-Jun-25 0 17 10 < 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2012-Sep-10 0 1 123DC DW LAMBTON MUSEUM
Yes 2011-Jul-5 1 1 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2011-May-3 0 1 10 < 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP
Yes 2011-May-3 0 11 10 < 153A8 DW DIETRICK CRES SS
Yes 2011-May-3 0 2 10 < 1ACBB DW THEDFORD RESERVOIR SS
Yes 2011-May-2 0 22 10 < 123E6 DW WEST PARKWAY DRIVE
Yes 2010-Jul-27 1 1 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2009-Jul-30 0 1 RESAMPLE 123C7 DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2009-Jul-28 0 21 123C7 DW ARKONA TOWER
Yes 2008-Dec-22 11 11 10 < 123C6 DW ARKONA WPCP
Page 1 of 3 260006568, East Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary
258
Trihalomethanes Samples
Sampled Sample ID Results Days Elapsed
260006568
Filter: >= J an 1, 2013
Yes 2014-Apr-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 34.0UG/L 85
Yes 2014-J an-20 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 33.0UG/L 97
Yes 2013-Oct-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 52.0UG/L 98
Yes 2013-J ul-09 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 47.0UG/L 91
Yes 2013-Apr-09 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 33.0UG/L 84
Yes 2013-J an-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 31.0UG/L
Lead - Distribution Samples
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 3 0.32 0.21 2013-Dec-15 2014-Apr-15
Yes to 3 0.17 0.10 2011-J un-15 2011-Oct-15
Yes to 3 0.29 0.21 2010-Dec-15 2011-Apr-15
Yes to 8 4.45 0.90 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
17 4.45 0.52 Summary:
Lead - Non-Residential Plumbing Samples
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 4 0.88 0.39 2013-Dec-15 2014-Apr-15
Yes to 4 0.94 0.51 2011-J un-15 2011-Oct-15
Yes to 4 0.71 0.58 2010-Dec-15 2011-Apr-15
Yes to 8 1.95 1.03 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
20 1.95 0.71 Summary:
Lead - Private Residential Samples
Filter: >= J an 1, 2008
Yes to 40 1.14 0.29 2013-Dec-15 2014-Apr-15
Yes to 40 1.53 0.35 2011-J un-15 2011-Oct-15
Yes to 40 4.71 0.53 2010-Dec-15 2011-Apr-15
Yes to 80 4.38 0.50 2008-J un-15 2008-Oct-15
200 4.71 0.43 Summary:
259
Laboratories testing Routine Parameters
Yes Chemical/Physical 2011-Mar-17 2014-Apr-03 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Inorganic Chemical 2008-Sep-14 2014-Apr-10 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Microbiological 2008-Jan-02 2008-May-27 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Organic Chemical 2008-Jan-15 2014-Apr-15 and Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield
Yes Microbiological 2008-Jan-26 2014-May-27 and Sgs Environmental Services - London
260
261
Contacts
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-243-1400
Fax:
519-243-3500
Email:
bkittmer@lambtonshores.ca
Name:
Address:
Forest, ON N0N 1J 0
Role:
Owner
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-243-1400
Fax:
519-243-3500
Email:
jwolfe@lambtonshores.ca
Name:
J eff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager
Address:
Forest, ON N0N 1J 0
Role:
Owner
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-527-1004
Fax:
519-527-0295
Email:
joe.arnold@ch2m.com
Name:
J oe Arnold, Senior Project Manager
Address:
30 Welsh Street
Seaforth, ON N0K 1W0
Role:
Overall Responsible Operator
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
richard.marsh@ch2m.com
Name:
Rick Marsh, Senior Project Manager
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Role:
Operating Authority
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
shawn.young@ch2m.com
Name:
Shawn Young, Project Manager Intern
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Role:
Operating Authority
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-786-2421
Fax:
519-786-2433
Email:
dale.wright@ch2m.com
Name:
Dale Wright, Lead Operator
Address:
7550 Brush Road
Role:
Operating Authority
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-383-8331 ext 3507
Fax:
519-383-7092
Email:
chad.ikert@county-lambton.on.ca
Name:
Chad Ikert, Public Health Manager
Address:
160 Exmouth Street
Role:
Public Health
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-383-8331 ext 3576
Fax:
519-383-7092
Email:
theresa.warren@county-lambton.on.ca
Name:
Theresa Warren, Health Inspector
Address:
160 Exmouth Street
Role:
Public Health
mber:
1
Company:
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Phone:
519-245-3710
Fax:
519-245-3348
Email:
gsankar@scrca.on.ca
Name:
Girish Sankar, Water Resources Engineer
Address:
205 Mill Pond Crescent
Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9
Role:
Source Protection
mber:
1
Company:
Phone:
519-383-3797
Fax:
519-336-4280
Email:
paul.tersteege@ontario.ca
Name:
Paul TerSteege, Water Inspector
Address:
1094 London Road
Sarnia, ON N7S 1P1
Role:
Compliance - SDWA
262




RE: Request from the Junior B Predators for a Licensed Area at the Shores
Recreation Centre

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 67-2014 regarding a Request from the
Junior B Predators for a Licensed Area at the Shores
Recreation Centre be received; and

THAT the request received from the Predators Hockey Club
be approved with the following stipulations:
The licensed area is restricted to the site plan
provided (Attachment 1 to this report); and
Hours of operation are limited to one half hour
prior to the game starting to the 10:00 minute mark
(halfway through) of the third period; and
The licensed area must abide by the Municipal
Alcohol Policy; and.
The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of
Agreement found in Attachment 2.

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report presents a housekeeping request from the Lambton Shores Predators
Junior B Hockey Club for a licensed area during their home games hosted at the Shores
Recreation Centre. Approval for the licensed area has been granted to the Club for the
past three seasons. The Club is again seeking permission to offer this service during
their home games.

BACKGROUND

The Lambton Shores Predators Junior B Club is continuously looking for ways to
generate revenue to offset the expenses incurred with operating the team. One venture
that the Club requests Councils approval for annually is the option of operating a
licensed bar area within the Shores Recreation Centre during their home games.

263
The Lambton Shores Predators have been granted approval since 2011 to operate a
licensed area within the Shores Recreation Centre during their home games, subject to
annual review. Each season, the Predators have attempted to source a local service
club to operate their bar, with the service club obtaining the permits and insurance.
Unfortunately, the hockey club has not been able to form an agreement and therefore,
has not yet operated a license area during home games.

The Predators are again requesting Councils permission in an attempt to operate a
licensed area for the 2014/2015 season. Attachment 1 shows the site plan approved by
Council for the licensed area in previous years. The same area has been requested for
2014, and the Predators plan to use their storage locker under the stands to store any
items required to host a bar. Games are typically played on Saturday or Sunday
evenings.

Staff has consulted with the municipalitys insurers to address any concerns they may
have with the agreement. The agreement has been amended to reflect those concerns.


Council could consider not granting approval for the licensed area, however, this is not
recommended as similar approvals have been granted in the past to Junior B hockey
and Senior A hockey clubs upon request.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Staff recommends that Council approve the request received from the Predators
Hockey Club with the following stipulations:
The licensed area is restricted to the site plan provided in Attachment 1; and
Hours of operation are limited to one half hour prior to the game starting to the
10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period; and
The licensed area must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy; and.
The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in
Attachment 2.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact to Lambton Shores resulting from this request. The
Predators are responsible for set up and take down of the proposed area.

CONSULTATION

Staff provided a copy of the draft agreement to the municipal insurance company and
reviewed the request internally.

264
Attachment 2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made this ____ day of ______________ 20__

BETWEEN:
_____________________________
hereinafter called the Club OF THE FIRST PART

- AND

hereinafter called the Municipality OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Club is desirous of using space at

[ ] The Shores Recreation Centre

[ ] The Legacy Centre

for the purposes of serving alcohol; (the Licensed Area)

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed expedient to outline the roles and responsibilities of
each of the parties with respect to this usage;

NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. The Municipality hereby grants permission to the Club to enter, occupy and use
the licensed area for the specific purpose of serving alcoholic beverages in
accordance with the terms set out herein.

a) The Club is responsible for obtaining a Special Occasions Permit
(SOP) from the LCBO 30 days prior to the event and providing
proof to the Municipality that the license has been obtained.
b) The Club must provide proof of insurance for such events to the
Municipality two (2) weeks prior to the date of the event.
c) The Club must abide by the Alcohol Policy set in place by the
Municipality. An authorized person representing the Club must
review the policy with municipal staff and must sign off on the policy
at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of the event. The
Municipality will provide signage that must be posted in the licensed
area during operation.
d) The Club is responsible for supplying and storing their own
alcoholic beverages. Storage must be secure and only accessible
by the people operating the licensed area.
e) The Club is responsible for the set up of the licensed area. It will
be inspected by arena staff prior to the sale of any alcohol.
265
f) The licensed area must be clearly defined with ropes and the points
of entry must be manned with security. Alcohol will not be
permitted beyond these boundaries.
g) The Club must provide the Municipality with a copy of the servers
SmartServe card (includes their name and SmartServe number).
h) Patrons of the licensed area must be 19 years of age or older to
purchase and/or consume alcoholic beverages. The Club and/or
arena staff reserves the right to request identification from any
patron looking younger than 19 years of age. Arena staff reserves
the right to eject anyone under the legal drinking age of 19 years
who is observed to be consuming alcohol on the premises.
i) The Club will not serve more than two (2) alcoholic beverages to a
patron at one time and reserves the right to limit service to one (1)
drink per patron (see Alcohol Policy 9.12).
j) The Club will not serve any patron whom is believed to be
intoxicated (see Alcohol Policy 9.19).
k) Patrons will not be permitted to bring in outside alcoholic beverages
of any kind into the arena and may be subject to eviction by doing
so.
l) Alcohol sales within the area will commence one half (1/2) hour
prior to the game starting and conclude at the 10:00 minute mark
(halfway through) of the third period.
m) Alcohol sales are not permitted if minor sports are utilizing the
arena before or after the game. Under these circumstances the
licensed area will only operate during the game time and will
promptly close at the end of it.
n) Municipal facilities are smoke free

2. ACCESS BY THE MUNICIPALITY
The municipality will have access to the storage facility for emergency purposes, or
for Health and Safety inspections.

5. TERM
The term of usage shall be for one (1) year, commencing _______________.

6. RENTAL FEE
There will be no rental fee for the use of the leased premises.

7. INSURANCE
The Club must provide proof of a minimum of $2,000,000 of General Liability
Insurance on a per occurrence basis issued by an insurance company licensed to
conduct business in the Province of Ontario and at minimum must include the
following:
a) Lambton Shores shown as an additional insured
b) Coverage for bodily injury and property damage
266
c) A Liquor Liability endorsement or have issued a separate alcohol
policy such as PAL
d) Tenants Legal Liability
e) Products and Completed Operations Liability
f) Personal Injury Liability
g) Advertisers Liability
h) 30 Day Notice of Cancellation Provision

A Certificate of Insurance evidencing coverage shall be provided to Lambton
Shores within 14 days of the event.

8. MAINTENANCE
The Municipality will be responsible for all external maintenance necessary to
protect the integrity of the building.

The Club will be responsible for the interior maintenance of the leased premise,
and all equipment and facilities for which it claims exclusive use. The Club will be
responsible for all damage to the Licensed Area that occurs, and is responsible to
notify the Community Services Department immediately upon becoming aware of
the damage.

9. SIGNAGE
The Municipality must approve all signage prior to it being erected anywhere on the
property. The Municipality is not responsible for any cost for the sign production or
special installation.

10. POSSESSORY INTEREST
It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that the agreement between the
two parties for occupancy by the Club does not create a possessory interest or any
other interest in real property, and the property shall remain the sole property of the
Municipality.

11. NOTICE OF TERMINATION
The Municipality has the right to terminate this agreement immediately if the Club
fails to abide by the terms and conditions outlined above. This decision will be left to
the discretion of the Director of Community Services or their designate.

The Municipality agrees that a notice to terminate the Lease as described above
shall be delivered or mailed to:

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

267
If the Club wishes to terminate this agreement 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 prior to each anniversary date or to the termination date. The
Club agrees and acknowledges that a notice to terminate the Lease as described
above shall be delivered or mailed to the offices of the Municipality at:

The Municipality of Lambton Shores
9575 Port Franks Road
R. R. # 1
Thedford, ON N0M 2N0 Attention: Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure

12. INDEMNITY

The Club shall indemnify and hold harmless the Municipality, its officers, members
of municipal council and employees from and against any liabilities, claims,
expenses, demands, loss, cost, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by
whomsoever made, directly or indirectly arising out of this Agreement attributable to
bodily injury, sickness, disease or death or to damage to or destruction of tangible
property including loss of revenue or incurred expense resulting from disruption of
service and caused by any acts or omissions of the Club, its officers, agents,
servants, employees, customers, invitees or licensees, or occurring in or on the
premises or any part thereof and, as a result of activities under this agreement.

By signing said terms and conditions noted in this Agreement, the representative(s)
indemnifies the Municipality of Lambton Shores of any liability for lost, stolen or
damaged property stored on said premises.

_____________________________
Lambton Shores Predators Jr B
President

_____________________________
Lambton Shores Predators Jr B
Representative

_____________________________
Date

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

_____________________________
Community Services Department Representative

_____________________________
268
Attachment 1

Site plan Requested licensed area for the Lambton Shores Predators Junior B
Club

269



FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk; Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services

RE: Windsor Park Association Various Traffic Requests

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 68-2014 regarding Windsor Park
Association Various Traffic Requests be received; and

THAT speed limits within Windsor Park be reduced to 40
km/h; and

THAT the north side of Bond Road, the west side of Wedd
Road and the roads at the intersection of Clarke and Dune
Drives be changed to No Parking anytime; and

THAT the set fine for infraction on Clarke Drive and Dune
Drive be increased to $ 65.00; and

THAT parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking
area be changed No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and

THAT staff prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration
at the September 18, 2014 meeting.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report presents various traffic related requests received from the Windsor Park
Association, and staffs evaluation and recommendation for each respective request.

BACKGROUND

Lambton Shores has received the following requests from the Windsor Park Association
for various traffic and parking related modifications in Windsor Park in Port Franks:

1. Reduce the speed limit on the streets within Windsor Park by 10 km/hr (i.e. from
50 to 40 km/hr);

2. Install seasonal speed bumps on Bond Road at a point near the top of the hill
and on Sanderson Road about halfway between Bond and Wedd Roads;
270

3. Ban parking, 9 AM to 5 PM, along Windsor Park streets every day, not just on
weekends and Holidays; and,

4. Change the parking regulations for the public parking areas on Bond Road to
read No Parking- 11 PM to 6 AM.

Each of these requests and the options considered by staff are discussed in the next
section.


1. Speed Limit Request

Section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act provides a local road authority to change speed
limits of roadways under its jurisdiction. One of the many ways to create a safer road
environment is to provide credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of
drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. Recognizing that speed limits
have considerable influence on roadway safety and efficiency, the Transportation
Association of Canada (TAC) has developed guidelines to provide a systematic,
consistent, and repeatable process for establishing posted speed limits. When posted
speed limits are requested to be reviewed a traffic engineering study is conducted
based on the process established by TAC. This assessment primarily focuses on a
review of the road characteristics, including horizontal and vertical geometry, pedestrian
and cyclist use, roadside hazards, roadside parking, and existing accesses to the
roadway.

Staff has completed the necessary speed limit assessments the affected roads in
Windsor Park and has found that a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h is justified, but is
contingent upon roadside parking (request #3). If roadside parking remains permissible
in the area, the hazard rating for pedestrians, cyclists, and obstructions is higher than if
roadside parking is eliminated and justifies the speed limit change. If roadside parking is
eliminated, the pedestrian and cyclist risk is reduced as the shoulder of the road is now
available for travel, and a speed limit change is not justified based on the TAC
assessment.

Staff has shared these findings with the Windsor Park Association. After discussion, the
Association is in agreement with Staffs recommended parking changes (discussed
below) which means roadside parking will remain. As a result, staff is prepared to
recommend that a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h be approved.

2. Speed Bump Request

In 2013 seasonal speed bumps were installed at two locations within Windsor Park as a
pilot to determine if they would have the desired traffic calming effect. The speed bumps
were installed again in the spring of 2014; unfortunately the original speed bumps were
271
stolen on the Victoria Day Long weekend. This theft was reported to the OPP; however
the units have not been recovered.

The current request is for the original speed bumps to be reinstalled with the addition of
a third set of speed bumps.

Each location costs approximately $1,200 for the temporary units and is funded through
the Community Services operating budget. Staff did not plan for the purchase of three
locations in 2014 and presently there is not a budget item for this purchase. From a
practical perspective, the lag time for delivery of units ordered is several week and
corresponds to when the speed bumps would be removed for the season. To
accommodate this request, staff will include a budget item in the 2015 draft operating
budget.

3. Full Roadside Parking Ban within Windsor Park

One of the requests from the WPA was consideration of a full parking ban on Windsor
Park streets every day, not just on weekends and Holidays.

As noted above, the TAC calculation for speed limit reductions depends on whether or
not there is on street parking. If the on street parking was eliminated, the reduction in
speed from 50 km/h to 40 km/h could not be justified. When polled, the Windsor Park
Association favoured the reduced speed limit option over the parking ban.

Staff reviewed the current parking restrictions, and there are some changes that could
be incorporated that may improve pedestrian safety, and help further reduce parking
infractions in the area:

a) eliminate all parking on the lake side of Bond Road (currently there are a couple of
spots close to the beach parking area) and

b) change the restrictions at the corners of Wedd and Bond and also at Clarke and
Dune to No Parking anytime due to visibility issues ( see map attached).

c) There are provisions in the Lambton Shores parking by-law for increased fines for
parking infractions near the beach. These fines are in place for the Bond, Wedd and
Sanderson Road infractions only. The area for the higher fines could be extended to
include violations on Clarke and Dune Drives as well which would treat all roads
uniformly.

The Association has also requested by-law staff provide additional mid-week patrols of
the Windsor Park area during hot and sunny summer days, in addition to the existing
weekend patrol schedule. This request will be considered for the 2015 parking
enforcement season.

272

4. Bond Road Beach Parking Area Time Change

Staff can recommend that the parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking area
be changed FROM No Parking Midnight to 6 a.m. to No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.,
which will make it consistent with other beach area parking lots.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Staff recommends that a speed limit reduction from 50 km/h to 40 km/h be approved for
Windsor Park, and that parking restrictions are amended to prohibit parking on the north
side of Bond Road and the west side of Wedd Road, and that the prohibition at the
beach parking area be changed from midnight to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and that
the fines for all parking infractions in Windsor Park be set at $ 65.00.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Costs to the Municipality to accommodate these requests are primarily time and
material costs. The cost to install a new sign is approximately $100 which includes
purchase of a sign and operator time to install. The Municipality budgets for sign
purchase and installations within the annual operating budget, and the costs associated
with these requests can be accommodated within the approved 2014 operating budget.

CONSULTATION

Prior to the preparation of this report staff met with members of the Windsor Park
Association Board to discuss the various requests. Staff learned that the Association
has previously completed a survey of their membership to determine opinion on each of
the requests. The results of the survey were provided to staff for inclusion in this report:

WPA Survey Results
As requested, here are the results from last Februarys survey, sent to 52 of our
members who have email addresses. We have 2 members who do not use email
and they werent contacted. The 52 we contacted represent 58% of the 89
homes in Windsor Park.

We had 27 responses or 52% of those contacted although one member
responded to only 3 of the 4 questions.

The questions and responses were:

1) Should the speed limit on the streets within Windsor Park be reduced by
10 km/hr (i.e. from 50 to 40 km/hr) consistent with the 40 km/hr speed limit
on Port Franks Road, Superior Street, Riverside Drive and Outer Drive?

93% (25 of 27) responded in favour of reducing the speed limit to 40 km/hr.
273

2) Should weekday parking, 9 AM to 5 PM, be eliminated along Windsor
Park streets?

52% (14 of 27) responded in favour of eliminating weekday parking.

3) Would you support the creation of 6 additional designated parking spots
in Windsor Park (across from the Wedd Rd. beach access, as indicated on
the attached map) where the same parking rules would apply as are in
force for the 24 designated parking spots located at the Bond Rd. entrance
to Port Franks Beach?

70% (19 of 27) responded against adding additional parking spots.

4) Should the parking regulations on Bond Road be changed to read No
Parking- 11 PM to 6 AM (from the existing Midnight to 6 AM), consistent
with the beach parking regulations at Grand Bend and elsewhere in
Lambton Shores beach areas?

77% (20 of 26) responded in favour of not allowing parking after 11 pm.

Also, even though we didnt ask for comments several respondents took the time
to respond in detail to item 3. Virtually all the responses expressed safety
concerns if the additional parking spaces suggested were added.

Please advise if you have any further questions.

Bill MacDonald
President
Windsor Park Association

ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed parking restrictions in Windsor Park
274
275




RE: Speed Limit Review Richardson Drive, Ipperwash

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 69-2014 regarding Speed Limit Review
Richardson Drive, Ipperwash be received; and

THAT the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40
km/h and that staff prepare the necessary by-law for
consideration at the September 18, 2014 meeting.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report presents a summary of staffs review of a request to reduce the speed limit
on Richardson Drive in Ipperwash to 15 km/h.

BACKGROUND

Lambton Shores has received a request from the residents of Richardson Drive in
Ipperwash to reduce the speed limit on that street to 15 km/h. The residents have
signed a petition showing their support for the change.

One of the many ways to help create a safer road environment is to provide credible
posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its
surrounding area. The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) sets out the default speed limits for
various roadways in Section 128. Section 128.(1) designates a speed limit of 50 km/h
for built-up urban areas. Section 128. (2) provides a municipality with the ability to pass
a by-law to establish a speed limit that is different than what is set out in 128.(1) for
roadways under the municipalitys jurisdiction.

Recognizing that speed limits have considerable influence on roadway safety and
efficiency, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has developed guidelines to
provide a systematic, consistent, and repeatable process for establishing posted speed
limits. When posted speed limits are requested to be reviewed a traffic engineering
study is conducted based on the process established by TAC. This assessment
primarily focuses on a review of the road characteristics, including horizontal and
vertical geometry, pedestrian and cyclist use, roadside hazards, roadside parking, and
existing accesses to the roadway.
276

The requested speed limit for Richardson Drive is 15 km/h. Staff has completed the
necessary speed limit assessment this section of roadway and have found that a speed
limit of 15 km/h is not appropriate given the roadway characteristics. In addition, the
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) reports that operating speeds under 40
km/h are generally not practically achieved unless significant traffic calming measures
are implemented. Practitioner literature reports research findings that drivers will travel
at a speed at which they feel is safe given the particular characteristics of a roadway.
Simply posting a reduced speed limit with a desired speed has not been found to be
effective at reducing driver speeds.

Based on the TAC assessment for this section of roadway the lowest appropriate speed
limit to be established should be 40 km/h. Staff is recommending that Council support a
reduction to this limit.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Staff recommends that the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40 km/h and
that staff prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at the September 18, 2014
meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Costs to the Municipality to accommodate these requests are primarily time and
material costs. The cost to install a new sign is approximately $100 which includes
purchase of a sign and operator time to install. In this instance one sign will be required.
The Municipality budgets for sign purchase and installations within the annual operating
budget, and the costs associated with these requests can be accommodated within the
approved 2014 operating budget.

CONSULTATION

This report was circulated internally prior to approval.

277




RE: Tornado Clean-up Update

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 70-2014 regarding Tornado Response
Update be received for Councils information.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report is provided to Council as an update on the work to date regarding response
to the July 27, 2014 tornado, and work plans moving forward into September.

BACKGROUND

A two phase approach to the clean-up effort has been implemented:

Phase 1: Curb to Curb Clearance of Trees and Brush

Focus: immediately clear the travelled road way to allow for safe access by
emergency responders and safe use of the roadway.
This portion of the clean-up was completed July 31, 2014.

Phase 2: Clean Up of Road Allowance Beyond Curb + Collection of Residential
Brush

Focus: clear leaning trees and fallen brush within the road allowance outside the
limit of the curb to protect the municipal roadway.
At the July 31, Special Council meeting the focus of this phase was amended to
allow residents to pile brush in the road allowance for municipal collection.
An initial cut-off date for residential collection was set at August 17, 2014, subject to
re-evaluation. The cut-off date was subsequently extended to September 1, 2014.
Crews began the morning of July 31, 2014 on this task. Municipal crews were
committed for five 12-hour work days the week of August 4, and three 8-hour work
days per week the weeks of August 11 and August 18.
As of August 26, brush volumes are observed to be reducing, and only one day of
clean-up is forecasted for this week.
We forecast a three to five day effort the week of September 1 after the final week-
end for residential pick-up
278
Contract operators were hired to remove trees that were leaning over the road
allowance. Contractors are now focusing on removing hanging limbs that become
apparent as leaves die and contrast with the living canopy.
Lambton Shores has been fortunate to receive assistance in the work effort from
other local municipalities, including: Bluewater, Lambton County, Huron County,
Plympton-Wyoming and St. Clair Township.
The County of Lambton continues to provide manpower and equipment on an as-
needed basis.

Brush Drop-Off
A temporary location for residents to drop off storm damaged tree waste was
established at the Klondyke Sports Park. The temporary site will remain open to the
public until the end of September as the Municipality continues with its clean-up
efforts.
Brush and body wood that accumulates at the drop-off site will need to be managed
in the future. Several alternatives are currently being considered for the final form of
disposal.


None at this time. This report is presented for information only.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That the report be received for information.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Staff submitted an application to the Ontario Disaster Recovery Program (ODRAP) for
funding to assist with the onerous costs of the tornado related cleanup. To date we
have not received a decision. In discussions with other municipalities that have
submitted an application under the ODRAP program, the decision timeline varied;
however, it was on average 5 months before a decision was received.

The total estimated municipal costs of clean-up are $901,195.00 with $720,130.00
forecasted as eligible under ODRAP. Actual costs will be dependent upon the volume of
and type material that ultimately requires clean-up, and the cost to repair/replace
damaged road infrastructure.

CONSULTATION

Internally with staff.
279

Report TR-40-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014

TO: Mayor Weber and Council

FROM: Janet Ferguson, Treasurer

RE: Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and Small Communities Fund

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-40-2014 regarding the Ontario Community
Infrastructure Fund and Small Communities fund be received;
and

THAT the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction
project and the Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road
Reconstruction project are the identified projects for the
programs.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report will provide Council with information on the recently announced capital
infrastructure funding programs and projects considered.

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2014 the Province announced infrastructure funding for municipalities
under the permanent Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) and the Building
Canada Fund Small Communities Fund (BCF-SCF).

The OCIF program is delivered in two ways, one through a stable, predictable formula-
based funding model and one by an application-based method. The details on the
formula-based model will be provided by letter in September. The application-based
method requires that an expression of interest (EOI) identifying the project be submitted
by September 19, 2014. If the EOI passes the pre-screening, we will be notified in
October and asked to submit a full application in December. Final decisions are due in
January or February of 2015.

The SCF program only has one component which is an application process. The SCF
program has similar deadlines for submission and approval as noted above.

The funding parameters, amounts and levels of government are different for the
application based programs. A comparison of the two application based programs has
been provided in attachment 1.
280

In preparation to submit an expression of interest for both funding programs, the
Community Services Department has compiled information on the infrastructure
projects that meet the criteria and are shown in the following table:

Project Name Work Type Priority Date Budget Project
Complete by
by Dec 31,
2016
Outstanding
Tasks
TH- Storm
Water
Upgrades
(Phase 2/3/4)
Stormwater

Road
reconstruction
2015/2016 $1,711,429 Yes Ph 2 -
approvals,
tendering

Ph 3/4/5 -
engineering,
approvals,
tendering

FO - Broadway
Street
Watermain

Road
Reconstruction

6-10 yrs $1,320,000 Yes None
FO - King
Street E.

Watermain

Road
Reconstruction

No Date $1,227,000 TBD Survey,
Engineering,
Approvals
FO - Main
Street S.

Watermain

Road
Reconstruction
No Date $1,397,000 TBD Survey,
Engineering,
Approvals

Thedford Storm Water Upgrades

The landscape of the Village of Thedford is heavily influenced by several drainage
systems in the area that converge and pass through the Village. In recent years
summer storms have become more severe with significant rainfalls that have exceeded
the two and five year storm levels on a regular basis. As a result of these storms, there
have been significant storm water drainage issues identified within the Village resulting
in roads requiring temporary closure and private property being damaged due to
flooding.

In an effort to address these issues Lambton Shores hired Spriet Associates in 2011
and 2012 to provide recommendations for improving drainage issues within the town.
The findings from the Spriet report recommend selected road reconstruction and the
installation of new storm sewers throughout the Village. Working within the constraints
of the annual capital budget, staff has split the recommendations into a four phased
construction plan to significantly complete construction by 2018. The first phase of this
work was tendered and awarded in 2014 at a total construction cost of $524,937.09
inclusive of all taxes and contingency pricing.
281

The storm water issues in Thedford are considered a high priority as they pose an
immediate risk to public and private health and safety. As such, staff recommends that a
grant application be submitted for the remaining phases of this project to assist the
Municipality with completing this project ahead of 2018. The estimated cost of the
remaining works is $1,711,429.

Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction

There are 51 homes and an elementary school located in this project area. The water,
road and sidewalk infrastructure in this area are in need of replacement due to age and
condition. The majority of the water mains in this location are 90 years old and in need
of replacement. Due to the water main age, there is a serious risk of water main break
which has the risk of negatively affecting water quality and health for the nearby
residents and youth. The aging water infrastructure also restricts the present day
requirements for fire protection.

Replacing the aging infrastructure will accommodate the current and future population
of the area. Broadway Street is an arterial road with a nearby school and therefore
heavy vehicular and foot traffic. Staff has reviewed the condition of the road and feel
there is a need for resurfacing prior to the end of the useful life to accommodate the
residents and traffic flow. With reconstruction of the road and associated infrastructure
there will be an improvement to the existing marginal road drainage, which will in turn
enhance the useful life of all infrastructure in the area.

Staff has submitted questions to the funding program administration and once answers
are received a better determination can be made for which program best suits each of
the recommended projects.


Staff has identified two other potential projects for consideration that meet the program
criteria; however, they currently have a lessor priority and are not as close to being
construction ready.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That expression of interests be submitted to the OICF and SCF funding programs and
that the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction project and the Forest
Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction project are the identified projects
for the programs.

282
FINANCIAL IMPACT

These projects are included in our capital infrastructure replacement program; however,
due to the many budget priorities and constraints they are projected forward over
several years. Receiving grant funding would allow projects to be completed sooner
than projected as well as possibly doing more with our reserve funds. The financial
impact of these funding programs and eligible projects has not been determined at this
time as the determination of which project fits best in which program has not yet been
made. This report is to seek Councils concurrence of the projects selected for the
application-based funding programs so an EOI can be submitted by the deadline of
September 19, 2014.

CONSULTATION


283
Attachment 1
The following table provides a brief summary and comparison of the application-based
component of the OCIF and the intake to identify potential SCF projects.

OCIF and SCF Comparison Table

OCIF Application-based
Component
Federal Governments
Small Communities Fund
Funding
available?
$50 million in annual
provincial funding.
$272 million from each of the
federal and provincial governments.
Who is an
eligible
applicant?
Municipalities that:
have a population of less than
100,000; or
are located in northern
Ontario.

Note: Municipalities that were eligible
to apply for funding under the 2013
Small, Rural and Northern Municipal
Infrastructure Fund and do not meet
the eligibility criteria noted above are
eligible to apply for funding under the
application-based component of the
OCIF.

Local Services Boards (LSBs) with
water or wastewater systems.

Note: Municipalities may develop
project applications in partnership with
other municipalities, LSBs, and First
Nations communities.
Municipalities and Local
Services Boards (LSBs)

Public Sector Bodies that are owned
by a province, municipality or regional
government and provide municipal
infrastructure services.

Indian Act Band Councils

Private sector bodies (for-profit or
not-for-profit organizations) with
support by a municipality by way
of resolution in council

Eligible applicants are those
entities listed above and are
restricted to those whose projects
are situated within and/ or for the
benefit of communities with a
population of less than 100,000
people. (A community is defined as
the legal entity of the local
government pursuant to applicable
provincial or territorial legislation,
that is, having the legal status of a
local government pursuant to
provincial or territorial legislation in
that province or territory).
Which
projects are
eligible?
Roads, bridges, water and
wastewater projects.
Highways and major roads,
drinking water, wastewater, public
transit, solid waste management,
green energy, innovation,

284

connectivity and broadband,
brownfield remediation and
redevelopment, disaster mitigation,
local/regional airports, short-line rail
and short sea shipping projects.
What portion
of funding
may be
requested?
Up to 90% provincial funding
of the total eligible costs of a
project.
No federal funding.
In most cases, the maximum
federal and provincial contribution
will be two-thirds of the total eligible
costs of a project (See section 8.1
for exceptions).
What is the
funding cap?
$2 million maximum provincial
share.
None
How will
funding
flow?
Funding will be flowed as
project milestones are
achieved.
Receipts based
Project
completion
Projects must be completed
by December 31, 2016.
To be outlined in contribution
agreements.
EOI timeline? EOIs will be accepted until 5 pm (EST) on September 19, 2014.
Timelines for
full
applications?
Eligible applicants that successfully pass the EOI stage will be provided
with an application package and will have a minimum of 30 days to
complete application forms. Applications will be due in December 2014.

285




RE: Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program Funding

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-41-2014 regarding the Land Stewardship
and Habitat Restoration Program be received; and

THAT the Mayor and Treasurer be authorized to execute the
funding agreement for the Land Stewardship and Habitat
Restoration Program for Invasive Phragmites Control and
Habitat Restoration for a Lambton Shores Coastal Meadow
Marsh PMA V B1 & B2.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report requests Council authorization to execute a funding agreement under the
Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program in the amount of $20,000.00 for
phragmites control.

BACKGROUND

Lambton Shores is fortunate to have a volunteer group that has a well-established focus
on phragmites control. Earlier this year, the Lambton Shores Phragmites Community
Group brought together the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA), Ward 4
Cottage Association, Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Dover Agri-Serve, a Wetland
Ecologist, the municipality and private property owners to have a joint approach to
control phragmites in Lambton Shores and subsequently submitted a funding
application to the Ministry of Natural Resources Land Stewardship and Habitat
Restoration Program (LSHRP). The funding request has been approved and a funding
agreement provided by the Ministry. Similar to 2013, Lambton Shores is the lead on the
application and responsible for executing the funding agreement.


Council could choose not to support this funding agreement; however, it is not
recommended. The Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group spend countless
286
volunteer hours moving the eradication and control program forward and these funds
will support their efforts and allow the joint program to move forward.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That Council support this joint effort in phragmites control and that the Mayor and
Treasurer be authorized to execute the funding agreement for the Land Stewardship
and Habitat Restoration Program for Invasive Phragmites Control and Habitat
Restoration for a Lambton Shores Coastal Meadow Marsh PMA V B1 & B2

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The approved funding amount is $20,000.00 and will be applied to the equipment,
material and contract work required to complete a small portion of the total joint project
costs. There is no direct financial impact to Lambton Shores by executing this funding
agreement. The Lambton Shores 2014 budget allocation will remain and work continue
as planned for municipal property.

CONSULTATION

None

Attachment Ontario Funding Agreement
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317

Report CL No. 58 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk

RE: Amending the Noise By-law to allow for Exemptions under certain
circumstances

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report No. 58 -2012 regarding an amendment to
the Noise By-law to allow exemptions under certain
circumstances be approved, and

THAT the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to
provide for exemptions, and the draft policies/procedures
and application form be approved and

THAT the staff prepare the necessary amendment to the by-
law for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council
meeting.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

The report provides information on an exemption process for the Noise By-law and
possible conditions of approval for Councils consideration.

BACKGROUND

The Lambton Shores Noise By-law 30 of 2002 provides standards for noise with the
intention of reducing the impact of unwanted sound on the residents. The by-law applies
to all properties within the Municipality of Lambton Shores, and prevents persons from
making, causing or permitting any noise which is likely to disturb residents.
Part 3 of the by-law outlines the types of events that can be granted an exemption from
the provisions of the by-law, and these include public celebrations and parades (with the
written permission of the Municipality), emergency vehicles, and radios in private
vehicles intended for the sole benefit of occupants. There are no provisions in the by-
law for applications for noise by-law exemptions for any other purpose other than as
stated above.
Section 1.9 of the Noise by-law includes provisions that apply to noise from excavation
or construction work arising between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (There is an
318
opportunity for an exemption in the case of urgent necessity, with a special permit
from the Building Inspector.)
A request has been received from Stantec Consulting for an exemption to the Noise by-
law for construction works proposed for 2015 and 2016, however, the request currently
cannot be processed as there arent provisions in the by-law for exemptions.
There may also be other events that may benefit from an exemption to the by-law, and it
is recommended that Council consider amending the Noise by-law to add a process by
which applications for exemptions would be reviewed and approved.
Part of the recommended procedure is to require notification of the proposed event and
application to the residents and businesses in the specific area that may be impacted.
The comments from the residents would be provided to Council in a report with the
exemption request application.
One of the caveats in the proposed procedures (attached) is that if an exemption is
approved by Council, the event or activity would be restricted to the approved
location(s) and details set out in the permit only, and failure to comply with the
conditions of the permit would result in the Noise Exemption Permit being revoked. A
performance deposit would be required to ensure adherence to the approval. Failure to
comply would also result in a fine under the Noise By-law in the amount of $ 300.00
plus costs.
Attachment 2 is the draft policies/procedures and application form for a Noise
Exemption Permit for consideration.

There is no alternative being suggested.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to provide for exemptions, and the
draft policies/procedures and application form be approved.

If the recommendation is approved, a by-law to revise By-Law 30 of 2002 will be
brought to the next Council meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact associated with this report; however, it is recommended
that if the exemption policy is approved, an application fee of $ 100.00 be established to
cover the municipal costs to process applications. The proposed policy includes a
requirement for the applicant to provide a refundable performance deposit prior to the
request being submitted to Council for consideration, with the suggested amount being
$ 500.00

319
CONSULTATION

Various noise by-laws from other Municipalities were reviewed and the best practices
included in the recommendations.

Attachment 1. Noise By-law 30 of 2002
Attachment 2. Policies/procedures and application form

320


BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

Being a by-law to provide for the prohibition of certain noises

WHEREAS: The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Section 210,
Subsection 138, provides that a municipality may
pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating noises;

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed expedient and necessary to regulate or
prohibit unusual noises, or noises likely to disturb the
inhabitants of the Municipality of Lambton Shores;

THEREFORE: The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE: NOISE CONTROL BY-LAW

Part 1: NOISES PROHIBITED

1. Likely to Disturb Unusual Prohibited

No person shall cause or permit to be caused any unusual noises,
or noises likely to disturb the inhabitants.

1.2 Likely to Disturb Unusual Set Out

For the purpose of Section 1 of this by-law, the noises or sounds
deemed to constitute unusual noises or noises likely to disturb the
inhabitants shall include, but are not limited to, those set out in
sections 1.3 to 1.13 inclusive of this by-law.

1.3 Horn Siren Bell Duration Unreasonable

The sounding of a bell, horn, siren, or signal device for an
unnecessary or unreasonable period of time is prohibited.

1.4 Radio Loud Speaker Other Annoying Disturbing

Unless specific permission is granted by the Municipality, the sound
or noise from or created by any radio, phonograph, public address
system, sound equipment, loud speaker, or similar device or
devices, or any musical or sound producing instrument or whatever
321
By-law 30-2002 Prohibiting Certain Noises Page 2

kind, when such device or instrument is played or operated in such
a manner or with such volume:

(a) As to likely annoy or disturb the peace, quiet, comfort of
repose of any individual in any type of residence; or

(b) In the case of a device or instrument located in any
commercial building or structure, as to be plainly audible
upon the public streets at a distance of 8 metres (25 feet)
from the building or structure in which such device or
instrument is located:

is prohibited.

1.5 Dogs

No person who has the care, custody or control of a dog within the
Municipality of Lambton Shores shall permit such dog to indulge in
prolonged yelping, howling, barking or other sounds during any
time of the day or night.

1.6 Animal Bird Disturbing Peace Quiet

Any sound made by any domestic pet, animal or bird, which is likely
to disturb the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in
any type of residence, is prohibited.

1.7 Vehicle Rattling In Disrepair Maladjusted

The grating, grinding or rattling noises or sound caused by
condition of disrepair or maladjustment of any motor vehicle,
motorcycle, or other vehicle whatsoever or part or accessory
thereof is prohibited.

1.8 Exhaust Discharge Without Muffler

The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine,
stationary internal combustion engine, motor vehicle or motorcycle,
except through a muffler or other device that effectively prevents
loud or explosive noises, is prohibited.

1.9 Construction Excavation 8 p.m. 7 a.m.

Any noise arising between the hour of 8:00 oclock p.m. of any day
and 7:00 oclock a.m. of the next following day from any excavation
or construction work whatsoever, including the erection, demolition,
322

alteration or repair of any building is prohibited, except in case of
urgent necessity and then under a special permit from the Building
Inspector.

1.10 Loud Speaker Horn Other Advertising

The noise or sound created by the use or operation of any drum,
horn, bell, radio or mechanical loudspeaker, or other instrument or
device or sound-producing, or sound transmitting instrument or
apparatus for the purpose of advertising or for attracting attention to
any performance, show or sale or display of goods, wares or
merchandise or which projects noise or sound into any street or
other public place is prohibited, unless the Municipality has granted
specific approval for same.

1.11 Loud Speaker - Other In vehicle Use Restricted

The noise or sound created by the use or operation of any radio or
mechanical loudspeaker or amplifier or other instrument or device
or sound-producing, sound-reproducing, or sound transmitting
instrument or apparatus in or upon any vehicle is prohibited, unless
the Municipality has granted specific approval for same.

1.12 Firearms Discharge Exception Peace Officers

The noise or sound caused by the discharge of any gun or other
firearm, air gun and spring-gun or any class or type thereof is
prohibited in the urban areas of the Municipality. This prohibition
shall not apply to peace officers in the performance of their duties.

1.13 Shouting verbal sounds

The noise or sound caused by loud shouting, or excessive sounds
generated by a human voice, which is likely to disturb the peace,
quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in any type of residence is
prohibited.

1.14 Highways Prohibitions Exceptions

The prohibitions imposed by the following sections do not apply to
noises occurring on any street to which the Highway Traffic Act
applies:

(a) Section 1.7 (relating to vehicle noises arising from vehicles
not in a proper state of repair);

323

(b) Section 1.8 (relating to vehicle discharge noises other than
through a noise muffling device); and

(c) Section 1.11 (relating to devices for broadcasting amplified
sound from vehicles).

2. Violator - definition

Any person being an occupant, person of authority, owner or being
in possession of a room, building, cabin or enclosed space, yard or
lands appurtenant to a cabin, residence, building or motel from
which a noise prohibited in Section 1 above is emitted, shall be
deemed a violator of the said Section 1 whether or not he or she
personally made or created the said noise, unless he or she proves
affirmatively that the maker of the said noises was a trespasser on
the said premises.

Part 3 - EXEMPTIONS

3.1 Public Celebration Election Gathering Authorized

None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to the use in a reasonable
manner of any apparatus or mechanism for the amplification of the human
voice or of music in a public park or any other commodious space in
connection with any public election meeting, public celebration or other
lawful gathering, provided written permission of the Municipality has first
been obtained.

3.2 Parade Band Authorized

None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any military or other
band or to a parade operating under written permission from the
Municipality.

3.3 Emergency Vehicle Police Fire On Duty

None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any vehicle of the
police or fire department or any ambulance or any public service or
emergency vehicle while answering a call.

3.5 Radio Private Motor Vehicle Conditions

None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any sound from any
private radio in a motor vehicle, installed for the sole benefit or
entertainment of the operator and occupants of such vehicle when same is
not audible at a distance of 8 metres (25 feet) from such vehicle.
324

Part 4 - ENFORCEMENT

4.1 Offence

Every person who breaches a section of this By-law is guilty of an offence
and subject to a penalty as provided under the Provincial Offences Act

4.2 Continuation new offence

Each new day of a continuing offence will be considered a new offence.

4.3 Continuation Repetition Prohibited By Order

The court in which the conviction has been entered and any court of
competent jurisdiction thereafter, may make an order prohibiting the
continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted, and such
order shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person
convicted.

Part 5 Severability

5.1 Validity severable

It is declared that notwithstanding that any section or sections of this by-
law, or parts thereof, may be found by any court of law to be bad or illegal
or beyond the power of the Council to enact, such section or sections or
parts thereof shall be deemed to be severable and that all other sections
or parts of this by-law are separate and independent therefrom and
enacted as such.

Part 6. Conflict with the Highway Traffic Act

6.1 Conflict

In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this By-law and the
Highway Traffic Act, the Highway Traffic Act will prevail.

Part 7. Headings Not Part of the By-law

7.1 Headings

The headings in the body of this by-law are used for convenience or
reference only and do not form part of the by-law.

325

Part 8. Force and Effect

8.1 In effect

This By-law shall come into force and effect on August 7, 2002.

Part 9. Previous by-laws Repealed

9.1 Repealed

All by-laws listed in Schedule A-1 of this by-law are repealed as of the
final passing of this by-law.

READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF MAY 2002

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 21
ST
DAY OF MAY,
2002.

MAYOR J. C. Ivey

CLERK - Carol McKenzie

As amended by by-law 46/02
Passed August 6, 2002

Consolidated By-law

326

SCHEDULE "A"
BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an
offence and on conviction is liable to a fine as provided in the Provincial
Offences Act.

327

SCHEDULE "A-1"
BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

The following by-laws regulating noise are hereby repealed as of the final
passing of By-law 30 of 2002:

Bosanquet By-law 30/1996

Forest By-law 1212
By-law 9-1998

Grand Bend By-law 4020/84
By-law 4062/93
By-Law 4081/98

Thedford By-law 13-1994

Any other by-law regulating noise passed by the Municipality of Lambton
Shores or its predecessors are also hereby repealed.

328
Policy for an Application for an Exemption to the Noise By-law
(DRAFT)

An application for exemption from the provisions of the Noise by-law shall be made in
writing to the Clerk at least ninety (90) days prior to the event for which the exemption is
sought and include the following:
a. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and e-mail address;
b. Municipal address(es) where the source of the noise will come from;
c. The date(s) of the event;
d. The duration and time(s) of the event;
e. A detailed description of the source of sound or vibration in respect to which the
exemption is being sought.( For instance, the source of sound could be rock
music, for sporadic announcements to be made or to play jazz music with the
use of an amplified sound system and speakers, or for exemptions under the
Noise By-law provisions pertaining to construction noise, details on the number
and type of equipment to be used. Be specific.)
f. A statement of the particular provisions of the By-law from which the exemption
is being sought;
g. The reasons why the exemption is being sought;
h. The name of the contact person or persons who will be supervising the event;
and
i. Payment of the application fee ( Suggested fee $ 100.00)
j. Agreement to remit a performance guarantee in the amount of $ 500.00,
payable in cash, which would be due prior to the request being submitted to
Council for approval.
Public Notice of the Application
Once an application is received, the Municipality will prepare a Public Notice of the
application that the applicant will be required to circulate to the residents and/or
businesses that may be affected by the noise aspect of the event. Applicants will be
required to provide documentation confirming that notification of the event has been
given to the affected parties by one of the approved methods.
A notice of circulation may be made:
Via a Canada Post mailing to all assessed property owners within 500 m (1,640
ft) radius from the event location at least ten (10) weeks before the date the
event is to take place; and
Publication in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks
at least ten (10) weeks before the date of the event.
A three (3) week time frame will be given to residents to respond to the circulated notice
to voice, write or email their concerns, objections or comments about the event, and the
feedback will be included in a staff report to Council regarding the application. The
329
report will provide comments on the merits of the application and recommendations of
any suggested terms and conditions. If the exemption is granted, the applicant will be
provided with a letter outlining what has been approved including any terms and
conditions as deemed necessary.
A breach of any of the terms and conditions imposed by the municipality for the granting
of an exemption shall immediately render the exemption null and void, and result in the
forfeiture of the performance bond.

330
Application Form
Noise Exemption Permit
Applicant Information
Name:
Address:
Home Telephone: Business Telephone Number:
Mobile Telephone Number: E-mail address:
Other:
Event/Activity Information
1. Municipal address or location of event or activity:
2. Type of event or activity:
3. Date of event, information on start time, end time and duration of event or activity:
331
4. Please describe all sound or construction equipment which would be used:
5. Which provision of the By-law does the exemption request pertain:
6. Reason why a noise exemption permit is required:
7. For events, number of people expected to attend:
8. Contact information for onsite supervising person(s) who will ensure compliance.
As mentioned above, one or more persons are required to be onsite supervising throughout the entire duration of the event and
activity and are responsible to ensure compliance with the permit's terms.
Name: Telephone Number(s):
332
Application Checklist
In order for your application to be reviewed, it must:
1. A completed application form.
2. A site plan (if applicable).
3. Payment of the $100 application fee to the municipal office. If you are submitting a cheque, it
must be addressed to: Municipality of Lambton Shores
By submitting this form, I affirm that all the information is true and complete and that I agree
to abide by all conditions.
Signature of Applicant: Date of Application:
333

Report CL No. 60-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Forest & District Agricultural Society Request to Renew Lease

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report No. 60-2014 regarding the request from the
Forest & District Agricultural Society to renew a lease
(license) agreement be received; and

THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a
renewal agreement with the Forest & District Agricultural
Society for the use of the Forest Fairgrounds property for an
additional 20 year period.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

The report outlines the request from the Forest Agricultural Society to renew an existing
lease for the Forest Fairgrounds.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Town of Forest entered into a twenty-one (21) year lease agreement with
the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of the Forest Fairgrounds.

The agreement detailed the fact that the municipality owned the land and the Society
owned the buildings, and it outlined the responsibilities of each party.

Although there is still a number of years left on the current lease, the Society has asked
to renew the agreement now, as they are planning a fund raising campaign to replace
two of the older buildings with more modern, functional structures, and prior to
commencing with the program, want to ensure the continued use of the property.

A new agreement has been prepared and reviewed by the Municipal solicitor and
insurer, and provides for the non-exclusive use of the lands by the Society, (ie it
includes provisions to allow the municipality to use the land if need be, for example for
snow storage)

Once the Society has had an opportunity to review and approve the new agreement, the
final document will be brought back to Council for approval.
334
The request is being brought forward at this time so that Society can have assurances
of a longer term lease prior to the building fund campaign kick off, which is planned to
coincide with the 2014 Fair which is from September 19-21, 2014.


The alternative would be to continue with the existing lease/license agreement that
expires in 2020; however, this is not being recommended as the Society would like to
invest significant funds in the improvement of the buildings, and would like a level of
comfort that they would have the use of the property for at least 20 years.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a renewal agreement with the
Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of the Fairgrounds for an additional 20
year period.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact associated with the approval

CONSULTATION

The draft agreement was reviewed by the Municipal solicitor and Insurance Company,
as well as the Director of Community Services, C.A.O. and Treasurer.

335

Report CL 61-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: 2014 Drain Maintenance

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report 61-2014 respecting the collection of funds
for Drain Maintenance works be received, and

THAT By-Law 86 of 2014 authorizing the collection of the
sums be approved.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

The report provides information on the collection of drain maintenance costs.

BACKGROUND

Each year, maintenance is performed on a number of the 500 plus drains under the
jurisdiction of the Municipality. The cost for the maintenance work is allocated to the
benefiting property owners based on the approved drainage schedule, and the sums
are added to the appropriate tax roll, and collected with the final tax installments.

In order to levy and collect the sums, an authorizing by-law is required, and By-law 86 of
2014 has been prepared, and Schedule A to the by-law provides details on the
recoverable costs for the drain maintenance program.


There are no alternatives provided as this is the standard practice for the collection of
drain maintenance costs.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

THAT by-law 86 of 2014 respecting the collection of funds for Drain Maintenance works
be approved

FINANCIAL IMPACT

This by-law authorizes the collection of funds owing to the Municipality.

CONSULTATION

There has been no outside consultation for this report.
336

Report CL 62 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Council Compensation for Mileage Expenses

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 62 of 2014, regarding Council
compensation for mileage expenses be received for
discussion.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

At the Council meeting held the 3
rd
day of July, the following motion of Council was
approved:

Carried 14-0703-28

THAT staff prepare a report on reimbursing Council members those
mileage costs related to Council business.

BACKGROUND

The Municipal Act in force prior to the current version outlined the options for Council
members to be remunerated, and with respect to expenses, noted that:

Expense allowance
255. (1)Despite this Act or any other general or special Act, where an elected member
of a council of a municipality or a local board, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, is,
under a by-law or resolution of the council or such local board, paid a salary, indemnity,
allowance or other remuneration, one-third of such amount shall be deemed to be
for expenses incident to the discharge of his or her duties as a member of the
council or such local board. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, s. 255. ( bold added)
Lambton Shores complied with this requirement, and the remuneration was set
accordingly.
The requirements for Council remuneration and expenses changed with the passing of
the new Act, however, Section 283 (4) and (5) state:
337
283 (4) No part of the remuneration of a member of a council or local board
paid under this section is deemed to be for expenses incidental to his or
her duties as a member and a municipality or local board shall not provide
that any part of the remuneration is for such deemed expenses. 2001, c. 25,
s. 283 (4).

283 (5) Despite subsection (4), if a resolution of a municipality under
subsection 255 (2) or (3) of the old Act is not revoked before J anuary 1,
2003, the resolution shall be deemed to be a by-law of the municipality and
one-third of the remuneration paid to the elected members of the council
and its local boards is deemed as expenses incident to the discharge of
their duties as members of the council or local board. 2001, c. 25, s. 283 (5);
2002, c. 17, Sched. A, s. 46 (1). ( bold added)

In 2002, the municipal Treasurer provided Council with information on the requirements
in the new Act, and the option to retain the 1/3 allocation for expenses. This decision
was to continue with the current practice, and this decision was reaffirmed with each
successive Council (in January of 2004, January of 2007 and in December of 2010) and
in May of 2011, Council passed By-law 23 of 2011, which formally set the remuneration
for Members of Council as follows:

Salary of the Mayor: The Mayor shall be paid a salary of $24,600.00 per
annum, of which $8,200.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of
expenses attending meetings within the Municipality.

Salary of the Deputy Mayor: The Deputy Mayor shall be paid a salary of
$18,600.00 per annum, of which $6,200.00 (1/3) is designated as
compensation of expenses attending meetings within the Municipality.

Salary of the Members of Council: The Members of Council shall be paid
a salary of $16,200.00 per annum, of which $5,400.00 (1/3) is designated as
compensation of expenses attending meetings within the Municipality.

Other Stipends Received: The salary set out in this By-law is the total
compensation for all duties required to be fulfilled by the Mayor and
Members of Council. Should the Mayor or any Member of Council receive
any additional payment from any other municipal sources (including:
boards, commissions or special purpose bodies), he or she shall be entitled
to receive such compensation at his/her sole discretion.

As noted in By-law 23A-2011 (attached), Council also receives compensation for all
mileage for municipal related meetings and events that occur outside of the municipal
limits, and for conference attendance.

A survey of 9 area municipalities undertaken in 2013 indicated that all allocated 1/3 of
the Council remuneration as the non-taxable allowance for expenses.
338


Councillors could commence tracking mileage for the next 3 months to determine the
actual expenses incurred to determine if the amount exceeds the compensation amount
allocated per office.

Alternatively, the decision on compensation for mileage could be referred to the next
Council for review and consideration.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Information provided for discussion purposes and direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

If a change was initiated in the compensation paid for mileage, a similar change would
need to be made to the budget to accommodate the change.

CONSULTATION

Other municipal policies were reviewed when preparing this report.

339
THECORPORATIONOFTHEMUNICIPALITYOF LAMBTONSHORES
BY - LAWNUMBER23A - 2011
Being
a
by -
lawto set the remuneration to be
paid
tothe Members of Council and
Members of
Standing
Committeesand
Cemetery
Boards
WHEREAS: The
Municipal Act,
2001
requires
the
passage
of
by -
laws
respecting
Council remuneration.
ANDWHEREAS: At the
meeting
held the 9
day
of
March, 2011,
Council reviewed and
affirmed the
existing
level remuneration for members.
ANDWHEREAS: On December
20, 2010,
Council affirmed that 1/3 (
one third)
of the
total Council remuneration be deemed to be for
expenses
incurred
resulting
fromthe
discharge
of duties as members of Council.
THEREFORE: The Council of the
Municipality
of Lambton Shores enactsasfollows:
DEFINITION:
Municipality
of Lambton Shores
Standing
Committees include the
Committee of
Adjustment
and the
Accessibility
Committee.
REMUNERATION:
Salary
of the
Mayor: The
Mayor
shall be
paid
a
salary
of $
24,600. 00per annum,
of
which $
8,200. 00 ( 1/ 3)
is
designated
as
compensation
of
expenses attending meetings
within the
Municipality.
Salary
of the
Deputy Mayor:
The
Deputy Mayor
shall be
paid
a
salary
of $
18,600. 00per
annum,
of which $
6, 200. 00 ( 1/3)
is
designated
as
compensation
of
expenses attending
meetings
within the
Municipality.
Salary of the Members of Council: The Members of Council shall be aid a
salary
of
p rY
16, 200. 00per annum,
of which $
5, 400. 00 ( 1/ 3)
is
designated
as
compensation
of
expenses attending meetings
within the
Municipality.
Other Stipends Received: The
salary
set out in this
By -
lawis the total
compensation
for
all duties
required
to be fulfilled
by
the
Mayor
and Members of Council. Should the
Mayor
or
any
Member of Council receive
any
additional
payment
from
any
other
municipal
sources (
including: boards,
commissions or
special purpose bodies),
he or she shall be
entitled to receive such
compensation
at his / her sole discretion.
Committee Members: The Members of the
public appointed
to a
Municipal Standing
Committees shall be
paid
a
meeting stipend
of $100.00
per meeting, paid
bi-
annually.
340
Arkona
Cemetery
Board Members: Members of the Arkona
Cemetery
Board shall be
paid
a
meeting stipend
of 50. 00
per meeting, paid annually.
Pinery Cemetery Board: The Chair
person
and Administrator of the
Pinery Cemetery
Board shall be
paid
a
meeting stipend
of $
60.00
per meeting, paid annually,
and all other
membersshall receive $
40. 00
per meeting, paid annually.
Miscellaneous:
Mileage: The
Mayor
and Members of Council who incur
mileage
costs while on Council
sanctioned
municipal
business outside the limits of
Municipality
of Lambton Shores shall
receive reimbursement for those
mileage expenses
at the rate set
by
Council
through
policy.
Expenses: The
Mayor
and Members of Council shall be reimbursed for
actual,
out - of-
pocket expenses
as defined
through
the
Municipality' s
Council
Expense Policy.
Conference
The
Mayor
and each member of Council shall also be entitled to amaximumof $
1, 700. 00
per
annumfor Conferences and
Training expenses, subject
to
budget approval.
Severability:
If a court or tribunal of
competent jurisdiction
declares
any portion
of this
by -
lawto be
illegal
or
unenforceable,
that
portion
of this
by -
lawshall be considered to be
severed fromthe balance of the
by - law,
which shall continue to
operate
in full force and
effect.
Effective Date: This
By -
lawshall come intoforce on the date it is
finally passed.
Read afirst and second this6
day
of
June,
2011
Read athird and final
time,
this 6
day
of
June,
2011
Mayor
Bill Weber
C
Cle Ca( McKenzie
341

Report CL 63 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Farm Land Tender for the Use of the Forest Industrial Lands

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 63 2014 regarding the results from the
farm land tenders for the Forest Industrial land be received;
and

THAT the tender submitted by Triple L farms in the amount
of $325.00 per workable acre be accepted; and

THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign the
required agreements.

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report presents the results from the recent tender for the use of the Forest
Industrial Land for farming purposes.

BACKGROUND

The current agreement for the use of the 85 workable acres at the Forest Industrial land
property will expire at the end of August, 2014.

Tenders for the continued use of the land for farming purposes closed on August 18,
2014 with the following results:

Bidder Name
Annual rate per
workable acre
Devet Arka Poultry Farms Inc $ 120.00
Eusi Farms Ltd. $ 300.00
Triple "L" Farms $ 325.00

342
The lease agreement includes the following clause that outlines the process in the event
that the lands are required by the Municipality during the term of the lease:

If any or all of the land is required by the Municipality during the term of the
agreement, it is agreed that a sum of money will be paid to the Lessee for crop
loss, on a per bushel basis, with the yield to be mutually agreed to at the time the
land is harvested or required.


There are no alternatives provided

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That the tender for the Forest Industrial lands be awarded to the highest bidder, being
Triple L farms in the amount of $325.00 per workable acre

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Funds realized for the use of the Industrial Lands have traditionally been allocated to
the Economic Development business unit.

CONSULTATION

None

343
THIS INDENTURE, made in duplicate the day of 2014 pursuant to the short form of
Leases Act:

Between:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores
hereinafter called the "Municipality"
OF THE FIRST PART
and
Triple L Farms
hereinafter called the "Lessee"
OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS: the Municipality is the owner of land more particularly described as
Concession South Boundary, part of Lots 36 and 37, in the Municipality of Lambton
Shores, in the County of Lambton, comprised of 90 acres, more or less, of which 85 are
workable, and hereinafter referred to as the "property", and shown of the attached
Schedule A;

AND WHEREAS: The lessee is desirous of leasing the property, and parties agree as
follows:

1. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

The Municipality agrees to lease the said property to the Lessee for a 2 year period,
commencing September 1, 2014, and expiring on April 14 2017. This Agreement
terminates at the end of the term set out above but may be renewed by written
agreement of the parties.

2. LEASE FEE

The Lessee shall pay to the Municipality the annual lease fee on or before the first day of
the May in each year of the agreement, that being $325.00 per workable acre plus HST.

3. TERMINATION WITH NOTICE

If any or all of the land is required by the Municipality during the term of the agreement, it
is agreed that a sum of money will be paid to the Lessee for crop loss, on a per bushel
basis, with the yield to be mutually agreed to at the time the land is harvested or required.

In addition to this termination provision, either party may, in any year, cancel the lease by
providing to the other party at least 3 months notice prior to the May renewal date.

4. GENERAL

The Lessee agrees and acknowledges:

That the Municipality will not be responsible for any loss or damage to crops caused by
vandalism or Acts of God;

344
That the lease of the said land(s) shall be on a cash rent basis only and shall be for
a term of two and years, commencing September 1, 2014, and ending on April 14,
2017.

After the two and year term, the Municipality will re-tender the farm land.

That this lease will be solely for the use by the Tenant, not to be assigned or sublet or
occupied by anyone other than the Tenant without prior written consent from the
Municipality.

He/she will be responsible for any costs associated with farming the lands, with the
exception of property taxes.

He/she shall cultivate, seed, control weeds, insects and disease and harvest crops on
the land in a sustainable manner.

That continuous cropping is allowed.

That this land is to be leased on an as is basis. There are no warranties offered or
implied on the condition of the property.

That the premises is to be kept clear of noxious weeds in accordance with the Weed
Control Act, RSO 1980 and amendments thereto.

That he/she shall cultivate, seed, control weeds, insects and disease and harvest
crops on the land in a sustainable manner.

That all existing fences on the premises are to be maintained in a good state or repair.

That all personal property of any kind or description stored or left on the premises is
done so at the lessees sole risk and the Municipality shall not be liable for any claims
resulting from damage to or loss of such property, however, the tenant may insure
such property for his own benefit.

To permit the Municipality, agents or employees to enter upon the premises at any
reasonable time for purposes of inspection, investigation, testing, surveying or other
activity related to the operation of the existing municipal wastewater facilities,
improvement or development of the premises, including management of the woodlots.

Any improvement necessary to the land (access lane, fence, etc) must have the prior
approval of the municipality but will be constructed by the Lessee at his/her expense.

The Lessee and the Municipality mutually agree that assent or consent to changes in or
waiver of any part of this agreement in spirit or letter shall NOT be deemed as made,
unless the same is done in writing and attached to, or endorsed hereon.

The Lessee acknowledges that, prior to signing this Agreement; he has read this
Agreement and consents to the terms, covenants and conditions herein. This
Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the
subject matter hereof, and there are not and shall not be any verbal statements,
345
representations, warranties, undertakings or agreements between the parties not
contained herein. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any respect
except by written instrument signed by the original parties to it.

In the event of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation arising out of the agreement,
the parties agree that the matter shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitrations Act,
as amended from time to time, and agree to be bound by any such decisions obtained as
a result thereof.

The Lessee shall not assign or sub-let any portion of the property without the written
consent of the Municipality;

5. NOTICE

Notice or other communication shall be given in writing and shall be given either by
delivering same to the recipient or mailing the same to the recipient at the following
address:

If to the Municipality: The Municipality of Lambton Shores
Forest, Ontario NON IJO

If to the Lessee: Triple L Farms
9310 Arkona Road, R. R. # 4
Thedford, Ontario NOM 2NO
Attn: Mr. Joe Lacey

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seal.

Triple L Farms

Seal or witness ________________________________________

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Seal _______________________________________
Bill Weber, Mayor

_______________________________________
Carol McKenzie, Clerk

346

BY-LAW NUMBER 85 of 2014

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 September 4, 2014

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 September 4,
2014 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
September 4, 2014.

_________________________
MAYOR Bill Weber

_________________________
CLERK Carol McKenzie
347

BY-LAW NUMBER 86 OF 2014

Being a By-law to collect the sums from the lands and roads
assessed for the maintenance of certain drains.

WHEREAS: The sums for the maintenance of the attached drains have been
advanced out of the general funds of the Municipality.

AND WHEREAS: It is necessary to levy and collect the said sums under the provisions
of the Drainage Act.

AND WHEREAS: The Municipal Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts
as follows:

That the said sums are hereby charged and assessed pro-rata upon
the lands and roads assessed for the maintenance of certain drains
as per the drainage schedules, and summarized on Schedule "A" to
this by-law.

THEREFORE: The amounts so assessed against each of the said lots or parts of
lots as set forth in the maintenance schedules prepared shall be
levied and collected in the same manner and at the same time as
other taxes are levied and collected for the year 2014 from the said
lots and parts of the lots and the sum so assessed against the
Municipality of Lambton Shores shall be paid out of the general
funds of the Municipality.

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4th day of September 2014

READ THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 4
th
DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

________________________
MAYOR Bill Weber

________________________
CLERK - Carol McKenzie
348

SCHEDULE A TO BY-LAW # 86 OF 2014

DRAIN MAINTENANCE RECOVERABLE

DRAIN NAME BY-LAW # TOTAL BILLED

B & C Pump 99-01 $4,865.07

Coultis Drain 38-97 $1,709.29

Defore Drain 36-88 $15,641.80

Defore Pump 34-2002 $1,646.27

Duffus 6-71 $9,458.84

Duffus 1782 $18,939.20

Duffus 12-68 $1,245.94

Dummigan 9-74 $5,044.50

Elliott McBryan 67-63 $469.34

Evans 7-98 $2,631.95

Frayne 64-1995 $1,538.54

Frayne 66-2001 $626.22

Golf Club 37-86 $1,530.23

Grant 25-92 $8,545.16

Hobbs McKenzie 122-2009 $178.60

Ipperwash Pump 65-1998 $12,112.39

Lakesmith # 1 Channel 27-82 $27,362.67

Lakesmith # 1 Pump 26-82 $3,341.72

349
Lakesmith # 2 Pump 34-2002 $4,779.72

Malley 1674 $12,268.55

Mud Creek Lower # 1 36-85 $374.80

Russell 54-60 $25,875.21

South Boundary 50-83 $15,601.08

Struyf 29-98 $2,984.53

Stubbs Pump 49-2011 $1,941.63

Todd 30-1981 $3,119.55

Tulpin 25-76 $4,001.86

Vandenberk 46-70 $3,828.96

TOTAL

$191,663.62

350




RE: July 2014 Cheque Listing

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-39-2014; regarding the Lambton Shores
cheque listing for July 2014 in the amount of $1,886,974.87,
be received.
____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report accompanies the July cheque listing in the amount of $1,886,974.87 for
expenses of the operating and capital activities for Lambton Shores.

BACKGROUND

Councils procedural by-law incorporates a section for accounts and a cheque listing is
submitted on the second meeting in the month for Councils review. The Department
Head or Area Manager is responsible for approving all expenses prior to payment being
made, to ensure budget allocations are adhered to.


None

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

That the July 2014 cheque listing is received for information.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

This listing includes the regular monthly payments for items such as payroll remittances,
policing, LAWSS, OMI, waste and recycling collection and utility costs. Also included
are dredging contract and dock repair costs for both Harbours and dust fighter for the
annual road program.

Budgeted capital costs for the Grand Bend pedestrian railing, Ridge Road, Pearl &
Pherrill Street reconstruction and the new pumper for the Grand Bend Fire Department
are also included.
351

Capital costs for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility are included in this listing
at the full amount and the eligible and proportionate costs will be recovered from the
grant and South Huron.

CONSULTATION

None

352
2014
DATE CHQ # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
02/07/2014 40342 Petty Cash/Carrie Snell Replenish pettycash - GB Office $232.50
04/07/2014 40343 2230880 Ontario Ltd. LAN, equipment $1,745.85
04/07/2014 40344 Vicki Sheppard Forest & GB office cleaning $260.00
04/07/2014 40345 Crawford Security N. By-Law contract $10,227.56
04/07/2014 40346 Grand Bend Canada Day Flow through donations $6,704.75
09/07/2014 40348 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish pettycash - Forest Office $313.20
09/07/2014 40349 Petty Cash-Jodie Poland Replenish pettycash - Northville Office $136.00
09/07/2014 40350 Karen Cameron Expense report - Jan to June $214.50
10/07/2014 40351 Darch Fire New pumper - GB FD $456,357.00
10/07/2014 40352 Dave Moore Fuels Fuel - CS & GB Harbour $29,666.67
10/07/2014 40353 Dillon Consulting Rd survey,Pinery Park pump,wind (reimbursed) $34,837.34
10/07/2014 40354 OMERS Regular monthly remittance $40,654.80
10/07/2014 40355 Receiver General Regular payroll remittance $50,950.59
10/07/2014 40356 OMI Canada Inc. July agreement $127,303.64
10/07/2014 40357 634524 Ontario Inc. Final inspection security bond refund $750.00
10/07/2014 40358 A.B.C.A. Drain review $300.00
10/07/2014 40359 A.J. Braun Mfg.Limited Municipal addressing $949.20
10/07/2014 40360 Al's Gas & Variety Garbage bag tags refund $357.87
10/07/2014 40361 Arkona Black Hawks Refund rental damage deposit $200.00
10/07/2014 40362 Catharine Bartlett Garbage bag tags refund $178.00
10/07/2014 40363 Bas-Tim Inc Hanging baskets $112.98
10/07/2014 40364 Tom Boon Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $645.00
10/07/2014 40365 Bosanquet Central Public School Refund rental damage deposit $225.00
10/07/2014 40366 Carswell Office supplies - GB $101.80
10/07/2014 40367 C.G. Equipment Vehicle repair - CS $553.25
10/07/2014 40368 Cintas, The Uniform People Uniforms, supplies, shower cleaning $3,106.02
10/07/2014 40369 County Of Lambton Housing Garbage bag tags refund $137.50
10/07/2014 40370 C.U.P.E. Union dues - July $1,091.99
10/07/2014 40371 D.Culbert Ltd. Registry search $1,469.00
10/07/2014 40372 Dales Snow Maintenance HB release $5,738.80
10/07/2014 40373 Dashwood Lock And Key Replace locks - PF Harbour $331.84
10/07/2014 40374 Den-Mar Brines Limited Dust fighter $21,813.24
10/07/2014 40375 Jacqueline Dolan PFCC cleaning - June $765.00
10/07/2014 40376 Doug Ellison Garbage bag tags refund $67.50
10/07/2014 40377 Eusi Farms Ltd Final inspection security bond refund $3,250.00
10/07/2014 40378 Raya Evans Garbage bag tags refund $95.00
10/07/2014 40379 Forest Fire Department Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $171.26
10/07/2014 40380 Russell Fuller Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
10/07/2014 40381 Green Shield Canada Employee benefits - July $9,466.72
10/07/2014 40382 H.E. Zavitz Electrical & Heating Water heater replacement $2,147.03
10/07/2014 40383 Steve Holmes Training - Forest FD $297.00
10/07/2014 40384 Huronia/Med-E-Ox Ltd. Supplies - GB $101.70
10/07/2014 40385 Integra Document Destruction Document shredding $320.92
10/07/2014 40386 Dave Kaczmarczyk Training - Forest FD $198.00
10/07/2014 40387 Rick Kennett Garbage bag tags refund $55.00
10/07/2014 40388 Bev Kobe Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
10/07/2014 40389 Gregory J. Levine Legal fees $2,579.79
10/07/2014 40390 Jerry Liddle Refund account overpayment $107.00
10/07/2014 40391 Line-X Coatings (London) Pick up truck accessories $1,084.68
10/07/2014 40392 Randy Lovie Conference registration reimbursement $1,085.93
10/07/2014 40393 M & M Embroidery & Designs Uniforms $244.08
10/07/2014 40394 Bob Magee Plumbing Plumbing repairs - various facilities $2,743.61
10/07/2014 40395 Main Variety Garbage bag tags refund $137.46
10/07/2014 40396 Rhonda Manore Garbage bag tags refund $1,160.00
10/07/2014 40397 Marshall Larry NV office cleaning - June $300.00
July Cheque Register
Page 1 of 5
353
2014
10/07/2014 40398 Larry Martin GB Plant watering $1,450.00
10/07/2014 40399 Jackie Mason Training mileage $40.25
10/07/2014 40400 Mccann Redi-Mix Inc GB Beach mtce $5,107.60
10/07/2014 40401 David Mclean Training supplies - Forest FD $24.10
10/07/2014 40402 The Mearie Group Regular monthly remittance $424.73
10/07/2014 40403 Mechanical Advertising Signs $4,056.26
10/07/2014 40404 Microage Basics Office supplies - GB $209.00
10/07/2014 40405 Ministry Of Finance Regular EHT remittance $5,120.21
10/07/2014 40406 Minister Of Finance Tile loan debenture $3,600.50
10/07/2014 40407 National Process Equipment Inc Equipment repair - CS $5,299.14
10/07/2014 40408 Ontario Clean Water Agency Spring lagoon treatment $7,000.00
10/07/2014 40409 Olde Haus Cafe Training meals - FD's $136.73
10/07/2014 40410 Parkbridge Lifestyles Community Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
10/07/2014 40411 Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) GB Beach concession supplies $1,064.69
10/07/2014 40412 Bruce Poland & Sons Trucking Release holdbacks on drain mtce $3,849.05
10/07/2014 40413 Prouts Building Centre Supplies - CS $62.03
10/07/2014 40414 Shannon Prout Expense report - April to June $130.35
10/07/2014 40415 Canada Revenue Agency Regulated remittance $497.95
10/07/2014 40416 Bob Roney GB Harbourmaster contract $1,778.99
10/07/2014 40417 Harald Rosenfeld Forest banners $350.00
10/07/2014 40418 Peter Sanio Garbage bag tags refund $75.00
10/07/2014 40419 Sidewalks Plus Sidewalk repairs $1,943.58
10/07/2014 40420 Spedquip Industries Ltd Supplies - GB FD $239.24
10/07/2014 40421 Strictly Sunrooms Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
10/07/2014 40422 Wayne Stubbs June wtr mtr reads, July retainer, inet Jan - June $2,690.88
10/07/2014 40423 Summit Food Service GB Beach concession supplies $2,154.53
10/07/2014 40424 Sundowner Truck Accessories Pick up truck accessories $3,339.94
10/07/2014 40425 Sweitzer Electric Inc Electrical - GB beachhouse $1,570.31
10/07/2014 40426 Mr. Joseph Taylor Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
10/07/2014 40427 Technical Standards & Safety Assoc Elevator licence - Shores $105.00
10/07/2014 40428 UTC Fire & Security Canada Fire equipment inspection & repair - Legacy $2,326.67
10/07/2014 40429 Jerry Vanbruaene Equipment repair - GB FD $85.20
10/07/2014 40430 Vandriel Excavating Inc. Ridge Road $19,131.06
10/07/2014 40431 West Ipperwash Property Ownes Refund rental damage deposit $50.00
10/07/2014 40432 Kevin Williams Expense report - May/June $1,229.08
10/07/2014 40433 GSS Engineering Consultants RFP for water & wastewater operations $3,616.00
10/07/2014 40434 Mike Herrington Training - Thedford FD $291.73
10/07/2014 40435 Gary Sorko Garbage bag tags refund $57.50
10/07/2014 40436 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT,LAN, equipment $1,462.22
10/07/2014 40437 CIBC Visa - all managers $8,778.96
10/07/2014 40439 Forest Canada Day Committee Flow through donations $5,130.00
10/07/2014 40440 Forest Canada Day Committee Refund damage deposit $500.00
11/07/2014 40441 Petty Cash/Carrie Snell Replenish & increase petty cash GB Office $497.00
11/07/2014 40442 Communities In Bloom 2014 Symposium registration $2,302.80
11/07/2014 40443 Mr. Gary Faulds Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
11/07/2014 40444 Kens Auto Glass GB Beach elevator repair $296.00
11/07/2014 40445 Pitney Works Postage & supplies - all offices $16,950.00
11/07/2014 40446 Prouts Building Centre Materials & supplies - CS $679.70
11/07/2014 40447 Josh Yates GB Beach patrol supplies $129.62
16/07/2014 40448 Bluewater Recycling Assoc. 3rd qtr recycling $109,201.20
16/07/2014 40449 Tom Boon Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $680.00
16/07/2014 40450 Canada Post Corporation Municipal election $779.70
16/07/2014 40452 Hugh Edgar Garbage bag tags refund $56.00
16/07/2014 40453 Dominic Franze Garbage bag tags refund $137.50
16/07/2014 40454 Aquafest Flow through donations $2,500.00
16/07/2014 40455 J & B Hardware Garbage bag tags refund $59.25
Page 2 of 5
354
2014
16/07/2014 40456 Brent Kittmer Expense report - April to June $2,088.36
16/07/2014 40457 Frances Lawson Garbage bag tags refund $126.00
16/07/2014 40458 Mr. Steve Lupa Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
16/07/2014 40459 Melinda Pearson Garbage bag tags refund $95.00
16/07/2014 40460 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish & increase pettycash - Forest Office $462.65
16/07/2014 40462 Vicki Sheppard Forest & GB office cleaning $260.00
16/07/2014 40463 Don Welten Building inspections & mileage $602.70
16/07/2014 40464 Cope Construction Grand Bend crosswalks $38,552.94
16/07/2014 40465 Robinson Farm Drainage Pearl St & Pherill St. reconstruction $45,725.13
14/07/2014 40466 Void
24/07/2014 40469 Acklands Grainger Inc. Supplies - CS & Arkona & GB FD's $1,970.33
24/07/2014 40470 Actons Service Centre Vehicle service - CS $463.30
24/07/2014 40471 AGO Industries Inc. Safety uniforms - CS $1,649.47
24/07/2014 40472 Arkona Food Market Refund garbage bag tags $104.28
24/07/2014 40473 B.M. Ross & Associates Ltd NV PBS,Decker,Kennedy,Sauble,MacDonald $17,211.21
24/07/2014 40474 Glenn C Bell S. By-Law contract $4,285.72
24/07/2014 40475 Benko Sewer Service Hydrovac $14,641.98
24/07/2014 40476 Best Cooling Systems Equipment repair - GB Harbour $1,774.10
24/07/2014 40477 Bill Hoekstra General Contract Washroom upgrades - GB Beach House $1,741.07
24/07/2014 40478 Birnam Excavating Ltd MacDonald Street reconstruction $6,511.99
24/07/2014 40479 Bluewater Recycling Assoc OCC & waste lifts & composters $3,789.40
24/07/2014 40480 Bluewater Power Services Corp. Traffic light repair $610.88
24/07/2014 40481 Ian Brebner Tree removal - Arkona Cemetery $56.50
24/07/2014 40482 Diana Campbell Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40483 Can Fuels Refund garbage bag tags $310.47
24/07/2014 40484 Celerity Communications Ltd Radio rentals & repair $582.35
24/07/2014 40485 Corporate Express Office supplies - all offices $569.51
24/07/2014 40486 County Of Lambton 911 house & road signs, prosecutorial services $1,268.75
24/07/2014 40487 C.R. Keller Vehicle repair - CS $125.43
24/07/2014 40488 Dashwood Lock And Key Supplies - GB Harbour $50.01
24/07/2014 40489 Dave Moore Fuels Fuel - CS & GB Harbour $20,927.26
24/07/2014 40490 Dekra-Lite GB Christmas lights $4,484.61
24/07/2014 40491 Delta Power Equipment Equipment repair parts - CS $469.74
24/07/2014 40492 Den-Mar Brines Limited Dust fighter $25,439.66
24/07/2014 40493 Wendy Dhoine Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40494 Dielco Industrial Contractors General mtce & repairs $9,075.83
24/07/2014 40495 D.T.Enterprises Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40496 Eusi Farms Ltd Final inspection security bond refund $1,750.00
24/07/2014 40497 Fastenal Canada Shop supplies $1,503.96
24/07/2014 40498 Janet Ferguson Expense report - Jan - June $910.48
24/07/2014 40499 Forest Automotive Parts & supplies - CS $132.09
24/07/2014 40500 Forest Agri Services Supplies - CS $47.01
24/07/2014 40501 Fruti Distributing GB Beach concession supplies $244.89
24/07/2014 40502 Gerrys Truck Centre Vehicle repair parts - CS $72.13
24/07/2014 40503 Gil And Sons Limited Legacy solar system $21,767.19
24/07/2014 40504 Goertz Electric Ltd Arkona ball park & pump motor service $1,086.90
24/07/2014 40505 Grand Bend And Area Horticultural Supplies - GB FD $25.00
24/07/2014 40506 Home Hardware Building Centre Materials & supplies - CS $406.60
24/07/2014 40507 Susan Hartman Lease agreement - Arkona ball park $300.00
24/07/2014 40508 Hayter-Walden Publications June/July advertising $1,423.80
24/07/2014 40509 Hensall District Co-Operative Landscaping supplies $300.00
24/07/2014 40510 Huron Shores Marine Ltd Equipment repairs - CS $1,237.61
24/07/2014 40511 Hudson Entry & Automation Overhead door repairs $2,128.53
24/07/2014 40512 Ideal Supply Company Ltd Lighting supplies $83.80
24/07/2014 40513 Imperial Coffee And Services Equipment rental & supplies- CS & GB office $751.25
Page 3 of 5
355
2014
24/07/2014 40514 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd Gravel $39,875.93
24/07/2014 40515 Johnson'S Sanitation Services Portable toilet rentals $2,147.00
24/07/2014 40516 Christie Kloske Refund seasonal dockage fee $1,012.88
24/07/2014 40517 Lambton Group Police Services Regular monthly remittance $295,386.76
24/07/2014 40518 Lambton Heritage Museum Refund garbage bag tags $260.00
24/07/2014 40519 Lambton County Fire Chiefs Ass Training - Forest FD $400.00
24/07/2014 40520 Mr. Mario Leandro Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40521 Lightning Equipment Sales Inc. Supplies - Arkona FD $623.76
24/07/2014 40522 LVM Church Street watermain $284.48
24/07/2014 40523 Larry Martin Plant watering - GB $700.00
24/07/2014 40524 Mr. Harold Meier Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40525 Minister Of Finance/Transport. Parking court fees - April - June $74.25
24/07/2014 40526 Catherine Minielly Reimburse for Trees - CIB $836.80
24/07/2014 40527 Mitoi Works Inc. Dredging contracts - both harbours & dock repairs $47,183.15
24/07/2014 40528 M & L Supply Supplies - Forest, NV & GB FD's $478.73
24/07/2014 40529 Joel Moloy Ltd Topsoil & Drain mtce $1,728.90
24/07/2014 40530 Municipal World Inc Election supplies $34.27
24/07/2014 40531 Nortrax Canada Inc Vehicle service - CS $892.97
24/07/2014 40532 Office Central Office supplies - all offices $3,871.84
24/07/2014 40533 Optimist Club Of Forest Hall rental - Accessibility $92.45
24/07/2014 40534 Orkin Canada Pest control - various locations $548.05
24/07/2014 40535 Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) GB Beach concession supplies $597.93
24/07/2014 40536 Pockele & Associates Inc. WHMIS training $675.86
24/07/2014 40537 Pole Printing Inc Office supplies - all offices $2,461.71
24/07/2014 40538 Praxair Supplies - CS $894.35
24/07/2014 40539 Princess Auto Supplies - CS $605.38
24/07/2014 40540 Pro Drainage Drain mtce $4,997.15
24/07/2014 40541 Shannon Prout Expense report - July $245.31
24/07/2014 40542 Purolator Courier Ltd Courier services - all offices $136.47
24/07/2014 40543 Rays Electric Lighting - GB FD $94.23
24/07/2014 40544 Canada Revenue Agency Regulated remittance $449.58
24/07/2014 40545 RFS Canada Photocopier lease - all offices $2,098.41
24/07/2014 40546 Bob Roney Grand Bend Harbourmaster contract $1,778.99
24/07/2014 40547 Void
24/07/2014 40548 John Sawatsky Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40549 Sebo Farm Equipment Ltd Vehicle repair parts - CS $561.25
24/07/2014 40550 Sentry Fire Protection Service Fire extinguisher parts & service-various locations $1,010.36
24/07/2014 40551 SGS Canada Inc. GB Beach water testing $607.94
24/07/2014 40552 Lori Sheidow Refund garbage bag tags $120.00
24/07/2014 40553 Spedquip Industries Ltd Vehicle repair - CS $4,297.82
24/07/2014 40554 Squeak Window Cleaning GB office window cleaning $169.50
24/07/2014 40555 Stonetown Supply Services Inc Facility cleaning supplies $3,893.81
24/07/2014 40556 Strathroy Monuments Ltd Supplies - Cemetery $333.35
24/07/2014 40557 Strong Macdougall Oudekerk Legal fees - Ridge Rd, W & WW RFP $5,364.68
24/07/2014 40558 Summit Food Service GB Beach concession supplies $852.17
24/07/2014 40559 Sunmedia Corporation June/July advertising $1,564.15
24/07/2014 40560 Swish Maintenance Limited Facility cleaning supplies $638.79
24/07/2014 40561 Syl Rumas Petroleum Maintenance Equipment repair - GB Harbour $1,087.44
24/07/2014 40562 Track 21 Graphix Inc. Signs $1,241.06
24/07/2014 40563 Tri- County Tree Service Tree removal - Grand Bend $1,073.50
24/07/2014 40564 V.B. Sand & Gravel Ltd. Concrete, stumps & brush removal $276.67
24/07/2014 40565 Bill Weber Reimburse for CIB dinner & supplies $357.50
24/07/2014 40567 D.Jill Wong Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
24/07/2014 40568 Woodwards Service Centre Equipment & parts - CS $975.18
24/07/2014 40569 Work Equipment Ltd Vehicle repair parts - CS $160.86
Page 4 of 5
356
2014
24/07/2014 40570 WSIB Regular monthly remittance $7,232.22
24/07/2014 40571 YMCA's Across Southwestern Ontario Association services - July $4,750.00
24/07/2014 40572 Zavitz General Store Supplies - CS $1,000.97
24/07/2014 40573 Pineridge Barbecue Co Ltd. CIB dinner $748.06
24/07/2014 40574 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT,LAN $2,384.30
24/07/2014 40575 Receiver General HST remittance $3,701.06
31/07/2014 40576 Fadhil Askar Garbage bag tags refund $66.36
31/07/2014 40577 Barry R Card Legal fees - GBSTF,general & wind (reimbursed) $2,812.02
31/07/2014 40578 C.U.P.E. Union dues - August $1,091.99
31/07/2014 40580 Green Shield Canada Employee benefits - August $9,816.18
31/07/2014 40581 The Grist Mill Final inspection security bond refund $250.00
31/07/2014 40582 Hydro One Networks Regular monthly remittance (reimbursed) $116.85
31/07/2014 40583 Diane Jamieson Garden mtce - Thedford Village Green $765.00
31/07/2014 40584 Knox Presbyterian Church CIB luncheon $150.00
31/07/2014 40585 Mike & Terri No Frills GB Beach concession supplies $227.92
31/07/2014 40586 Matt Millar Plant watering - Arkona $935.64
31/07/2014 40587 Catherine Minielly Reimburse for CIB expenses $217.66
31/07/2014 40588 Shirley O'Halloran Forest compost site supervision - July $710.10
31/07/2014 40589 Parking Boxx Corp. PF Harbour supplies $623.58
31/07/2014 40590 Paul Davis Systems Emergency repair - Old Forest arena $8,052.35
31/07/2014 40591 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish pettycash - NV Office $409.50
31/07/2014 40592 Roger Piett Refund garbage bag tags $87.50
31/07/2014 40593 Receiver General Regular payroll remittance $42,537.41
31/07/2014 40594 Scott Ruddle Reimburse beach patrol supplies $899.48
31/07/2014 40595 Sentry Fire Protection Service Fire extinguisher parts & service $588.33
31/07/2014 40596 Sobeys Garbage bag tags refund $1,898.37
31/07/2014 40597 St Clair Region Conservation Reimburse for CIB signs $337.87
31/07/2014 40598 Glen Starkey CIB accommodations $630.00
31/07/2014 40599 Astrid Underwood Reimburse CIB expenses $75.00
31/07/2014 40600 Jerry Vanbruaene Mileage & training - GB FD $331.61
31/07/2014 40601 Watec Services Inc Sauble Road culvert $3,729.00
31/07/2014 40603 Forest B.I.A. Refund damage deposit $500.00
31/07/2014 40604 GSS Engineering Consultants RFP - W & WW operations mtce $2,147.00
31/07/2014 40605 Grand Bend Canada Day Flow through donations $3,100.00
31/07/2014 40606 Petty Cash-Jodie Poland Replenish pettycash - NV Office $95.00
31/07/2014 40607 Vicki Sheppard GB & Forest Office cleaning $260.00
31/07/2014 40608 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT, LAN, equipment $1,626.07
31/07/2014 PAP Eastlink Pre-Authorized Payments $118.62
31/07/2014 PAP Execulink Telecom Pre-Authorized Payments $1,944.58
31/07/2014 PAP Hay Communications Pre-Authorized Payments $1,400.29
31/07/2014 PAP Hydro One Networks Pre-Authorized Payments $39,661.47
31/07/2014 PAP RBC (Paytickets) Pre-Authorized Payments $114.13
31/07/2014 PAP Reliance Home Comfort Pre-Authorized Payments $439.80
31/07/2014 PAP Rogers At & T Pre-Authorized Payments $1,560.93
31/07/2014 PAP Union Gas Pre-Authorized Payments $1,548.78
TOTAL $1,886,974.87
Page 5 of 5
357
Notice of Motion: September 4, 2014

Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel

THAT staff are directed to pursue formal discussions with the Ministry of Transportation
staff to find ways of improving both the north and south flows of traffic along Hwy. 21
connecting link within Grand Bend.

358
Notice of Motion: September 4, 2014

Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes that we are called to be
good stewards of the land and its resources, and

WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as a
comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global
political control, that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities
throughout Lambton Shores and Canada through the International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local sustainable development policies such
as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and
other Green or Alternative projects; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21s plan of sustainable development views
private property ownership, single family homes, private vehicle ownership; individual
travel choices, and privately owned farms as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21, social justice is described as the
right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by
society and the environment which United Nations Agenda 21 would accomplish by
redistribution of wealth; and

WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21 national sovereignty is deemed a
social injustice; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes the destructive and
insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes the dangerous intent
of United Nations Agenda 21; and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21
as an infringement on the inalienable rights of Canadian citizens, and

RESOLVED that the Municipality of Lambton Shores withdraw from ICLEI and inform its
residents of the harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21
and we hereby reject its destructive strategies for sustainable development.

359

2014 09 04 Lambton Shores Municipality Council Meeting Agenda

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2014 09 04 Lambton Shores Municipality Council Meeting Agenda

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

También podría gustarte