View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

Regular Meeting of Council 

Meeting Number: 22-2012 

Date of Meeting: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 

Time: 

Place of Meeting: 

06:15 p.m. 

Village Complex, Thedford 

AGENDA 

Pages 

1. Call to Order 

2. Declaration of Pecuniary or Conflict of Interest 

3. Confidential 

3.1 Closed Session Minutes - August 7, 2012 

3.2 Correspondence from Jeff Nicholson - Re: Property for Sale 

(Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) c of the Municipal Act) 

3.3 C.A.O. Report No. 62-2012 - Re: Kettle & Stony Point First Nation 

- Addition to Reserve - Indian Hills Golf Cours and Subdivision 

(Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) g of the Municipal Act) 

3.4 D.C.S. Report No. 83-2012 - Re: Bulding Canada Funding - Legal 

Advice (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) e of the Municipal 

Act) 

3.5 D.C.S. Report No. 84-2012 - Re: Laird Estate Outstanding Claims 

- Correspondence from the Co-Executors Attached (Authorization 

to Close Section 239 (2) e of the Municipal Act) 

3.6 CL Report No. 97-2012 - Re: Request to Purchase the Baptist 

Cemetery (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) c of the 

Municipal Act) 

4. Consent Agenda 

4.1 Correspondence from Catherine Minielly on behalf of the Lambton 

Shores Communities in Bloom Committee - Re: Appreciation 

4.2 Correspondence from Bernice Rade - Re: Concerns with Truck 

Traffic on Main Street, South, Forest 

4.3 CL Report No. 100-2012 - Re: Applications heard by the 

Committee of Adjustment on August 23, 2012 

1 - 1 

2 - 2 

3 - 4 

5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

5.1 Regular Council Meeting - August 7, 2012 5 - 25 

5.2 Regular Council Meeting - August 14, 2012 26 - 33 

6. Delegations, Public Meetings & Presentations 

6.1 7:00 p.m. - Public Meeting - Re: Disposal of Public Lands within 

the Beach O'Pines Subdivision (See CL Report No. 98-2012) 

6.2 7:00 p.m. - Ken McRae & Erin Hamilton, Co-Chairs of the Optimist 

Club of Forest - Re: Partnership Proposal for Splash Pad in 

Forest 

6.3 7:15 p.m. - Karen Kelly-White & Dave Griffith - Re: Industrial Wind 

Turbines 

34 - 34 

35 - 48 

7. Correspondence & Petitions 

Correspondence - for Council Direction 

7.1 John Kerr - Re: Amendment to By-law 25-2002 to Allow Bicycles 

on Sidewalks 

7.2 Monte McNaughton, MPP Lambton-Kent-Middlesex - Re: Private 

Members Bill, Bill 76 to Amend the Ontario Lottery & Game Act of 

1999 

7.3 Jackie Tiedeman, Clerk, Municipality of North Middlesex - Re: 

Request for Moratorium on Wind Turbine Projects 

49 - 56 

57 - 61 

62 - 65 

8. Consideration of Committee Minutes and Staff Reports 

8.1 Minutes of the Lambton Shores Accessibility Committee Meeting 

held August 8, 2012 

66 - 67 

Corporate & Strategic 

8.2 C.A.O. Report No. 60-2012 - Re: Market Review of Salaries - 

Municipality of Lambton Shores 

68 - 71 

Planning 

8.3 PL Report No. 27-2012 - Re: Ipperwash Cell Tower Application - 

Request for Municipal Concurrence 

8.4 PL Report No. 28-2012 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application 

OP-01/2012 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO- 

02/2012 for Austin Hatchery & Farms Ltd. - 8623 Townsend Line 

8.5 PL Report No. 29-2012 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment 

Application ZO-06/2012 for Brad Oke - Lakeshore Road between 

Beach O'Pines Road & Jennison Crescent 

8.6 PL Report No. 30-2012 - Re: Site Plan Agreement between Rice 

Development Company Inc. & the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

for Brooklawn Drive (Rice Subdivision), Grand Bend 

72 - 92 

93 - 120 

121 - 128 

129 - 157

Community Services 

8.7 D.C.S. Report No. 72-2012 - Re: Grand Bend STF Project Update 158 - 212 

8.8 D.C.S. Report No. 74-2012 - Re: 2012 Tar and Chip Program - 

Update 

8.9 D.C.S. Report No. 76-2012 - Re: Request from St. Clair 

Conservation Authority for Sponsorship of the Great Canadian 

Shoreline Cleanup 

8.10 D.C.S. Report No. 78-2012 - Re: Information on the 2012 

Volunteer Recognition Barbeque 

8.11 D.C.S. Report No. 79-2012 - Re: Lake Valley Grove Ravine 

Drainage Request (Section 4 of the Drainage Act) 

213 - 215 

216 - 218 

219 - 231 

232 - 244 

8.12 D.C.S. Report No. 80-2012 - Re: Licensed Area at the Arenas 245 - 253 

8.13 D.C.S. Report No. 81-2012 - Re: Forest Three Phase 

Improvement Plan for a BMX Park, Splash Pad and Trail 

Improvements 

254 - 313 

Finance & Administration 

8.14 TR Report No. 52-2012 - Re: 2011 Development Charges 

Statement 

8.15 TR Report No. 53-2012 - Re: Results of the RFP for 

Water/Wastewater Rate Study and Development Charges Study 

8.16 CL Report No. 95-2012 - Re: A By-law to Establish a Fee for 

Applications for Telecommunication Facilities 

8.17 CL Report No. 96-2012 - Re: Cell Tower Replacement - 10246 

Lakeview Ave., Southcott Pines 

8.18 CL Report No. 98-2012 - Re: Public Meeting - Declaring Municipal 

Lands Surplus - Beach O'Pines Subdivision 

8.19 CL Report No. 99-2012 - Re: Agreement between Michael 

Gerardus VanEngelen and the Municipality of Lambton Shores to 

Retain Existing Dwelling for Security Reasons at 8770 Gordon 

Road 

8.20 CL Report No. 101-2012 - Re: Requests for Municipal Resolution 

for Agricultural Buildings with Solar Installments 

314 - 316 

317 - 317 

318 - 326 

327 - 336 

337 - 341 

342 - 345 

346 - 349 

9. By-laws & Resolutions 

9.1 By-law 100-2012 - Re: Amend Municipal Fees - 

Telecommunication Facility Applications (See CL Report No. 95- 

2012) 

9.2 By-law 101-2012 - Re: Zone Amendment - Austin's Hatchery (See 

PL Report No. 28-2012)

9.3 By-law 102-2012 - Re: Official Plan Amendment - Austin's 

Hatchery (See PL Report No. 28-2012) 

9.4 By-law 103-2012 - Re: Zone Amendment - Brad Oke (See PL 

Report No. 29-2012) 

9.5 By-law 104-2012 - Re: Authorize Site Plan with Rice Development 

(See PL Report No. 30-2012) 

9.6 By-law 105-2012 - Re: Authorize Agreement with Mike 

VanEngelen (See CL Report No. 99-2012)` 

9.7 By-law 106-2012 - Confirming Resolutins to Date 350 - 350 

9.8 By-law 99-2012 - Re: Stop Up and Close Certain Highways (See 

CL Report No. 98-2012) 

10. Accounts 

10.1 TR Report No.51-2012 - Re: July, 2012 Cheque Listing 351 - 355 

11. Notice of Motion 

11.1 Notice of Motion - Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: "Great 

Exchange" to Exhange and/or Get Rid of Large Garbage Items 

11.2 Notices of Motion - Councillor Bonesteel - Re: Application for 

Grant for the University of Guelph's Arkell Centre Grad Students, 

Staff Report on Christmas Decorations & Feasibility of Volleyball 

Courts 

356 - 356 

357 - 357 

12. New Business 

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

13. Councillor Reports 

13.1 An opportunity for Members of Council to make a report. 

14. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification 

15. Adjourn

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

CL Report No. 100-2012 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

Mayor Weber and Members of Council 

Carol McKenzie, Clerk 

RE: Applications heard by the Committee of Adjustment on August 23, 2012 

RECOMMENDATION: 

For information only. 

The Committee of Adjustment met on Thursday, August 23, 2012 to hear the following 

applications: 

2327924 Ontario Inc., c/o Bradley C. Oke – Minor Variance Application A-11/2012 

Bradley Oke requested approval of a minor variance from Section 3.29.1 of Zoning Bylaw 

1 of 2003, as it relates to lands known as 71 River Road in Grand Bend to permit 

cash-in-lieu of parking for 30.25 parking spaces, for the additional outdoor seating 

areas. The By-law requires 30.25 parking spaces and the Applicant cannot provide any 

additional parking spaces. 

This variance was approved with the following conditions: 

1. That this minor variance applies only to the proposal as presented in Application 

A-11/2012. Any change to that proposal will require further permission from the 

Committee. 

2. That the Owner pay cash-in-lieu for 30.25 parking spaces. 

3. That the Owner revise the existing site plan agreement with the Municipality. 

4. That the property (71 River Rd.) be restricted from applying for any additional 

variances for parking provisions. 

Rob Panzor, Agent for Brad Oke – Consent Application B-15/2012 

An application for consent was made by Rob Panzer, Agent for Brad Oke, for the lands 

known as Plan 25R9881, Part of lot 7, Concession LRW, Lakeshore Road, Grand Bend. 

The Applicant requested permission to sever and convey Parts 2,3,4,5,6,7, & 8 to the 

abutting residential lots and the balance, Part 1, is the proposed site for a single 

detached dwelling, fronting onto Lakeshore Road. 

The lands were subject of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZO-06/2012) which 

was considered by Council at their August 6, 2012 meeting. 

This consent was granted with the recommended conditions. 

3

If you have any questions or would like more information on the applications, please 

contact Jackie Mason at the Forest Office. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Carol McKenzie 

Clerk 

Report prepared by Jackie Mason, D/Secretary of the Committee of Adjustment 

4


Date of Meeting: August 7, 2012 

Regular Council Meeting 

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber 

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg 

Councillor Dave Maguire 

Councillor Lorie Scott 

Councillor Ruth Illman 

Councillor Martin Underwood 

Councillor Doug Cook 

Councillor John Russell 

Councillors Absent: Councillor Bonesteel 

Staff Present: 

C.A.O. John Byrne 

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 3:00 p.m. 

2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest 

that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and Deputy Mayor Davis- 

Dagg declared a conflict with Item #7.1 of the agenda dealing with wind turbines. 

3. CONFIDENTIAL 

12-0807-01 Moved by: Councillor Cook 

Seconded by: Councillor Illman 

That the Council meeting goes into a “Closed Session” at 3:00 p.m. 

to discuss the Salary Survey Market Report and pending litigation 

for property in Port Franks. (Authorization to Close – Sections 239 

(2) b and e of the Municipal Act. Carried 

Council rose at 4:26 p.m. and reported on pending litigation for property in Port Franks. 

A motion was made following the “Closed Session” in the open meeting as follows: 

12-0807-02 Moved by: Councillor Scott 

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 

5

Minutes of the August 7, 2012 Council Meeting 

That staff are authorized to pursue legal means to compel 

compliance with the Building Code at a structure located at 7545 

Riverside Drive, Port Franks. 

Carried 

In order to accommodate the scheduled public meetings and delegations Council 

consent to amend the order of the agenda. 

6. DELEGATIONS, PUBLIC MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS 

6.1 Environmental Assessment Salt Dome – Public Information Session – BKL 

Engineering 

12-0807-03 Moved by: Councillor Russell 


That the Council meeting adjourns at 5:00 p.m. for a Public 

Information Session on the Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed winter control material storage building. Carried 

Mr. Philip Keightley of BKL Engineering was in attendance to discuss with Council the 

proposed construction of a new winter control material storage building at the Northville 

Community Services Depot. 

Mr. Keightley advised that the Environmental Assessment report was being presented 

for Council’s review and also confirmed that the Northville Community Services Depot 

was the preferred location for the salt dome. 

Mr. Keightley further advised that the preferred structure for the winter control material 

storage building was a fabric covered pre-engineered steel frame building and in 

answer to the Deputy Mayor’s question of possible flooding of the area noted that this 

was not an issue as the existing storm drainage infrastructure provides both quality and 

quantity of run-off. 

As there were no questions from the audience Mr. Keightley noted that to move forward 

Council should accept the EA study recommendation and proceed with filing the “Notice 

of Completion” and post the study for the 30 day mandatory public review. 



That the public meeting adjourns and the regular Council meeting 

reconvenes at 5:09 p.m. 

Carried 

Council sat adjourned until the next scheduled public meeting. 

6.2 Public Meeting – Re: Proposed Changes to Building Permit Fees 

12-0807-05 Moved by: Councillor Illman 

Seconded by: Councillor Cook 

6


That the Council meeting adjourns at 5:45 p.m. for a Public Meeting 

to hear proposed changes to building permit fees. Carried 

The Clerk Carol McKenzie explained to Council that the purpose of the public meeting 

was to review recommend changes to building permit fees for certain types of 

agricultural building that have low or no occupancy (ether human or animal) and/or were 

fully engineered. 

Ms. McKenzie advised that the recommended fee changes for building permits would 

apply only buildings where a majority of the responsibility, liability and inspection 

services are borne by the engineer. She noted that all conventional construction would 

continue to be charged at the current rate of $3.50 per square metre to compensate for 

the time requirements and liability on the Building Department staff. 

There were no questions from the audience. 


Seconded by: Councillor Russell 

That the Public Meeting adjourns and the regular Council meeting 

reconvene at 5:55 p.m. 

Carried 



That the building permit fees for green houses, manure tanks and 

feed storage bunkers (without a roof), fully engineered farm 

buildings, and security deposits for “as constructed drawings” as 

outlined in CL Report No. 84-2012 and as discussed at the public 

meeting held the 7 th day of August, 2012 be approved. Carried 

6.3 Public Meeting – Re: Proposed Road Name Change 



That the Council meeting adjourns and the Public Meeting to 

discuss a proposed road name change open at 5:55 p.m. 

Carried 

Clerk Carol McKenzie advised that a request to rename a portion of King Street East, in 

Forest to “Gilpin Way” has been received. 

The Clerk noted that there would be no impact on area residents as the only properties 

that access onto this stretch of road is Gilpin Funeral Chapel who had requested the 

amendment and the Municipality’s bulk water station. 

Councillor Underwood noted that renaming would be beneficial, as there has been 

confusion as to the name of this section of road. 

7


There were no questions or comments from Council or members of the audience. 


Seconded by: Councillor Scott 

That the Public Meeting adjourns and the regular Council meeting 

reconvene at 7:00 p.m. 

Carried 

12-0807-10 Moved by: Councillor Underwood 


That the naming of the King Street East road, running from King 

Street East to Rawlings Road in Forest, be changed to “Gilpin Way” 

as outlined in CL Report No. 02-2012 and discussed at the public 

meeting, and that By-law 84 of 2012 affecting the name change be 

approved. 

Carried 

4. CONSENT AGENDA 

Council reviewed those remaining items listed as part of the consent agenda. 



That those recommendations outlined in the following reports 

included in the August 7, 2012 consent agenda be approved: 

Item 4.2 D.C.S. Report No. 68-2012 – Re: Morris Street, 

Forest Reconstruction – Tender Award 

Item 4.3 CL Report No. 89-2012 – Re: Authorize the 

Collection of Sums Assessed for Maintenance of Certain Drains 

and further; 

That the remaining items on the consent agenda as listed below 

be received and filed; 

4.1 C.A.O. Report No. 56-2012 – Re: Lambton Shores Strategic 

Plan – Update 

4.4 CL Report No. 92-2012 – Re: Application heard by the 

Committee of Adjustment on July 26, 2012 

4.5 Correspondence from Janis Murray – Re: Parking Violation 

4.6 Correspondence from the Minister of State (Science and 

Technology) – Re: Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund 

4.7 Correspondence from the Association of Ontario Road 

Supervisors – Re: Paul Martin CRS 

4.8 Correspondence from Darlene Howard Perry & Robert 

Perry – Re: Lifeguards – Rescue on Beach – Sunday, July 8, 2012 

8


4.9 Correspondence from the Municipality of Bluewater – Re: 

Participation in the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Plant and 

the Area Sewage Plant Board 

4.10 Correspondence from the Municipal Property Assessment 

Corporation – Re: Market Snapshot. 

Carried 

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

5.1 Regular Council Meeting – July 9, 2012 

The minutes of the regular Council meeting held the 9 th 

reviewed. 

day of July, 2012 were 



That the minutes of the July 9, 2012 regular Council meeting be 

accepted as presented. 

Carried 

6.4 Public Meeting – Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2012 and 

Zone Amendment Application ZO-07/2012 for Joseph and Daniel Lacey – 

6443 Townsend Line 



That the Council meeting adjourns at 7:10 p.m. for a public meeting 

held under the Planning Act to hear applications for a Zoning Bylaw 

and Official Plan Amendment submitted by Joseph and Daniel 

Lacey for property located at 6443 Townsend Line. Carried 

On behalf of the Planner, the C.A.O. John Byrne explained that the applicants Joseph 

and Daniel Lacey are requesting an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the 

Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling which is 

surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation. 

Mr. Byrne further advised that the applicants are also requesting an amendment to the 

Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in the Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it affects the remnant farm 

parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the farm parcel after the 

severance of the surplus dwelling and that this severed non-farm dwelling lot be allowed 

the accessory building to remain on the non-farm dwelling lot. 

It was noted that Corrine Nauta, Manager, Building Services, County of Lambton had 

confirmed that the septic system in place on this property is in general conformance to 

the Ontario Building Code, Part 8, as required. 

A member of the audience Mr. Dave Hendrickx raised concern that the new purchaser 

of the surplus dwelling might have an issue with the truck traffic going in and out of his 

property for his farm business. 

9






Carried 


Seconded by: Councillor Underwood 

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-03/2012, submitted 

Joseph and Daniel Lacey requesting an amendment to the Lambton 

Shores Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it relates to lands known 

as 6443 Townsend Line, to allow the creation of a new non-farm 

dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as 

result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED. 

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-07/2012, 

submitted Joseph and Daniel Lacey, requesting an amendment to 

the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it relates to lands 

known as 6443 Townsend Line to: 

a) prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant 

farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling; 

b) allow the remnant farm parcel to have a lot area of 18.8 

hectares and a lot frontage of 70 metres; and 

c) allow a 357 m² accessory building to remain on the 

proposed non-farm dwelling lot. 

be APPROVED and that the By-laws to implement the 

amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be adopted. 

Carried 

6.5 Public Meeting – Re: Zone Amendment Application ZO-06/2012 for Brad 

Oke – Lakeshore Road between Beach O Pines Road & Jennison Crescent 




held under the Planning Act to hear an application for a Zoning Bylaw 

submitted by Brad Oke for property located on Lakeshore Road 

between Beach O’Pines Road and Jennison Crescent. 

Carried 

The C.A.O. Mr. Byrne advised that the applicant, Brad Oke, is requesting an 

amendment to Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it affects lands located on the west side of 

Highway 21 (Lakeshore Road), south of Beach O’Pines Road and north of Jennison 

10


Crescent to change the “Future Develoment (FD) Zone” on the property to a Residential 

6 (R6) Zone (parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 25R9881) a Residential 6-4 (R6-4) Zone (Parts 6, 

7 and 8 and Part of Part 1 Plan 25R9881) and an Environmental Protection-Natural 

Conservation (EP-NC) Zone on the easterly 23 metres of the property. The rezoning is 

intended to allow the rear portion of the property to be severed and conveyed to the 

existing abutting residential lots and the balance of the lot (Part 1) to be developed as 

the site of one single detached dwelling. 

A lengthy discussion took place on concerns raised by Council and a member of the 

audience that any new zone placed on those lands should prohibit development or site 

alteration until such time as it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impact 

on the Old Ausable Channel or on endangered species. 





Carried 



That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-06/2012, submitted 

Brad Oke, requesting amendments to the Lambton Shores Zoning 

By-law 1 of 2003, as it relates to lands located on the west side of 

Highway 21 between Beach O’Pines Road and Jennison Crescent be 

APPROVED AS REVISED BY STAFF to change the zoning on: 

a) PARTS 3, 4, 5, and 6, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future 

Development” to “Residential 6-18 (R6-18) Zone”, which 

will prohibit development or alteration of the parcels until it 

has been demonstrated that there will be no negative 

impact on the Old Ausable River Channel which is a 

provincially significant wetland and habitat to endangered 

species; 

b) PART 2, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future Development” to 

“Residential 6 (R6); 

c) PARTS 7, 8, and 1, save and except the east 23 metres of 

PART 1, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future Development” to 

“Residential 6-4 (R6-4); and 

d) the east 23 metres of PART 1, PLAN 25R9881 from 

“Future Development” to “Environmental Protection - 

Natural Conservation (EP-NC). 

Carried 

6.6 Jaclyn McGregor & Gus Mumby of BDO Canada LLP – Re: 2011 Audited 

Financial Statements 

11


Mrs. McGregor presented the 2011 financial statements and provided explanations on 

the various notes within the report, and responded to questions from members of 

Council. 

Mr. Mumby noted that there were no issues of concerns with the audit, and he would 

review the management letter with the Treasurer to clarify any observations, and will 

present the document for the Mayor and Treasurer to sign. 



That the consolidated financial statements dated December 31, 

2011 as prepared by the Municipal Auditors are adopted. 



That, after review with the Auditor, the Mayor and Treasurer are 

authorized to sign the management letter presented by BDO 

Canada LLP for the 2011 Audited Financial Statements. 

Carried 

6.7 Brad Oke – Re: Request for Outside Seating Area at Smackwater Jack’s 

Mr. Brad Oke appeared before Council to request permission to allow the serving of 

alcohol on the outdoor patios at Smackwater Jack’s Restaurant located at 71 River 

Road. Mr. Oke noted that his alcohol permit allows for 149 people to be served alcohol 

inside the restaurant, and that if alcohol is allowed to be served outdoors in the two 

areas; the total number of patrons would be restricted to a maximum of 149 people. 

Mr. Oke noted that he has submitted an application for a minor variance for cash in lieu 

of parking for Smackwater Jack’s to allow for the extra areas to be licensed, however 

this request was in advance of the hearing for the minor variance to take advantage of 

AquaFest celebrations. 

Discussion ensued on the need for a planning report on this request as an amendment 

to the original site plan could be required. 

Council concurred that the outdoor patio at Smackwater Jack’s located at 71 River 

Road in Grand Bend could be used during Aqua Fest for the Chowder Tasting; 

however no alcohol could be served outdoors. 



That the request to expand the alcohol license to the outdoor patio 

area of Smackwater Jack’s at 71 River Road and Grand Bend be 

referred to the Planner for a report. 

Carried 

12




That permission to use the outdoor patio during Aqua Fest for the 

Chowder Tasting at Smackwater Jacks located at 71 River Road in 

Grand Bend be granted; however, alcohol cannot be served until 

the appropriate approvals are received. 

Carried 

7. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS 

Correspondence – for Council Direction 

7.1 Karen Kelly-White – Re: Request to Advise Premier Dalton McGinty of 

Opposition to Wind Turbines 

A letter from Karen Kelly-White requesting the Municipality to advise Premier Dalton 

McGinty of its opposition to wind turbines was reviewed and Council concurred to 

reaffirm its position on this matter by re-sending Council’s original letter requesting a 

moratorium on wind turbines until health and safety concerns have been addressed. 



That staff is directed to re-send correspondence to Premier 

McGinty requesting a moratorium on wind turbines until health and 

safety concerns have been addressed. 

Carried 

7.2 Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation – Re: Proposed Addition 

to Reserve of Indian Hills Golf Course 

Correspondence from the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation regarding 

the proposed addition of the Indian Hills Golf Course to the Reserve was reviewed and 

Council agreed that any comments and concerns be referred to Chief Thomas 

Bressette. 



That any Council comments and concerns regarding the transfer of 

the Indian Hills Golf Course to the Reserve be forwarded to the 

Chief of the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation. 

Carried 

7.3 Rob Gilpin, Managing Director of Gilpin Funeral Chapel – Re: Purchase of 

the Baptist Cemetery 

A request from the Managing Director of Gilpin Funeral Chapel, Rob Gilpin, to purchase 

the Baptist Cemetery was briefly reviewed and Council concurred that a report on this 

request was needed prior to making a decision. 

13


12-0807-25 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 


That the request from Rob Gilpin, Managing Director of Gilpin 

Funeral Chapel to purchase the Baptist Cemetery be referred to 

staff for a report. 

Carried 

7.4 Wendy Hoy – Re: Delegation to Ottawa Asking the Ministry of Health for 

Protection from Electromagnetic Radio Frequencies 

A request from Wendy Hoy asking Council to send a delegation to Ottawa asking the 

Ministry of Health to protect the Municipality of Lambton Shores from Electromagnetic 

Radio Frequencies was reviewed. 

It was noted that an application for a delegate with the Minister of Health at the AMO 

Conference had not been submitted and Council agreed that staff be directed to 

prepare a report on this matter. 



That staff prepare a report on sending a delegation to Ottawa to 

discuss protection from Electromagnetic Radio Frequencies with 

the Minister of Health. 

Carried 

7.5 County of Norfolk – Re: Policing Costs and Service Levels and Delivery 

Methods 

Council reviewed correspondence from Norfolk County regarding support for inclusion 

into the current discussion centered on police services and for the position of having 

“Say for Pay”. 



That Council supports Norfolk Council in its efforts for ensuring 

“Say for Pay” with respect to the cost of policing, and inclusion in 

discussions relating to the cost of policing, and the process of 

determining local police service levels and delivery methods, and 

that a copy of the letter of support be forwarded to the Provincial 

Member of Parliament. 

Carried 

7.6 Bernice Rade – Re: Request for Repairs to Main St. S., Forest 

A letter from Bernice Rade requesting repairs to Main Street South in Forest was 

reviewed. Ms. Rade is advising that due to poor road conditions and the truck traffic on 

Main Street, plaster is falling off the ceiling of her home and items in cabinets are 

shifting about. 

14


The speed that the transport trucks are travelling along Main Street was briefly 

discussed and Council agreed that the O.P.P. be contacted to enforce the speed limit 

along this corridor. 



That correspondence from Bernice Rade regarding the condition of 

Main Street, South in Forest be received and filed. Carried 



That staff contact the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce the speed 

limit along the Main Street corridor of Forest. Carried 

7.7 Susan Mills, Manager of Grand Bend Tourism – Re: Request for Access to 

Sidewalks in Grand Bend for Thanksgiving Market & Sidewalk Sale 

A letter from Susan Mills, Manager of Grand Bend Tourism requesting permission to 

use sidewalks for a 2 day Thanksgiving Market and Sidewalk Sale in Grand Bend 

during the Thanksgiving weekend was reviewed by Council. 


Seconded by: Councillor Maguire 

That an exemption to the Municipal Streets By-law be granted for 

use by Grand Bend businesses during the Thanksgiving Market 

and Sidewalk Sale to be held October 6 th and 7 th , 2012, on the 

same conditions as in 2011. 

Carried 

7.8 Bruce Hiscott, President of Ultra Sunrooms – Re: Request for a 2 Year 

Temporary Zoning 

A request from Bruce Hiscott, President of Ultra Sunrooms, for a temporary zoning on 

property located at 9983 Northville Crescent to allow the sale of trailers was reviewed. 



That a request for a temporary zoning on property located at 9983 

Northville Crescent to allow trailer sales be filed, and the business 

owner be directed to apply for a zone amendment to allow the sale 

of trailers at 9983 Northville Crescent. 

Carried 

8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINUTES AND STAFF REPORTS 

Corporate & Strategic 

15


8.1 C.A.O. Report No. 55-2012 – Re: Communication Surveys and Soliciting 

Public Input and Feedback 

At the direction of Council, C.A.O. John Byrne provided Council with a report on 

communication survey and soliciting public input and feedback. Mr. Byrne noted that the 

Municipality has used “surveys” in the past to help garner public opinion and feedback 

about issues, and noted that properly conducted and well framed surveys can be a 

valuable tool in assisting Council and staff in better serving the needs of the 

municipality. Council agreed that the communication survey proposed by the Deputy 

Mayor be amended and brought back for Council final approval. 



That the communication survey proposed by the Deputy Mayor be 

amended as directed by Council and brought back for review and 

approval. 

Carried 

8.2 C.A.O Report No. 57-2012 – Re: Pedestrian Bridge Mud Creek Trail – Port 

Franks 

Council reviewed a request from the Lambton Shores Trails Committee regarding the 

feasibility of the Municipality participating in the replacement of a pedestrian bridge to 

span Mud Creek in Port Franks. C.A.O. Report No. 57-2012 provided information on 

this project and a possible draft agreement that would allow the Municipality to 

participate in the ownership and maintenance of this structure. 



That Council confirm that it is willing to assume in principle the 

ownership and ongoing maintenance costs for the pedestrian 

bridge (costs to be determined) and; 

That staff are authorized to contact the Nature Conservancy as to 

the adequacy of the Draft agreement and confirm their support for 

the draft agreement and; 

That staff are directed to work with Mr. Kuencke and Mr. Banks on 

the bridge design and in the process develop cost estimates for 

review by Council and further: 

That staff is to contact the required approval agencies (ABCA etc.) 

with respect to rebuilding the pedestrian bridge at this location. 

Carried 

8.3 C.A.O. Report No. 58-2012 – Re: Road & Easement Agreement between 

Beach O Pines Association and the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

16


Details of an agreement between the Municipality of Lambton Shores and the Beach 

O’Pines Association for roads, easements and tow path accesses were outlined in 

C.A.O. Report No. 58-2012. 

The agreement details the preservation of existing roads and easements rights, the 

change in ownership of two portions of roads from public to private ownership and the 

two new easements created, one to allow access to the Old Channel tow path and the 

other for a potential infrastructure easement. 

Planning 



That C.A.O. Report No. 58-2012 regarding the road and easement 

agreement between the Beach O’Pines Association and the 

Municipality be received and that By-law No. 83-2012 be passed 

authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Transaction 

Agreement. 

Carried 

PL Reports No. 24-2012, 25-2012 were dealt with during the public portion of the 

meeting. 

8.6 PL Report No. 26-2012 – RE: Deeming By-law for Kenneth John Peters – 

7495 Clarke Drive 

Council reviewed a request from Kenneth Peters to merge his property at 7495 Clarke 

Road and a piece of the property adjourning his that he has acquired from the 

neighbours. 

Section 50 (4) of the Planning Act permits Council to pass a by-law designating any part 

of a registered plan of subdivision which has been registered for more than 8 years, not 

to be a registered plan therefore the request to merge these two properties can be 

accommodated with the passing of a deeming by-law. 



That Council approves a by-law deeming Lot 26, Registered Plan 

36, Geographic Township of Bosanquet, now and the Municipality 

of Lambton Shores, not to be a lot in a registered plan. 

Carried 

Community Services 

8.7 D.C.S. Report No. 59-2012 – Re: Reallocation of Capital Funds 

D.C.S. Report No. 59-2012 provided information on a request to Council to reallocate 

funds in the approved 2012 Capital budget, one being for the proposed Childcare 

17


Centre play area project at the Legacy Centre and the other for Community services 

vehicle and equipment. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 59-2012 regarding the reallocation of 

capital funds be approved and that the capital budget reallocations 

request be approved as presented. 

Carried 

8.8 D.C.S. Report No. 60-2012 – Re: Volunteer Appreciation Awards Selection 

Committee 

Further to Council approval of Policy #64 respecting a Volunteer Recognition Program, 

Community Services Director Brett Kittmer recommended that in this inaugural year of 

the program, the members of the Committee of Adjustment, who are residents from the 

community and represent all areas of Lambton Shores, be asked to select the Volunteer 

Award recipients for 2012. 



That the recommendation in D.C.S. Report No. 60-2012 be 

approved and that Council appoint the Committee of Adjustment as 

the Volunteer Awards Selection Committee for the inaugural year of 

the program. 

Carried 

D.C.S. Report No. 61-2012 regarding the preferred solution for a salt storage facility 

Environmental Assessment was dealt with during the public portion of the meeting. 

8.9 D.C.S. Report No. 61-2012 – Re: Preferred Solution – Salt Storage Facility 

Environmental Assessment 

Further to the Environmental Assessment Review discussed earlier in the Council 

meeting, Council agreed to accept the EA study recommendation and direct staff to file 

the “Notice of Completion” and post the study for the 30 day mandatory public review. 



That Council approve the preferred solution for the salt storage 

facility as presented by BKL Engineering; and 

That Council Directs staff to advertise the study notice of 

completion and post the Schedule B project file for the requisite 30 

day public review; and further 

That Council direct staff to competitively bid the contract for the salt 

storage facility in conjunction with the 30 day review. Carried 

18


8.10 D.C.S. Report No. 62-2012 – Re: Legacy PV System – Connection Cost 

Agreement with Hydro One 

Information on passing the necessary by-law to authorize the Municipality to enter into a 

Connection Cost Agreement for the construction of a photo Voltaic (PV) solar electricity 

generating system for the Legacy Centre with Hydro One was provided in D.C.S. Report 

No. 62-2012. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 62-2012 be approved and that the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores enter into a Connection Cost 

Agreement with Hydro One for the connection of the Legacy Centre 

Photo Voltaic System to the electrical grid; and further; 

That By-law 87-2012 authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the 

associated contract agreement be approved. Carried 

8.11 D.C.S. Report No. 63-2012 – Re: Grant Opportunity – Community 

Infrastructure Improvement Fund 

The Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer advised Council that the Federal 

Government had announced a funding program for the renovation and rehabilitation of 

existing community infrastructure and asked for Council direction regarding their 

preference of project to be submitted under this funding program. 



That staff is directed to proceed with application to the Community 

Infrastructure Improvement Fund for those projects that staff 

determine as priority. 

Carried 

8.12 D.C.S. Report No. 64-2012 – Re: Private Ice Rental Policy 

The need for a Municipal policy regulating private ice rental was outlined in D.C.S. 

Report No. 64-2012 and it was noted that the guidelines set forth in the policy will not 

only provide a directive for staff, but also ensure a fair and consistent process for 

dealing with private ice rentals. 



That the recommendation in D.C.S. Report No. 64-2012 be 

approved and that the Private Ice Rental Policy be effective for the 

2012/2013 ice season. Carried 

19


8.13 D.C.S. Report No. 65-2012 – Re: Proposed Automated Collection in 

Lambton Shores – Municipal Policy 

Details were provided in D.C.S. Report No. 65-2012 regarding public information 

sessions planned to inform the public and receive comments for the proposal from 

Bluewater Recycling Association to change curbside collection services to an 

automated system. 



That Council approves in principle the following aspects of the 

Automated Collection program for the purposes of collecting 

feedback at the public information sessions: 

1. Subscription fees for waste bins be set for the new 

automated collection program at: 

Size 

Garbage 

Bag 

Capacity 

Small 2 $60 

Medium 4 $120 

Large 6 $180 

Subscription 

fee/year 

2. Curbside recycling program remains funded through 

municipal taxes. 

3. Commercial (primary use) and multi-residential properties 

be permitted to opt out of the automated waste curbside 

collection program, but not residential properties. Proof of 

alternative means for disposal would not be required for 

commercial or multi-residential properties to opt out of waste 

collection services. 

4. All properties be included in the automated curbside 

recycling collection program. 

5. Gravel can be added to rural shoulders where waste bins 

are placed at a resident’s request if the shoulder width is not 

sufficient for holding a waste and recycle bin. Carried 

8.14 D.C.S. Report No. 66-2012 – Re: Windsor Park Traffic and Parking Concerns 

Information was provided in D.C.S. Report 66-2012 on Community Services staff’s 

intent to undertake a traffic study in the area of Windsor Park to deal with ongoing traffic 

and parking concerns for the area. It was noted that results from the study will be 

20


available following the Labour Day long weekend and staff will report back to Council 

with recommended solutions as they relate to these concerns. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 66-2012 regarding traffic and parking 

concerns in Windsor Park be received and filed. Carried 

8.15 D.C.S. Report No. 67-2012 – Re: 2012 Capital Budget Chipper Purchase 

The intended purchase by the Community Services Department of a chipper from 

Vermeer Equipment was outlined in D.C.S. Report No. 67-2012. It was noted that with 

the approval of Council, staff could begin negotiations on the purchase of a new unit 

with a Vermeer supplier and would expect to have a purchase agreement by the end of 

August. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 67-2012 and the recommendations 

contained therein be approved. 

Carried 

8.16 D.C.S. Report No. 69-2012 – Re: Project Authorization – Arkona Wastewater 

Pumping Station Roof Repair 

The need to replace the roof on the Arkona Sewage Pumping Station was briefly 

discussed. As this roof replacement was not considered during the 2012 capital budget 

Council consented that the cost to replace this roof be allocated from the wastewater 

reserve. 



That Council authorizes $6,000. to be paid from the wastewater 

reserve fund for the emergency repair of the roof at the Arkona 

Sewage Pumping Station. 

Carried 

8.17 D.C.S. Report No. 70-2012 – Re: 2012 Tar & Chip Program Amendment 

In addition to those roads approved for tar and chip in the 2012 Budget allocation 

Council discussed an additional road that is in need of immediate attention. It was 

noted that Klondyke Road (4.5 km total from Highway #21 to Greenway Road) has 

experienced a rapid deterioration in its surface during the summer construction season 

and the estimated budget to repair this stretch of Klondyke road was $ 228,000. 

Given the favourable price received to complete the surface treatment in 2012, there is 

an opportunity to resurface this road at a cost of $ 107,250. and staff recommends that 

Klondyke Road be added to the 2012 tar and chip program. 

21




That D.C.S. Report No. 70-2012 and the recommendations 

contained therein be approved. 

Carried 

Finance & Administration 

8.18 TR Report No. 48-2012 – Re: Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) 

The Treasurer Janet Ferguson provided details on the Ontario Municipal Partnership 

Fund (OMPF) grant provided to Municipalities. Staff recommended to Council that the 

amount of $80,200.00 that was above the 2012 budget estimate be placed in the 

Working Funds Reserve Fund. 



That the additional funds provided through the Ontario Municipal 

Partnership Fund be placed in the Working Funds Reserve Fund 

to be used for future expenditures. 

Carried 

TR Report No. 49-2012 regarding the 2011 Draft Audited Financial Statements was 

dealt with during the public portion of the meeting. 

CL Report No. 84-2012 regarding building permit fees for engineered agricultural 

buildings was dealt with during the public portion of the meeting. 

CL Report No. 86-2012 regarding a request to change the name of a road in Forest was 

dealt with during the public portion of the meeting. 

8.22 CL Report No. 91-2012 – Re: 2012 Dream Home Lottery Program – 10379 

Grand Oaks Drive, Lambton Shores 

Clerk Carol McKenzie advised Council that correspondence has been received from the 

organizers of the Dream Lottery Program that supports the London Health Sciences 

Foundation, noting that they have once again selected a home in Lambton Shores as 

one of the Dream Lottery grand prizes. The lottery will run from September 27 th to 

December 13th, 2012 with the house open for viewing on Fridays, Saturdays and 

Sundays. 

While the organizers do not require Municipal permission to hold the lottery, they will 

need permission from the Municipality to sell tickets at the lottery house. 

It was noted that this year, with the home being in an existing subdivision, the 

organizers have met with the Southcott Pines executive and have made arrangements 

for a shuttle service to minimize the disruption on the existing residents. 

22




That confirmation be sent to the London Health Sciences 

Foundation (Dream Lottery), advising that the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores has no objection to dream Lottery Tickets being 

sold at the “Lottery House”, located at 10379 Grand Oaks Drive, 

Lambton Shores. 

Carried 

9. BY-LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS 



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 83-2012 – Authorize Agreement with Beach O Pines 

- By-law 84-2012 – Name Road in Forest – Gilpin Way 

- By-law 86-2012 – Collect Sums Assessed for the Maintenance of 

Certain Drains 

- By-law 87-2012 – Authorize Connection Cost Agreement with Hydro 

One 

- By-law 88-2012 – Authorize Agreement with Omega Contracting 

- By-law 90-2012 – Deeming Lot – Kenneth Peters 

- By-law 91-2012 – Zone Amendment – Joseph and Daniel Lacey 

- By-law 92-2012 – Official Plan Amendment – Joseph and Daniel 

Lacey 

- By-law 93-2012 – Confirming Resolutions to Date. Carried 

10. ACCOUNTS 

There were no accounts for Council to review. 

11. NOTICE OF MOTION 

11.1 Notice of Motion from Councillor Scott – Re: Application to Great Lakes 

Community Fund 

Council concurred that the Notice of Motion from Councillor Scott regarding an 

application to the Great Lakes Community Fund be included in the September 4, 2012 

Council agenda. 

12. NEW BUSINESS 

There were no emergent issues for Council to address. 

23


13. COUNCILLOR REPORTS 

Councillor Russell reported that the County had hosted the South Western Ontario 

Tourism Association and Lambton Shores’ staff had made a presentation on the Blue 

Flag program that had been very well received. 

Councillor Scott advised that several meetings had been scheduled to obtain public 

input on the Economic Development for Lambton Shores and 2 different surveys would 

be handed out at that time and would be available on the Municipal website. 

She further reported that a Fund Raising Hockey game of all ages is planned for August 

25th by the Centre Ipperwash Community Association. 

Councillor Maguire reported that he had toured around with the Community in Bloom 

judges and commended Municipal Council representatives and staff for their excellent 

work done for this event. 

Councillor Maguire advised that the public meeting had been held to discuss the 3 

Phrase Plan for recreation improvement for the Forest area, that there were a lot of 

diverse opinions on this matter and the report regarding the public input would be 

forthcoming in the near future. 

He further reported that an Accessibility Committee meeting was planned for August 8 th 

at the Village Complex for those members of Council or the public who wished to 

attend. 

Councillor Illman reported that there had been a great turnout at the public meeting held 

in Forest on proposed recreation improvements and thanked all those people who had 

made it a success, thanked Council for their attendance at the various venues during 

the judging for Communities in Bloom, commended staff for their participation and 

presentations and both staff and committee members efforts in making this event a 

huge success. 

She further noted that it was recommended by the judges for Communities in Bloom 

that Lambton Shores apply for several of the different award categories. 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg reported on two separate instances that could have had an 

impact to Lambton Area Water Supply System, that the Trails Committee have planned 

a hike in Exeter for Thursday, that the Policing Committee had held an information 

meeting recently and stressed the importance of the role of this committee in the 

community and noted that the information provided from the Grand Bend Area Sewage 

Treatment Facility working group would be included in the Council agenda for Tuesday, 

August 14 th . 

Mayor Weber commended the organizers, committee members and Municipal staff for 

their contributions towards the amazing success of the Communities in Bloom event, 

He further reported that he had attended Funion Days in Thedford, that the plan is for 

Council to discuss the options for the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility at 

24


the Tuesday, August 14 th Council meeting, that the County has planned a Hazardous 

Waste Day for August 25 th , a Suncor Open House would be held at the Forest Legion 

August 22 nd and Aqua Fest in Grand Bend was planned for the upcoming weekend. 

14. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK CLARIFICATION 

There was no one from the audience seeking clarification. 

15. ADJOURN 



That the August 7, 2012 Council meeting adjourns at 9:12 p.m. 

Carried 

25



Regular Council Meeting 

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber 



Councillor Doug Bonesteel 

Councillor Lorie Scott 

Councillor Ruth Illman 

Councillor Martin Underwood 

Councillor Doug Cook 

Councillor John Russell 



Clerk Carol McKenzie 

Treasurer Janet Ferguson 


Planner Patti Richardson 


1. CALL TO ORDER 

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

2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest 

that they may have and none were declared. 

3. CONFIDENTIAL 

Due to time constraints the Closed Session Minutes of the August 7, 2012 Council 

meeting were deferred to the September 4, 2012 Council meeting. 

4. CONSENT AGENDA 

There were no items listed in the consent agenda for Council review. 

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

There were no minutes from previous meetings for Council review. 

6. DELEGATIONS, PUBLIC MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS 

6.1 Gus Mumby and Jaclyn McGregor, BDO Canada LLP – Re: Audit 

Management Letters 

26


The 2009, 2010 and 2011Audit Management letters were presented to Council by the 

Auditors, and Mr. Mumby noted that these audits were delayed as a result of the large 

amount of time it took to implement the new asset reporting requirements. 

In a review of these management letters Ms. McGregor provided details on areas where 

staff should consider updating policies and practices and it was noted that in most 

cases those areas identified were minor in nature. 

Mr. Mumby advised Council that the new section proposed in Public Sector Accounting 

establishing standards on how to account and report a liability associated with the 

remediation of a contaminated site will be up-coming and more information on this will 

be provided to Council at a later date. 



That the Management Letters provided by BDO Canada LLP for the 

years 2009, 2010, and 2011 be received and the audited financial 

statements be posted in the municipal offices and the Lambton 

Shores web site. 

Carried 

7. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS 

7.1 Mathew Wilson, A/Federal Co-Chair & Dino Radocchia, Provincial Co-Chair 

of the BCF-CC Joint Secretariat – Re: Building Canada Fund – 

Communities Component Project #24617 – Expansion & Upgrade of the 

Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility 

Council reviewed correspondence from the co-chairs of the Building Canada Fund, 

Communities Component advising that the Municipality’s recent request to extend the 

September 14, 2012 date to December 1, 2012 to submit a scope change outlining any 

proposed changes to the approved project or confirm that it is proceeding in accordance 

with the original description included under Schedule B of the CA was approved. 



That a letter be sent to the Co-Chairs of the Building Canada Fund 

– Community Component, expressing appreciation for the deadline 

extension to December 1, 2012, and advising of the municipality’s 

intent to meet the requirements in the August 8, 2012 

correspondence. 

Carried 

Discussion ensued as to what authority the Building Canada Funding – Communities 

Component has in withholding payment for claims by the Municipality and Council 

agreed to seek a legal opinion on this matter. 

27


12-0814-03 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel 


That a legal opinion be sought on the decision of the Co-Chairs of 

the Building Canada Fund – Community Component rendered in 

the August 8, 2012 correspondence that “claim 11” will be held in 

abeyance, in accordance with section 4.12 of the C.A., until such 

time as a formal request to alter the project is submitted by the 

Municipality or the municipality attests that the project will proceed 

in accordance with Schedule “B” of the C.A. Carried 

8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINUTES AND STAFF REPORTS 

8.1 C.A.O. Report No. 61-2012 – Re: Communications Survey 

Information was provided to Council in C.A.O. Report No. 61-2012 on the variety of 

ways the Municipality has used to reach out to the community to keep the residents 

informed about what is happening. 

Council had previously agreed to conduct a survey on public perceptions as to how the 

Municipality’s business is conducted and that proposed survey was presented to 

Council for approval. 

12-0814-04 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis Dagg 


That the staff proceed with the circulation of the “communication 

survey” as soon as possible, through the “survey monkey” process, 

and that the availability of the survey be advertised , using all the 

modes of communication available, including the “Living in Lambton 

Shores”, website, newsletters, rolling screens, etc. Carried 

8.2 D.C.S. Report No. 71-2012 – Re: Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment 

Facility – Work Group Final Report 

Prior to reviewing D.C.S. Report No. 71-2012 Mr. Mike Gundry, P. Eng. from Stantec 

presented a PowerPoint presentation on the work performed by the Working Group in 

finding alternatives for the proposed Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility 

expansion and upgrade. 

Mr. Gundry provided information on the mandate of the Working Group, the work to 

date conducted by this group, projected flows, evaluation criteria, the different plant 

alternatives that the group evaluated and site utilization. He further updated Council on 

those design items for a sewage treatment facility which are not needed to meet the 

main goal of the project, or changes that would reduce costs without sacrificing function. 

A cost comparison was presented by Mr. Gundry along with other alternatives to the 

original sewage treatment facility proposed to Council such as Blue Frog, the New 

Hamburg/Intermittent Sand Filters and a Biodigester system. 

28


With information from Mr. Gundry and the Director of Community Services Council 

reviewed recommended alternatives to the original plans for the sewage treatment 

facility such as a half Orbal Plant as tendered, an Orbal Plant with more flow 

equalization and value engineering and an Aerated Lagoon with SAGR and tertiary 

filters. 

Councillor Illman posed several questions to Mr. Gundry on those recommendations 

proposed by the Working Group, the Orbal Sewage Treatment Facility, flow 

equalization, value engineering, additional costs for new design work and future 

expansion. 

Mr. Gundry was asked to confirm that the Orbal Plant recommended as Option #3 

would meet an increase in flows and this was confirmed. 

The Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer proceeded to review D.C.S. Report 

No.71-2012 with Council and provided information on Option #3 and Option #4. 

Option #3 is an Orbal process with flow equalization and value engineering that is a full 

build double train Orbal plant that diverts all flows first to a storage lagoon and then 

brings the stored sewage back into the plant for treatment. Option #4 is a half Orbal 

process with flow equalization and value engineering that is the original full build single 

train plant, as tendered, but with the flow equalization. 

Mr. Kittmer further provided information on the impact to the ESR, timelines and 

construction considerations, impact to funding and costs, choosing an alternative and 

other project considerations such as service delivery, risk of litigations, fate of the 

working group, the Joint Board agreement. 

A brief discussion took place on the projected flow rates confirmed previously by 

Council of 1600 m3/d compared to the 25473 m3/d capacity being proposed for the 

Orbal process. 

Mr. Kittmer advised that should Council be desirous of having the STF project proceed, 

staff recommends that a final decision respecting the preferred technology needs to be 

made within the next 4 – 6 weeks to ensure that the project can be on track to meet the 

funding deadlines, and that Lambton Shores err on the side of caution and support an 

ESR addendum for this project if there is a design change to the sewage treatment 

facility, as recommended by the MOE. Mr. Kittmer further noted that the conventional 

service delivery model be selected as it offers the alternative with the highest degree of 

control for the partner municipalities, that should Council base any of the decisions 

resulting from this D.C.S. Report No. 72-2012 on legal principles discussed at the Joint 

Board and Working Group level that advice from legal counsel be sought before making 

those decisions binding and lastly, staff recommends that any resolutions passed as a 

result of this report be communicated to the partner municipalities and be added to the 

next Joint Board meeting agenda. 

The question of further pubic consultation was raised and discussion ensued on Council 

decision making and the importance of making the right decision for the Municipality as 

a whole. 

29


A lengthy debate was held on the cost differences between Option #3 and Option #4 

being the original build single train, as tendered, that it might be more feasible to go with 

Option #4 as the costs to expand the Orbal process, Option #3 could mean higher costs 

down the road for the residents, that the full funding provided be utilized, that overall the 

residents of Lambton Shores should receive the best value for their dollars. 

A recorded vote was requested on the following motion: 



That a public meeting be held to obtain feedback from the 

residents of Zones 3 and 4 on the proposed options for the Grand 

Bend sewage treatment plant, and to ensure they are aware that 

any future expansion of the plant will be at the full cost to the 

residents. 

Motion Defeated 

Those in favour: 

Councillor Illman 

Councillor Cook 

Mayor Weber 

Councillor Maguire 

Those opposed: 

Councillor Russell 

Councillor Underwood 

Councillor Bonesteel 

Councillor Scott 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg. 

A recorded vote was requested on the following motion: 


Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel 

That Option 3, being an Orbal process with flow equalization and 

value engineering, be selected as the preferred alternative for the 

Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant, and that that preferred 

process include an ESR “addendum”. 

Carried 

Those in favour: 

Councillor Russell 

Councillor Underwood 


Councillor Scott 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 

30


Those opposed: 

Councillor Illman 

Councillor Cook 

Mayor Weber 

Councillor Maguire 

The importance of notifying the representatives of the Building Canada Fund of 

Council’s decision to proceed with Option #3, being the Orbal process, was discussed 

and it was agreed that they be advised as soon as possible in order to get the support 

the Sewage Treatment Board needs to proceed. 



That the Building Canada Fund – Community Component be 

advised that the Orbal process with flow equalization and value 

engineering has been selected as the preferred alternative for the 

Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant and that staff be directed to 

apply for the appropriate change in project scope. Carried 



That the Staff recommendations contained in D.C.S. Report No. 71- 

2012 be approved, together with all actions necessary to meet the 

project granting guidelines. 

Carried 

In order to move forward it was agreed that the Working Group be disbanded and a 

technical committee be formed of staff and engineers to allow the Board to proceed with 

this project and in addition to this, that a new joint agreement be developed for review 

and approval by the Board. 



That a recommendation be made to the Joint Board for the Grand 

Bend Sewage Project that the “working group” be dissolved, and a 

technical steering committee comprised of staff and engineers be 

struck. 

Carried 



That the Joint Board considers a formal “operating agreement” as a 

priority 

Carried 

31


8.3 D.C.S. Report No. 72-2012 – Re: South Huron Request – Re: Grand Bend 

Pump Station #2 

Council agreed that the request from South Huron regarding the Grand Bend Pump 

Station #2 be deferred for discussion at the August 17 th meeting of the Grand Bend 

Sewage Treatment Facility Board. 

8.4 D.C.S. Report No. 73-2012 – RE: Grand Bend Water Meter Replacement 

Program – RFP Award 

The results of the Request for Proposals for the Grand Bend Water Meter Replacement 

Program were provided in D.C.S. Report No. 73-2012. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 73-2012 be approved; and further that the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores enter into an agreement with 

Neptune Technology Group to complete the proposed Grand Bend 

Water Meter Replacement Program for the tendered amount of 

$253,665.79 inclusive of HST; and further 

That By-law 96-2012 authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the 

associated contract agreement be approved. Carried 

TR Report No. 50-2012 regarding the Audit Management letters was dealt with during 

the delegation portion of the Council meeting. 

8.6 CL Report No. 94-2012 – Re: A By-law to Amend Certain Building Fees 

The by-law to implement the amended fees for certain building permits was attached to 

CL Report No. 94-2012 and was approved by Council 

9. BY-LAWS & RESOLUTIONS 



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 95-2012 – Amend Fees for Building Permits 

- By-law 96-2012 – Authorize Agreement with Neptune Technology 

Group. 

Carried 

10. ACCOUNTS 

There were no Municipal accounts for Council to review. 

32


11. NOTICE OF MOTIONS 

There were no notices of motion included in the agenda for Council review. 

12. NEW BUSINESS 

The Clerk Carol McKenzie advised that an application for a telecommunication tower in 

the Ipperwash area was to be submitted and a need to establish a fee for this type of 

permit was discussed. 



That staff is directed to prepare a report on an application fee for 

telecommunication towers. 

Carried 

The fact the Industry Canada has granted permission for the reconstruction of a 

telecommunication tower in the Southcott Subdivision was discussed and Council 

concurred that those area residents be advised of this. 



That a newsletter be sent to the residents in Southcott Pines and 

area outlining the decision of Industry Canada with respect to the 

reconstruction of the telecommunications tower in Southcott Pines, 

and requesting citizens to forward any concerns to the Federal 

Member of Parliament. 

Carried 

13. COUNCILLOR REPORTS 

Council members did not make any reports. 

14. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK CLARIFICATION 

There were no members of the public seeking clarification. 

15. ADJOURN 



That the August 14, 2012 Council meeting be adjourned at 5:00 

p.m. 

Carried 

33

Proposal 

To: Mayor Weber and Council 

The Optimist Club of Forest is proposing to enter into a partnership arrangement with the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores for the purpose of building a Spray Pad for the enjoyment of 

youth in our community. 

The Optimist Club of Forest is interested in taking a lead position in the fundraising for this 

project with a targeted completion date of July 1, 2013. Further we are proposing a fundraising 

campaign as follows: 

Draft budget as provided by Municipal Staff $130,000 

Application to Ontario Trillium Foundation 40,000 

Application to Forest Community Foundation 20,000 

Funds from Fundraising Efforts 20,000 

Total funding received (non-municipal) 80,000 

Funding shortfall 50,000 

Funding shortfall to be paid from municipal funds budgeted to this project. 

This is to be considered a draft presentation and proposal only. Funding sources and amounts 

can be altered to meet the requirements of all interested parties. 

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. 

Ken McRae & Erin Hamilton 

Co-chairs for the Optimist Club of Forest 

34

Lambton Shores Council, 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before Council. 

My name is Karen Kelly-White. My husband Don White and I moved to Grand Bend in 2009 looking for a better quality 

of life and that is what we found. We love it here. We, like our neighbours and yourselves, have become concerned 

about our quality of life with the planned Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT) in and around Lambton Shores and all along the 

Great Lakes’ Coast. Yes, more research is needed to understand the negative impacts of IWTs to the community, 

residents, agriculture & tourism industries, natural habitat & energy costs. Until then we need safeguards. 

Tonight, we will quickly recap the progress Lambton Shores has made to date regarding this important issue and outline 

the proposed by-law to be added to the Municipal Act. And at the end of the presentation we will ask for your support 

and agreement to start the process of enacting the by-law that will restore the rights of the citizens of Lambton Shores 

and our beloved Municipality. 

• In Aug 2011, you wrote a letter to Mr. McGuinty expressing Council’s concerns with aspects of the Green 

Energy Act, and asking for a moratorium on the construction of wind turbines. 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores’ Council has concerns with the aspects of the “Green Energy Act” that removed local input and 

decision making powers regarding renewable energy projects and several letters have been sent to you and your Ministers regarding 

this issue. 

A recent delegation to Council asked for support of a moratorium on the construction of industrial wind turbines until further health 

studies have been undertaken. As Lambton Shores is the proposed site of over 200 industrial wind turbines, this is a very important 

issue to the community, not only for the possible impacts on the residents, but for the future of our agricultural and tourism industries, 

and the natural habitat for the many important bird and wild life species that thrive in Lambton Shores. 

Therefore, the following resolution was passed at the most recent meeting: 

11-0808-13 That Council supports a moratorium on the construction of industrial wind turbines until such 

time as third party health studies have been done and further that the province reinstate local planning 

authority to municipalities regarding renewable energy projects. 

I trust that this request on behalf of the communities of Lambton Shores will be given consideration. 

• In February 2012, Marcelle Brooks, approached Lambton Shores Council and received support on the 

following motion: 

"… that Council, in alliance with neighbouring municipalities, support and immediately direct municipal staff in the development 

of by-laws to mitigate risks and liabilities inherent to the construction and operation of wind turbines in our community. These by-laws 

would include but are not limited to amended building permit fees; security to cover decommissioning costs; road and infrastructure 

permitting; and solutions for emergency responses for high angle rescues." 

• During the Council meeting on August 7 th 2012, at our written request, Council agreed to resend the August 

2011 letter to Mr. McGuinty. 

Prepared Aug 26, 2012 Page 1 of 2 

35

• Tonight, we ask you to join the Town of Plympton-Wyoming’s recent move and the Township of Wainfleet’s 

move in April of this year and add a by-law to our Municipal Act with safeguards to protect us from the 

massive IWTs. 

• Both Wainfleet (Niagara region), and Plympton-Wyoming enacted a fair and comprehensive by-law that 

prescribes minimum setback distances for IWTs and requires the Developer to provide 100% indemnification 

against any loss of property value or adverse health effect. This by-law restores the balanced approach by 

promoting responsible use of alternative energy to prevent harm to persons, wildlife and livestock and 

attempting to reduce the negative impact of IWTs to the natural environment, while recognizing the existing 

provincial laws governing alternative energy generation. 

Wainfleet’s by-law # 013-2012 was passed April 10, 2012 and Plympton-Wyoming’s by-law #50-2012 was passed 

June 12, 2012 and both by-laws have the same wording. 

• Highlights of the by-law: 

The by-law relies on case law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Municipal Act, and the Environmental 

Protection Act to obtain its authority. It requests: 

1. A minimum Setback of a distance of 2km from any Property measured from 

the tip of the rotor blade in horizontal position; 

2. Noise emitted by the IWT shall not exceed 32dB at the nearest Property; 

3. The Developer shall provide an indemnification of 100% for any loss of Property 

value or adverse health effect directly or indirectly caused by an IWT. 

• Actual suggested wording for the new by-law: 

www.wainfleet.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/setbackby-law6a.pdf 

I’ve asked Dave Griffith, a spokesperson for Bluewater Against Turbines advocacy group (B.A.T.) to add a few words of 

support of the new by-law. 

We now ask for your agreement to begin the process of adding this new by-law to the existing Lambton Shores 

municipal by-laws and regulations. 

Thank-you 

Prepared Aug 26, 2012 Page 2 of 2 

36

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PLYMPTON-WYOMING 

By-law Number 50 of 2012 

Being a bylaw for prescribing the minimum setback distance for 

the construction of all Industrial Wind Turbines, also known as 

Wind Turbine Generators, to be erected within the borders of 

the Town of Plympton-Wyoming, AND to require that any such 

construction, in compliance with this bylaw or not, shall also 

provide indemnification for any loss of property value or 

adverse health effect therefrom to the extent of 100%. 

WHEREAS government Ministers, Ministries, Agencies and Municipalities have an ethical duty and 

legal obligation to protect the health, safety, quality of life and well being of citizens and their properties; 

AND WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in 114957 Canada Ltee (Spray tech, Societe d'arr05age) v. 

Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40. File No.: 26937, held that Municipalities, in addition to specific powers conferred 

by statute, also have included in that authority "general welfare" powers, upon which Municipalities can draw 

to enact bylaws genuinely aimed at furthering goals such as public health and safety, protection of Property 

and the like; 

AND WHEREAS 5.9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, grants Municipalities Powers ofa 

natural person; 

AND WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 

1982, confers specific rights and freedoms on all Canadians, including that of Due Process, which rights and 

freedoms are to be protected by all levels of government, including the Municipal; 

AND WHEREAS s.130 of the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, in force until July 1, 2012, still states "A 

municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or any other Actfor purposes related 

to the health, safety and well-being ofthe inhabitants of the municipality"; 

AND WHEREAS sS.128 -129 of the Municipal Act, 2001 confer powers to regulate Public 

Nuisances, Noise, Odour, Dust, etc.; 

AND WHEREAS s.128 (2) also states '7he opinion ofcouncil under this section, if arrived at in 

goodfaith, is not subject to review by any court"; 

AND WHEREAS s. 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 confers broad authority on the Municipality, 

including the passing of bylaws, inter alia, for the "Economic, social and environmental well-being ofthe 

municipality" and for the "Health, safety and WE'll-being ofpersons"; 

37

AND WHEREAS s.l (1) of the Environmental Protectian Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19 states that: 

"adverse effect" means one or more ot 

(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made af it 

(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life, 

(c) harm ar material discomfort to any person, 

(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person, 

(e) impairment of the safety of any person, 

(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use, 

(g) loss ofenjoyment ofnormal use of property, and 

(h) interference with the normal conduct of business; ("consequence pnijudiciable"), 

and further states, 

"contaminant" means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or 

combination ofany of them resulting directly or indirectly fram human activities that 

causes or may cause an adverse effect ("contaminant"); 

AND WHEREAS s.3 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19 also states 'The 

purpose ofthis Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural enviranment"; 

AND WHEREAS there is mounting documented evidence of the adverse impact of IWT technology on 

humans, wildlife and livestock; 

AND WHEREAS the World Health Organisation recommends ambient noise levels be less than 30dB 

(a) inside a Property dwelling; 

AND WHEREAS several jurisdictions worldwide have enacted or recommended laws or bylaws to 

regulate Setback distances of 2 to 10km for Industrial Wind Turbines; 

AND WHEREAS more than 70 Ontario Municipalities, including Plympton-Wyoming, as well as the 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, have asked for a 

Moratorium on wind power development and for more and better studies on the impact of wind power; 

AND WHEREAS some Ontario realtors have asserted that properties within sight and sound of IWT's 

are available at prices 20 to 40% lower than those properties without IWT interference; 

AND WHEREAS restrictions in the laws of Ontario governing Municipalities and the Environment 

variously contradict one another and restrictions in the laws governing Alternative Energy generation do the 

same; 

AND WHEREAS nothing in this bylaw frustrates the purpose of the laws governing alternative energy 

generation, it being the Municipality's concern to promote the responsible use of alternative energy in a 

manner that does no harm to persons, wildlife and livestock; 

AND WHEREAS s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides further that the "Exclusive Powers of 

Provincial Legislatures" includes upholding Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part 1 of said 

Act; 

38

AND WHEREAS the fundamental rights of Canadian persons cannot be extinguished or modified except 

by s.33 ("Notwithstanding", clause) of the Canadian Charter 0/ Rights and Freedoms, The Constitution Act, 

1982; 

AND WHEREAS it is reasonable and prudent for the protection of the Municipality's citizens; 

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming HEREBY 

ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

Definitions: 

1. In this By-law, the listed words have the following meanings: 

(a) "Setback" means a horizontal radial distance; 

(b) "Industrial Wind Turbine" (IWT), means a wind turbine power generator using blade 

technology with a hub height exceeding 30 metres; 

(c) "Property" means property line, vacant land, dwelling or structure and their inhabitants of all 

species used for private or business or public purposes; 

(d) "Municipality" means the Corporation of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming; 

(e) "Construction" includes placement, erection, alteration, repair, dismantling, demolition, 

structural maintenance, painting, moving, land clearing and cleaning, earth moving, grading, 

excavating, the laying of pipe and conduit whether above or below ground level, street and 

highway building, concreting, equipment installation and alteration and the structural 

installation of construction components and materials in any form or for any purpose and 

includes any work in connection therewith. 

(f) "Noise" means unwanted sound, vibration, or both, emitted by or related to an Industrial 

Wind Turbine or Turbines; 

(g) "Developer" means any person or business or company involved in the development, 

Construction and operation of an Industrial Wind Turbine, including the legal owner of said 

Turbine; AND, person, business, company, Turbine and owner can be construed in the 

singular and in the plural; 

Application: 

This bylaw applies to all property within the territory of the Municipality. 

This bylaw applies to all property owned by the Municipality. 

Prohibition: 

1 For the Construction, erection or operation of any IWT inside the Municipality, there shall be a 

minimum Setback of a distance of 2km from any property measured from the tip of the rotor 

blade in horizontal position; 

2 In any case, noise emitted by the IWT shall not exceed 32dB at the nearest property; 

3 The Developer shall provide an indemnification of 100% for any loss of property value or 

adverse health effect directly or indirectly caused by an IWT. 

39

Severability: 

If a portion of this bylaw is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction then the invalid 

portion must be severed and the remainder of this bylaw is deemed to have been adopted 

without the severed section. 

Force and Effect: 

This bylaw shall come into force and take effect on the day of its Final passing. 

By-law read a first and second time this 13 th day of June, 2012. 

By-law read a third time and finally passed this 13 th day of June, 2012. 

40

Background material 

for our delegation requesting Council to join the Town of Plympton-Wyoming’s recent move and the 

Township of Wainfleet’s move in April of this year and add a by-law to our Municipal Act with 

safeguards to protect us from the massive Industrial Wind Turbines. The Township of Wainfleet 

(Niagara area) passed by-law #13-2012 and the Town of Plympton-Wyoming passed by-law #50-2012. 

The wording is the same. 

Contents 

1) Introduction 

2) Wainfleet’s By-law wording 

3) Support of Wainfleet’s new by-law wording from other municipalities 

4) Why the rush to install IWTs 

5) Minimum Setbacks and Noise Levels 

1) Introduction: 

My name is Karen Kelly-White. My husband Don White and I moved to Grand Bend in 2009 looking for a 

better quality of life and that is what we found. We love it here. 

We are actively involved in the community. I volunteer as a Fitness instructor at the Grand Bend Health 

Centre and I’m also a VON palliative care volunteer. Speaking to Council is a new experience. 

We, like our neighbours and yourselves, have become concerned about our quality of life with the 

planned Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT) in and around Lambton Shores and all along the Great Lakes’ 

Coast. 

We are concerned about: 

a) The scarring of our natural landscape & impact to wildlife 

b) The quality of experience of our visitors and tourists 

c) The health and quality of life for residents 

d) The vitality of our local economy 

e) The rising of energy costs and loss of manufacturing jobs 

f) Eroding property rights and decreasing property values 

We request Council to protect the health, safety, quality of life and well being of the citizens of Lambton 

Shores by adding a new by-law to the Municipal Act. 

The by-law relies on case law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Municipal Act, and the 

Environmental Protection Act to obtain its authority. It requests: 

1. A minimum Setback of a distance of 2km from any Property measured from 

the tip of the rotor blade in horizontal position; 

2. Noise emitted by the IWT shall not exceed 32dB at the nearest Property; 

3. The Developer shall provide an indemnification of 100% for any loss of Property 


Prepared 8/26/12 Page 1 of 8 

41

And in light of the recent acknowledgement of our beautiful area by being voted the 3 rd top beach area 

in Canada (http://travel.ca.msn.com/canadas-top-10-beaches-1#scptid), 

Thirty miles of beautiful beaches along this Lake Huron coast are equaled only by the 

spectacular sunsets. 'The Bend', just 45 minutes from London, has been attracting tourists 

since the 1800's. Young sun worshippers strut their stuff on the beach at the foot of Main 

Street, while families looking for a quieter environment often gravitate to the beach south 

of the river mouth. Busy bars, fast food, miniature golf, live theatre — it's fun. The very 

popular Pinery Provincial Park has 1,000 campsites just south of the village. 

Council may also want to consider adding another layer of protection by setting a minimum Setback of a 

distance of 5 km to our towns. 

2) Wainfleet By-law # 13-2012 wording 

THE CORPORATION OF THE 

TOWNSHIP OF WAINFLEET 

BYLAW NO. 013-2012 

Being a bylaw for prescribing the minimum Setback 

distance for the Construction of all Industrial Wind 

Turbines, also known as Wind Turbine Generators, 

to be erected within the borders of the Township of 

Wainfleet, AND to require that any such 

Construction, in compliance with this bylaw or not, 

shall also provide indemnification for any loss of 

Property value or adverse health effect therefrom to 

the extent of 100%. 

WHEREAS government Ministers, Ministries, Agencies and Municipalities have an 

ethical duty and legal obligation to protect the health, safety, quality of life and well being of 

citizens and their properties; 

AND WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, 

Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40. File No.: 26937, held that Municipalities, 

in addition to specific powers conferred by statute, also have included in that authority "general 

welfare" powers, upon which Municipalities can draw to enact bylaws genuinely aimed at 

furthering goals such as public health and safety, protection of Property and the like; 

AND WHEREAS s.9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, grants Municipalities 

Powers of a natural person; 

AND WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part 1 of the 

Constitution Act, 1982, confers specific rights and freedoms on all Canadians, including that of 

Due Process, which rights and freedoms are to be protected by all levels of government, 

including the Municipal; 

AND WHEREAS s.130 of the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, in force until July 1, 

2012, still states “A municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or 

any other Act for purposes related to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the 

municipality”; 

AND WHEREAS ss.128 – 129 of the Municipal Act, 2001 confer powers to regulate 

Public Nuisances, Noise, Odour, Dust, etc.; 

AND WHEREAS s.128 (2) also states “The opinion of council under this section, if 

arrived at in good faith, is not subject to review by any court”; 

AND WHEREAS s. 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 confers broad authority on the 

Municipality, including the passing of bylaws, inter alia, for the “Economic, social and 

environmental well-being of the municipality” and for the “Health, safety and well-being of persons”; 


42

BYLAW NO. 013-2012 Page 2 

AND WHEREAS s.1 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19 

states that: 

“adverse effect” means one or more of; 

(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be 

made of it 

(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life, 

(c) harm or material discomfort to any person, 

(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person, 

(e) impairment of the safety of any person, 

(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use, 

(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and 

(h) interference with the normal conduct of business; (“consequence 

préjudiciable”), 

and further states, 

“contaminant” means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or 

combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that 

causes or may cause an adverse effect (“contaminant”); 

AND WHEREAS s.3 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19 also 

states “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural 

environment”; 

AND WHEREAS there is mounting documented evidence of the adverse impact of IWT 

technology on humans, wildlife and livestock; 

AND WHEREAS the World Health Organisation recommends ambient noise levels be 

less than 30dB (a) inside a Property dwelling; 

AND WHEREAS several jurisdictions worldwide have enacted or recommended laws or 

bylaws to regulate Setback distances of 2 to 10km for Industrial Wind Turbines; 

AND WHEREAS more than 70 Ontario Municipalities, including Wainfleet, as well as the 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, have asked 

for a Moratorium on wind power development and for more and better studies on the impact of 

wind power; 

AND WHEREAS some Ontario realtors have asserted that properties within sight and 

sound of IWT's are available at prices 20 to 40% lower than those properties without IWT 

interference; 

AND WHEREAS restrictions in the laws of Ontario governing Municipalities and the 

Environment variously contradict one another and restrictions in the laws governing Alternative 

Energy generation do the same; 

AND WHEREAS nothing in this bylaw frustrates the purpose of the laws governing 

alternative energy generation, it being the Municipality's concern to promote the responsible use 

of alternative energy in a manner that does no harm to persons, wildlife and livestock; 


AND WHEREAS s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides further that the “Exclusive 

Powers of Provincial Legislatures” includes upholding Canadian Charter of Rights and 

Freedoms, being Part 1 of said Act; 

AND WHEREAS the fundamental rights of Canadian persons cannot be extinguished or 

modified except by s.33 (“Notwithstanding”, clause) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 

Freedoms, The Constitution Act, 1982; 

AND WHEREAS it is reasonable and prudent for the protection of the Municipality's 

citizens; 

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Wainfleet 

HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

Definitions: 

1. In this By-law, the listed words have the following meanings: 


43

(a) “Setback” means a horizontal radial distance; 

(b) “Industrial Wind Turbine” (IWT), means a wind turbine power generator using 

blade technology with a hub height exceeding 30 metres; 

(c) “Property” means property line, vacant land, dwelling or structure and their 

inhabitants of all species used for private or business or public purposes; 

(d) “Municipality” means the Corporation of the Township of Wainfleet; 

(e) “Construction” includes placement, erection, alteration, repair, dismantling, 

demolition, structural maintenance, painting, moving, land clearing and 

cleaning, earth moving, grading, excavating, the laying of pipe and conduit 

whether above or below ground level, street and highway building, 

concreting, equipment installation and alteration and the structural installation 

of construction components and materials in any form or for any purpose and 

includes any work in connection therewith. 

(f) “Noise” means unwanted sound, vibration, or both, emitted by or related to an 

Industrial Wind Turbine or Turbines; 

(g) “Developer” means any person or business or company involved in the 

development, Construction and operation of an Industrial Wind Turbine, 

including the legal owner of said Turbine; AND, person, business, company, 

Turbine and owner can be construed in the singular and in the plural; 

Application: 

This bylaw applies to all property within the territory of the Municipality. 

This bylaw applies to all property owned by the Municipality. 

Prohibition: 

1. For the Construction, erection or operation of any IWT inside the Municipality, 

there shall be a minimum Setback of a distance of 2km from any property 

measured from the tip of the rotor blade in horizontal position; 

2. In any case, noise emitted by the IWT shall not exceed 32dB at the nearest 

property; 

3. The Developer shall provide an indemnification of 100% for any loss of property 



Severability: 

If a portion of this bylaw is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction then 

the invalid portion must be severed and the remainder of this bylaw is deemed 

to have been adopted without the severed section. 

Force and Effect: 

This bylaw shall come into force and take effect on the day of its Final passing. 

BYLAW READ A FIRST TIME THIS 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2012. 

BYLAW READ A SECOND TIME THIS 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2012. 

BYLAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2012. 

A. Jeffs, MAYOR 

T. Lamb, CLERK 

3) Comments in Wainfleets’s Council minutes dated Jun12/12 regarding their by-law #13-2012 

133.From the Township of Front of Yonge enclosing a resolution passed by its Council 

endorsing the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to 

regulate the minimum required setback for wind turbines from any property. A 

copy of this piece of correspondence has been circulated to Council and the 

Manager of Planning. REC. – receive for information. 

134. From the City of Belleville acknowledging receipt of the Township of Wainfleet’s 

resolution and Bylaw 013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the minimum required 

setback for wind turbines from any property. A copy of this piece of 


44

correspondence has been circulated to Council, Director of Operations and the 


136. From the City of St. Catharines enclosing a resolution passed by its Council 

endorsing the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to 



Manager of Planning . REC. – receive for information 

137. From the City of Thorold enclosing a resolution passed by its Council referring the 

Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the 

minimum required setback for wind turbines from any property to the Director of 

Planning and Building Serviced Department for recommendation. A copy of this 

piece of correspondence has been circulated to Council and the Manager of 

Planning. REC. – receive for information 

140. From the City of Stratford acknowledging receipt of the Township of Wainfleet’s 

resolution and Bylaw 013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the minimum required 

setback for wind turbines from any property. A copy of this piece of correspondence has 

been circulated to Council and the Manager of Planning.REC. – receive for information. 

141. From the Township of Enniskillen enclosing notice of a resolution passed by its 

Council supporting the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw 

to regulate the minimum required setback for wind turbines from any property. A 



142. From the Corporation of the Township of Huron-Kinloss enclosing notice of a 

resolution passed by its Council supporting the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 

013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the minimum required setback for wind 

turbines from any property. Also enclosed is a policy that was adopted by their 

Council in effort to maintain similar controls. A copy of this piece of 

correspondence has been circulated to Council and the Manager of Planning. 

REC. – receive for information. 

145. From the Town of Georgina enclosing a resolution passed by its Council endorsing 

the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the 

minimum required setback for wind turbines from any property. A copy of this 

piece of correspondence has been circulated to Council and the Manager of 

Planning. REC. – receive for information. 

149. From the Corporation of the Town of Bruce Mines enclosing a resolution passed by 

its Council supporting the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a 

bylaw to regulate the minimum required setback for wind turbines from any 

property. A copy of this piece of correspondence has been circulated to Council 

and the Manager of Planning. REC. – receive for information. 

150. From the Municipality of East Ferris enclosing notice of a resolution passed by its 

Council supporting the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw 

to regulate the minimum required setback for wind turbines from any property. A 



152. From the Municipality of North Perth enclosing a resolution passed by its Council 

supporting the Township of Wainfleet’s Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to 





45

157. From the City of Brantford acknowledging receipt of the Township of Wainfleet’s 

Bylaw No. 013-2012, being a bylaw to regulate the minimum required setback for 

wind turbines from any property. A copy of this piece of correspondence has been 

circulated to Council, Director of Operations and the Manager of Planning. REC. – 

receive for information. 

4) Why the rush to install Industrial Wind Turbines by Karen Kelly-White 8/26/12 

A big concern for us, why wouldn’t the Ontario Government and the Wind Companies want to wait until 

after the Federal government health study is finished in 2014 before putting up thousands of 49- storey 

high Industrial Wind turbines (IWT) along our coast. But maybe IWTs are so good they balance out the 

health risk and we just don’t understand. 

So I started doing a little research. 

I found out that the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) balances the supply and demand for 

electricity in Ontario and then directs its flow across the province’s transmission lines. Upon examining 

data available daily from the IESO I found it interesting to learn that on a hot summer day in 2012 (in 

this case the afternoon of July 26 th ) the Ontario demand is about 19,000MW. And the generation of 

the power is from a number of sources (Nuclear 10,967 MW, Hydro 3441MW, Gas 4635MW, Coal 

859MW, Wind 118MW, other 203MW.) Note, that Ontario is using very little coal. 

The OSPE (Ontario Society of Professional Engineers) wrote: ‘The public believes that wind generation is 

replacing coal-fired generation in Ontario. Because coal is a peak load supply and wind is a base load 

supply, most of the coal generation is actually being replaced by gas-fired generation that has 50% of 

the GHG emissions of coal.’ 

From the OPSE report, I found out that Ontario’s energy supply was already about 75% free of GHG 

(green house gas) emissions before the Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009. But with the increase in 

wind production, GHC emissions will actually increase. This will occur because the gas-fired backup 

generation required to support wind generation will begin to become a larger source. 

According to the OPSE report, the global recession in 2008/09 followed by weak economic growth has 

eliminated any room to accommodate the new wind, hydro and nuclear generation that is being 

planned by 2018. This means there is a large amount of surplus generation during low demand periods. 

It is a known fact that wind normally blows more at night and our demand is highest during the day. In 

2011 it cost Ontario residents about $15 million to export surplus supply. 

The OPSE report estimated that the planned increase in wind generation could cost the Ontario 

consumers an extra $180 million in related natural gas fuel costs alone in 2014 along with higher GHG 

emissions. 

We now understand why wind companies don’t want a moratorium on IWTs and are in a rush to install 

the wind farms. The reason being that Ontario taxpayers will soon realize wind energy isn’t the ‘green’ 

solution they were expecting, and doesn’t justify the government subsidy of more than $1 billion a year. 


46

5) Minimum Setbacks and Noise Levels: 

A minimum 2km setback is needed to protect the health, safety, quality of life and well 

being of citizens and their property. 

i) an excerpt from the following article: 

http://www.firstmonday.ca/articles/residents-plympton-fighting-giant-windturbines 

Residents of Plympton Fighting Giant Wind Turbines Tue, 08/07/2012 - 10:31 -- Sara 

Cimetta 

... 

Many people who live within 500m - 2km of wind turbines have complained of 

lack of sleep, inner ear problems, nausea, severe headaches, heart 

palpitations, fatigue, and forgetfulness since the turbines were installed 

near their homes. The problem is, as told by engineer Bill Palmer, is that 

the turbines are simply built too close to residents. 

"All over the world, wind turbines have coexisted with people, but because 

they are placed in offshore, industrial parks that do not interfere with 

daily life," says Mr. Palmer. The wind turbines in Ontario are causing so 

many problems because they are much larger than turbines in Europe or 

Oceania, and they are placed much closer to residential areas, according to 

Mr. Palmer. 

ii) 

an excerpt from the following article: 

Weekly Times Australia June 2012 

A REPORT into wind farm noise has recommended that turbines on existing wind farms less than 

2km from housing be removed. 

The Victorian Government last year introduced policy that states a wind farm cannot 

be located within 2km of an existing dwelling but turbines built near homes before 

the legislation was passed remain switched on. 

A new report, released today by Noise Management Services, emphasises “the need 

for, and practicality of” the 2km setback. 

“It is recommended that the 2km setback be implemented at Waubra, Cape 

Bridgewater and other existing wind farms,” the report said. 

“Observations at the different wind farms under different weather conditions and 

measurement distances indicate the sound of turbines are individually observable 

(swish, rumbles, clunks, whines) at distances of 200–500m. 


47

“At around 900m only clearly distinctive turbines are identifiable (swish, rumbles) 

and by 2000-3000m the sound of turbines is cumulative and is heard as a general 

source of noise. 

“At each location the wind farm could be clearly heard at dwellings approximately 

2000m from the nearest turbines. 

“The sound of turbines can be heard 2000m upwind and 2000m downwind, as well at 

an angle to the turbines.” 

The report also found that some noise from wind farms exceeded night time noise 

criteria. 

iii) 

an excerpt from the following article: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/15/ontarios-wind-turbines-too-noisymemo/ 

By Don Butler 

OTTAWA — Ontario regulations permit wind turbines to produce too much noise, says an 

internal memo written by a provincial Ministry of the Environment official who recommended a 

sharp reduction in allowable levels. 

The April 2010 memo, written by Cameron Hall, a senior environmental officer in the ministry’s 

Guelph district office, was obtained through Freedom of Information and released Monday by 

Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of 58 grassroots anti-wind groups in Ontario. 

The memo concludes that the current limit of 40 decibels should be reduced to 30 to 32 

decibels. In the opinion of ministry officers, that level of sound “would not cause or be likely to 

cause adverse effects” for residents living near turbines, it says. 

Reducing noise standards to that level would require the province to significantly increase its 

current 550-metre minimum setback for turbines from surrounding buildings. 


48

Mayor Weber and Council 

I am writing to request an amendment to Bylaw Number 25 of 2002, specifically as relates to 

riding of bicycles on sidewalks adjacent to Highway 21 , both sides, within the town of Grand 

Bend proper. 

I recognize that Grand Bend is a resort community and it is not my intention to prevent people 

from using bicycles to get around the town. My intention is to require greater concern for the 

safety of pedestrians and to establish right of way for pedestrians on the sidewalks. 

The sidewalks on the bridge on highway 21, just south of the main intersection, are already 

dangerously narrow. It is my understanding that council has recognized this problem and is 

considering some type of barriers to separate the sidewalks on either side of the bridge from 

the roadway. At the very least the bylaw should be amended to require cyclists to dismount 

and walk their bicycle across this bridge. Signs outlining this amendment should then be visibly 

posted at the north and south end of the bridge on both sides. 

On the sidewalks to the north and south of Main Street (or highway 81) an amendment should 

recognize that pedestrians have right of way over cyclists, and cyclists should be required to 

dismount when overtaking pedestrians on the sidewalks. 

The Provincial laws governing safe use of bicycles do not favour allowing bicycles on sidewalks 

at all. Cyclist need to be reminded that where bylaws have been passed permitting them use of 

the sidewalk that it is a privilege not a right, and, that common sense and courtesy are a small 

price to pay for this privilege. 

I would request that I be notified of when this matter may be brought before council. If it is 

acceptable for me to attend at the council meeting, I would like to do so. Otherwise I would like 

to be notified of the outcome. 

Thank you, 

John Kerr 

368 Shannon Blvd., 

Grand Bend, ON 

49


Meeting No. 02-2012 

Name of Committee: 

Accessibility Committee 


Members Present: 


Chairman Martin Underwood 

Mayor Bill Weber 

Noreen Croxford 

Steve Balcolm 

Maureen Nagle 

Christine Bregman 

Tabetha Burley 

Kevin O’halloran 




Chairman Martin Underwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

Members were asked to declare any conflict of interest or pecuniary interest that they 

may have and none were declared. 

Chairman Underwood introduced Mr. Paul Perna of the Canadian National Institute for 

the Blind who was in attendance to provide the Committee with information on the 

importance of audible traffic lights for busy intersections within Lambton Shores for 

those residents that are visually impaired. 

In his PowerPoint presentation Mr. Perna provided details on the history of 

implementing the Accessibility Act and the standards, guidelines and best practices 

associated with installing audible traffic signals. 

Mr. Perna continued to present a video of a visually impaired person trying to cross a 

busy intersection in Grand Bend and what steps are taken in teaching someone who is 

visually impaired to walk around and to get to a different location such as locating the 

street, recognizing the street, assessing an intersection and eventually crossing the 

street. 

A brief discussion ensued on where audible signals would be beneficial, signage 

advising of blind controlled intersections, the type of audible signals and activating 

buttons at the intersections, the need for approval from the Ministry of Transportation 

and the cost to Lambton Shores. 

66

Minutes of the Accessibility Committee Meeting – August 8, 2012 

Members concurred on the importance of these audible signals to the visually impaired 

and asked that staff report to Council on this matter. 

LSAC 12-0808-01 Moved by: M. Bregman 

Seconded by: S. Balcom 

That staff prepare a report for Council consideration on installing 

audible traffic signals, for the visually impaired, at main intersection 

within Lambton Shores. 

Carried 

Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer was in attendance to update the 

Committee on volunteer appreciation awards approved by Council recently that have 

been designed to complement the existing volunteer recognition efforts. 

He advised the Committee Members that the program includes an accessibility category 

whereby the award is given to an individual who has contributed to the elimination of 

barriers to people with disabilities, and / or the inclusion of people with disabilities in all 

facets of the community. 

Mr. Kittmer noted that the awards nomination deadline was fast approaching, Friday, 

August 17 th , 2012 and that the award certificates would be presented at the annual 

Volunteer Recognition BBQ on September 27 th at the Legacy Recreation Centre in 

Thedford. 

Committee Member Christine Bregman reminded the Committee of Accessibility Day 

planned for September 29 th in Grand Bend, that plans were progressing and further 

information would be provided to the Committee Members and Council for those people 

who wished to participate. 

It is planned that this event will raise public awareness of the difficulties people with 

disabilities face on a daily basis throughout the Municipality. 

LSAC12-0808-02 

Moved by: N. Croxford 

Seconded by: K. O’Halloran 

That the August 8 th , 2012 meeting of the Lambton Shores 

Accessibility Committee adjourn at 8:11 p.m. Carried 

67


C.A.O. Report No. 60-2012 Thursday, August 9, 2012 

TO: 

FROM : 

RE: 


John Byrne, Chief Administrative Officer 

Market Review of Salaries – Municipality of Lambton Shores 


For Council review and direction. 

REPORT 

In late fall of 2011, Council authorized McDowall Associates, a Toronto based human 

resource consulting firm, to undertake an update of a market review it had conducted for 

the Municipality back in 2005. The impetus for the survey was the resignation of the 

former Director of Community Services and wanting to ensure that we would be offering 

competitive salaries. 

The study was limited to and focused primarily on the issue of salaries alone and did not 

include comparisons to benefit plans and other percs that might be made available to 

staff. The reason for the focused approach was to keep the cost of the survey relatively 

low. We wanted to get a “snapshot” of how we compared with others not a 

comprehensive analysis. The existing grid was established in 2005 and although 

adjusted for inflation annually, it had remained relatively unchanged since that time. The 

second purpose of the survey was to look at whether some staff positions that had 

morphed or changed since that time were still valid or needed to be adjusted, 

specifically the Chief Building Official. 

The rationale for the salary grid is to provide the municipality with a structure or matrix 

upon which it could place staff positions and recognize and reward them appropriately 

for their duties and responsibilities. The grid then allows for steps within the grid to allow 

that performance to be recognized and rewarded. Typically a new person with little to no 

experience will be placed at the first step (base rate) of the grid and will move up the 

gird as their job knowledge and abilities and performance warrants increases. The 

Lambton Shores Salary Grid is a performance based grid as opposed to a time of 

service based grid that provides for steps up the grid simply on the basis of time served. 

The issues of performance recognition and reward are not part of this particular study. 

In an effort to maintain some continuity with the earlier study the approach taken was to 

survey the same municipalities. The municipalities selected for the survey were chosen 

for a variety of reasons but primarily because of their similarity in size and structure to 

68

Lambton Shores. In addition to their populations, we were looking for municipalities that 

had a similar demographic i.e. municipalities with a mix of urban and rural assessment, 

municipalities that had a strong tourism economic base with seasonal populations etc. 

The median population for the seven municipalities surveyed was 12,073, Lambton 

Shores 2010 population was 10,612 (now 11,500). Similarly municipal budgets were 

averaged with the median budget number being $16,672,830 and Lambton Shores at 

$19,557,556. On this basis, the survey grouping was deemed to be reasonable for the 

purposes of the update. 

It is important to note that the Market Survey was not intended that Council make any 

adjustments at this time, merely give Council an overview or as I indicated a “snapshot” 

of its competitiveness in the marketplace when seeking staff. 

In summary, the Market Survey (under separate cover) provided by McDowall 

Associates indicates that the existing grid is in line with the market. The consultant 

however did point out that while the grid is generally in line with the market; the ranges 

within in are a bit skewed. In other words, the staff at the lower end of the grid tend to 

be a tad higher than the market averages for those positions and the staff at the higher 

end (Management Team) tend to be a tad lower than the market average. In this regard 

the consultant suggested the creation of a “new” band at the Management Team level 

that recognizes the market trending. 

The second recommendation of the consultant was to create and add a new band to the 

gird (Band B) that would be more reflective of the market trend at the Department Head 

level. Creating this new band would give Council more flexibility in addressing merit and 

performance issues with the Department Head group. 

The third recommendation of the consultant was to address the issue of where to place 

the Chief Building Official on the grid. C”. 

In developing the proposed “Modified” Salary Grid the consultant recommended that 

Council adjust the “Base”, or starting rate of the grid to be 80% of the “Job Rate” or top 

of the grid, which is essentially what a fully functioning and performing staff person 

should be paid. Previously the original grid did not appear to have a consistent formula 

for determining base rates for positions. As a result, if implemented the proposed “Base” 

rate for all positions except for bands F & G would be lower than they are currently. 

Pay Equity 

One of the other obligations the municipality must undertake in the near future is a “Pay 

Equity” review of wages and salaries to test for and address any discrimination in pay 

based on gender. This was not part of the Market Review but is something Council 

should consider as part of the 2013 budget deliberations over the next few months. 

Recommended Options for Council Consideration 

69

Option #1 –That the Market Review of Salaries be referred to the 2013 

Budget deliberations for further review and direction. 

Option #2 – That the Market Review of Salaries be received and filed for 

information. 

Option #3 –That the Market Review of Salaries be received and that staff 

be directed to report back to Council on the implications of implementing 

the Market Review and in conducting a Pay Equity Review of salaries 

and wages in accordance with the Pay Equity Act. 


John Byrne 

Chief Administrative Officer 

70

2012 Lambton Shores Salary Grid 

(Effective Jan. 1, 2012 with cost of living adjustments included) 

Position Band BASE 1 2 3 

JOB 

RATE 

Chief Administrative Officer A 108,926.95 111,457.93 113,988.92 116,519.90 119,050.89 150,215.11 

Treasurer, Director of Community Service, Clerk, 

Chief Building Official 

B 74,530.40 78,168.81 81,807.23 85,445.67 89,084.11 

Empty C 66,414.87 70,057.53 73,700.21 77,342.88 80,985.55 

Area Managers, Infrastructure Manager, 

Recreation & Leisure Services Facilitator 

D 55,490.10 58,489.56 61,489.03 64,488.50 67,487.96 

Drainage Systems & Development Inspector, 

Financial Assistants - Tax Collector, Utilities 

E 52,790.58 55,790.04 58,789.51 61,788.98 64,788.44 

Admin. Assistants - CAO, Communications, 

Coporate Services, Planning, Infrastructure 

Services, Community Services, Financial 

Assistants - AP/AR, Customer Services, Treasury 

F 41,992.51 44,991.96 47,991.43 50,990.91 53,990.36 55,610.07 

Financial Assistant - Customer Services (2) G 31,194.43 34,193.90 37,193.35 40,192.82 43,192.30 

Operators 42,707.81 46,823.71 47,714.78 

Modified 2012 Salary Grid for Lambton Shores (New Band for Sr. Leaders) 

New Band Added between current Band A and Current Band B 80% 100% 

Positions Band BASE 1 2 3 JOB RATE 

Chief Administrative Officer A 95,241.00 101,077.00 106,913.00 112,749.00 119,051.00 

Treasurer, Director of Community Services, Clerk B 76,133.00 80,798.00 85,463.00 90,128.00 95,166.00 

Chief Building Official C 71,267.00 75,634.00 80,001.00 84,368.00 89,084.00 

Empty D 64,789.00 68,759.00 72,729.00 76,699.00 80,986.00 

Infrastructure Manager, Recreation & Leisure Services 

Facilitator, Area Managers 

E 53,990.00 57,298.00 60,606.00 63,914.00 67,488.00 

Drainage Systems & Development Inspector, Finanaical 

Assistants - Tax Collector, Utilities 

F 51,830.00 55,006.00 58,182.00 61,358.00 64,788.00 

Admin Assistants - CAO, Communications, Corporate 

Services, Planning, Infrastructure Services, Community 

Services, Financial Assistants - AP/AR, Customer Service, 

Treasury 

G 43,192.00 45,839.00 48,486.00 51,133.00 53,990.00 

Financial Assisant - Customer Service (2) H 34,554.00 36,671.00 38,788.00 40,905.00 43,192.00 

71

THE MUNCIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

PL Report No. 27-2012 Monday, August 20, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Patti Richardson, Senior Planner 

Ipperwash Cell Tower Application 

Request for Municipal Concurrence 

Proposed Bell Canada Wireless Communications Installation 

9569 Ipperwash Road, Lambton Shores 

Bell File:W4683 


For information and direction. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

REPORT 

Further to Planning Report No. 19-2012, Sean Galbraith, Proliferate Consulting Group, 

Inc., who represents Bell Canada has formally submitted Bell Canada’s request for 

Municipal Concurrence for a proposed 65 metre tall wireless communications tower at 

9569 Ipperwash Road. (see Attachments 1 and 2) Bell Canada is looking to improve 

service in Ipperwash and is proposing to locate a new telecommunications (cell) tower 

in Ipperwash 

Staff has reviewed the proposal in light of the Municipal Protocol and provides the 

following information to Council (see Attachment 3, Municipal Protocol for Establishing 

Telecommunication Facilities) 

The Telecommunications Policy states that the policy applies to telecommunication 

facilities under Industry Canada jurisdiction such as: 

1. Any new tower / antenna / telecommunication facility greater than 15 metres 

above ground level; 

2. Any substantial modification or addition to an existing tower / antenna / 

telecommunication facility greater than 15 metres above ground level; 

3. Any building or structure mounted tower and / antenna / telecommunication 

facility with a combined height greater than 8 metres. 

The telecommunications tower applied for by Bell Canada is new and greater than 15 

metres in height thus the policy is to be applied. 

72

Location Criteria 

The policy requires that the applicant and the Municipality review opportunities for the 

use of existing telecommunications facilities. In the pre-consultation meeting I had with 

Mr. Galbraith he outlined the existing tower situation in the area. He has also outlined in 

his report for Council (see Attachment 1) the existing tower situation and concluded that 

there are no towers in the area that could be used. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating in areas 

zoned Residential. The property on which the tower is proposed to be located is zoned 

Agricultural 1 (A1) and thus the location complies with the Protocol. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating within 300 

metres of any residentially zoned areas within the Municipality’s current Zoning By-law 

or a residential dwelling. Lands located to the south known as 9534 Ipperwash Road 

are occupied by a dwelling and zoned Residential 6 (R6). These lands are located 170 

metres from the proposed telecommunications tower. Lands to the north of the property, 

known as 9589 Ipperwash Road are occupied by the Carolinian Forest Family 

Campground and are zoned Commercial 14 (C14) and Environmental Protection- 

Natural Conservation. The proposed tower is 155 metres from the closest trailer in the 

campground. The location of the proposed tower does not meet the Municipal Protocol. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating in areas 

identified as being wetlands, woodlands or other environmental constraint. The property 

is located within or adjacent to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and a 

Provincially Significant Wetland. The location of the proposed tower does not meet the 

Municipal Protocol. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating on land 

were tree cutting is required for site improvement, access routes or tower location. The 

tower in proposed to be located in a clearing on the site and the existing driveway will 

be used to access the tower therefore, no tree removal is anticipated. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating on lands 

requiring local conservation authority approval. The subject lands are located within the 

area regulated by the St. Clair Regions Conservation Authority under Ontario 

Regulation 97/04 (see Attachment 4) and thus any structure proposed will require a 

permit from the SCRCA. This does not comply with the Municipal Protocol. 

The Municipal Protocol discourages telecommunications towers from locating on lands 

where significant site alteration is required. Mr. Galbraith advised very little site 

alteration is required to install the tower. Therefore the proposed location complies with 

the Municipal protocol. 

Public Consultation Requirements 

The Municipal Protocol states that the Municipality will conduct a public information 

session to allow the applicant to provide to the public information on the application and 

that at least 20 days notice be given of the meeting. I have tentatively booked the small 

73

hall at the Port Franks Community Centre on either Wednesday, October 3 or Thursday, 

October 4 for this meeting for 6:00-7:30 p.m. I am requesting concurrence from Council 

for one of these dates, the location and the time. 

The Municipal Protocol requires that all property owners within 500 metres of the 

boundaries of the property on which the telecommunications tower is proposed be 

notified of the public information session. The protocol indicates that this distance 

should increase if the Municipality deems it necessary. Does Council believe the 

distance should be increased? 

The Municipal Protocol requires that notice of the public information session be sent to 

government agencies having a planning related interest. I have advised Mr. Galbraith 

that, in my opinion, the Ministry of Natural Resources should be notified due to the 

property’s location within or adjacent to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) 

and a Provincially Significant Wetland. As well the St. Clair Region Conservation 

Authority should be notified as the lands are located within the area under their 

regulation. Does Council wish that any other government agency be notified? 

The Municipal Protocol requires that notice of the public information session be given to 

all persons who requested in writing to be advised of any application. The Clerk has a 

list containing one name which she will provide to Mr. Galbraith. 

The Municipal protocol requires that notice of the public information session be given to 

any adjoining Municipalities within 1 kilometer. I advised Mr. Galbraith that the Kettle 

Stoney Point Reserve should be notified. Does Council concur? 

The Municipal Protocol requires that a sign be posted on the property which provides 

notice of the public information session. Once the date for the meeting has been 

determined the sign will post by Mr. Galbraith. 

Finally, a notice of the Public Information Session is to be placed in the local 

newspapers. Again, once the date for the meeting has been determined a notice will be 

placed in both the Forest Standard and the Lakeshore Advance by Mr Galbraith. 

In summary, Staff requires direction from Council on the following: 

 

 

 

 

Concurrence on a date, location and time for the Public Information Centre 

Verification on the notice distance 

Concurrence with the government agencies to be notified 

Concurrence that notice be given to Kettle and Stoney Point Reserve. 


Patti L. Richardson, Senior Planner 

74

75 

ATTACHMENT 1

86 

ATTACHMENT 2


ATTACHMENT 3 

Policy # 61 

Effective Date: 2012, March 21 

PROTOCOL FOR ESTABLISHING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 

PURPOSE / DEFINITION: 

The purpose of this Policy is to establish criteria for Municipal response on proposals to 

locate telecommunication facilities in the Municipality of Lambton Shores that require 

comments from the Municipality in accord to Industry Canada Client Procedures 

Circular CPC-2-0-03. This Policy is also to provide criteria for location of these 

telecommunication facilities and the public consultation relating to these 

telecommunication facilities. 

APPLICATION: 

This Policy applies to telecommunication facilities under Industry Canada jurisdiction 

such as: 







POLICY STATEMENT: 

Purpose & Scope 

Submission of Application: 

An Application shall be submitted to the Municipality for any tower / antenna / 

telecommunication facility meeting the criteria for the height listed in this Policy. The 

Applicant is required to complete an Application Form and submit required drawings, 

elevations and reports as listed. 

88

Application Fee: 

The payment of an Application fee shall be made in accordance to the current 

Municipality of Lambton Shores Fees and Charges By-law. 

Location Criteria: 

The Municipality and the Applicant will review the opportunities for the use of existing 

telecommunication facilities in the Municipality prior to considering the establishment of 

new tower locations. 

Tower / antenna / telecommunication facility meeting the criteria for height shall be 

discouraged from locating in the following areas: 

1. In any area zoned Residential in accord to the Municipality’s current Zoning Bylaw; 

2. Within 300 metres of any area zoned Residential in accord to the Municipality’s 

current Zoning By-law; 

3. Within 300 metres of any residential dwelling; 

4. Lands identified as being Wetlands, Woodlands or other environmental 

constraints; 

5. Lands where tree cutting is required for site improvements, access routes or 

tower location; 

6. Lands requiring the approval of the local Conservation Authority; 

7. Lands where significant site alteration is required. 

The Municipality and the Applicant will review the type and design of the proposed 

telecommunication facility to determine the type and design of the facilities that so most 

in keeping with the visual appearance of the proposal location and surrounding area. 

Public Consultation Requirements: 

Public consultation is required for any tower / antenna / telecommunication facility 

meeting the criteria for height listed in this Policy. There is a minimum circulation 

distance requirement of 500 metres. This distance maybe increased at the 

determination of Municipal staff if the Application is located in an agricultural or rural 

area of the Municipality. 

This public consultation shall occur in the following manner: 

89

A. Notice of Application 

1. Written Notice of Application to all persons listed in the current assessment 

rolls within 500 metres of the entire property subject to the Application; 

2. Written Notice of Application to government agencies that are determined to 

have a planning related interest; 

3. Written Notice of Application to all persons who have requested in writing to 

be advised of any applications; 

4. Written Notice of Application to any adjoining Municipalities within 1 kilometre 

of the subject lands; 



6. A sign posted on the property providing Notice of Application in the manner 

determined by the Municipality; 

7. Notice of Application to be advertised in the local newspapers; 

8. All public documentation related to the application to be available for public 

viewing at the Customer Service Department of the Municipality. 

B. Conducting Public Information Session 

The Municipality will conduct a Public Information Session to allow the Applicant 

provide to the public the information on the application. Notice of this Public 

Information Session shall be provided at least 20 calendar days prior to the 

scheduled day. Notice of the Public Information Session shall be provided in the 

following manner: 

1. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to all persons listed in the 

current assessment rolls within 500 metres of the entire property subject to 

the Application; 

2. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to government agencies that 

are determined to have a planning related interest; 

3. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to all persons who have 

requested in writing to be advised of any applications; 

4. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to any adjoining Municipalities 

within 1 kilometre of the subject lands; 

90

5. A sign posted on the property providing Notice of Public Information Session 

in the manner determined by the Municipality; 

6. Notice of Public Information Sessions to be advertised in the local 

newspapers. 

Municipal Response: 

Following the Public Consultation process, if staff deems necessary, a Report will be 

prepared for consideration of Municipal Council and the Applicant will be advised of the 

Municipality’s comments and recommendations on the application and forwarded to the 

applicable Approval Authority. The response time from the date of the receipt of a 

complete application will be 120 days. 

91


PL Report No. 28-2012 Thursday, August 16, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-01/2012 

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-02/2012 

LOCATION: 8623 Townsend Line 

OWNER: Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited 


That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012, 

submitted by Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited requesting an 

amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw 

as it relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend Line, to 

allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling 

which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm 

consolidation be APPROVED and that the By-law to implement 

the amendment to the Official Plan be adopted. 


submitted by Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited, requesting an 

amendment to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as 

it relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend Line to: 

a) prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant 

farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling, to 

allow the remnant farm parcel to have a lot area of 19.3 

hectares and to prohibit the existing barns , formerly 

chicken barns, from being used for animal operations; and 

b) allow a new non-farm dwelling lot to have a lot area of 0.3 

hectares and a lot frontage of 38 metres provided the lot is 

serviced wit municipal water and sanitary sewers and any 

dwelling is connected thereto. 

be APPROVED and that the By-law to implement the 

amendments to the Zoning By-law be adopted. 

REPORT 

These applications were considered by Council as their June 4, 2012 and Council 

passed the following resolutions: 

93

Moved by: Councillor Scott 


That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012 and Zoning By-law 

Amendment Application ZO-02/2012 submitted by Austin Hatchery and 

Farms Limited requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official 

Plan and Zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend 

Line, to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling 

which is surplus to a farming operation to be tabled pending the 

submission and approval of a septic assessment for the proposed nonfarm 

dwelling lot by the County of Lambton and the Municipality. 

Carried 

The Community Services Department has verified that the two dwellings on the property 

are connected to the municipal sanitary sewer located on Townsend Line. One 

connection serves both dwellings. Separate connections will be required as a condition 

of the consent. Therefore, a septic assessment is not required and the size of the 

proposed new non-farm lot at approximately 0.3 hectares does not create any servicing 

issues. 

In light of the above, I can recommend that these applications be approved subject to 

the conditions contained in the Recommendation Section of this report as they are 

consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. 

Respectfully submitted 

Patti L. Richardson 

Senior Planner 

94





95


BY-LAW 101 OF 2012 

Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 of 2003 

WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores passed 

a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 on the 4th day of February, 2003; and 

WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law; and 

WHEREAS a public meeting was held on June 4, 2012 under Section 34(12) of the 

Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores enacts as follows: 

1. That Schedule "A" attached hereto (being a description of the lands affected by 

this By-law) is hereby declared to form part of this By-law. 

2. Section 5.5 of By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by adding the following 

thereto: 

zz) 

Exception 52 to the Agricultural - 1 Zone 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law to the contrary, on 

lands zoned Agricultural 1.52 (A1-52) on Schedule “A-1” to this By-law, and 

described as Part of Lot 26, Concession 6, N.E.R., geographic Township 

of Warwick, the following additional provisions shall apply 

a) No dwelling of any kind shall be permitted. 

b) Lot Area (minimum): 19.3 hectares 

c) No animal operation shall be permitted on the lands 

aaa) 

Exception 53 to the Agricultural - 1 Zone 


lands zoned Agricultural 1.53 (A1-53) on Schedule “A-1” to this By-law and 

known municipally as 8623 Townsend Line as 8110 Kinnaird Road, the 

minimum lot area shall be 0.3 hectares and the minimum lot frontage shall 

be 38 metres provided the lot is serviced wit municipal water and sanitary 

sewers and any dwelling is connected thereto. 

96

3. Schedule ‘A-1’ to Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by changing the 

zone symbol that applies to those lands as indicated on Schedule ‘A’ to this Bylaw 

from the: 

“AGRICULTURAL- 1- (A1)” 

to the 

“AGRICULTURAL 1.52 (A1-52)” 

And 

“AGRICULTURAL 1.53- (A1-53)” 

4. This By-law shall come into force and effect pursuant to Section 34(21) or Section 

34(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. 

Read a First and Second Time This 4 th Day of August, 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. 

_______________________ 

MAYOR – Bill Weber 

_______________________ 

CLERK – Carol McKenzie 

97

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

ZONING BY-LAW 101 OF 2012 

Explanatory Note 

The purpose of this zoning by-law amendment is to change the Agricultural 1 (A1) zoning on 

the lands described as Concession 6 N.E.R., Part Lot 26, geographic Township of 

Warwick, 8623 Townsend Line, Lambton Shores to: 

a) an Agricultural A1.52 (A1-52) Zone on the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the 

construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm parcel after the severance of the 

surplus dwelling, to allow the remnant farm parcel to have a lot area of 19.3 hectares 

and to prohibit animal operations on the lands; and 

b) an Agricultural A1.53 (A1-53) Zone on the surplus dwelling lot to allow the lot to have 

a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares and an a minimum lot frontage of 38 metres provided 

the lot is serviced wit municipal water and sanitary sewers and any dwelling is connected 

thereto. 

The lands are also subject of an Official Plan Amendment Application (OP-01/2012) which 

has been considered by Council and approved, to allow the creation of a new non-farm 

residential dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation. 

99

100

AMENDMENT NO. 34 

TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

OFFICIAL PLAN 

101


Official Plan Amendment No. 34 

This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores by By-Law 102 of 2012 in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 

(1) and 19 (15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, on the 9th day of July, 2012. 

Corporate 

Seal 

_____________________ 

Mayor 

______________________ 

Clerk 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

AND NOTICE REQUIREMENT 

I, Carol McKenzie, Clerk for the Municipality of Lambton Shores, hereby certify that the 

requirements for the holding of at least one public meeting as set out in subsection 19(15) 

of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990 and the giving notice as set out in subsection 19(19) of 

the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, have been complied with. 

_______________________ 

Clerk 

102


BY-LAW NUMBER 102 OF 2012 

WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores deems it 

advisable to adopt AMENDMENT NO. 34 to the Lambton Shores Official Plan. 

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores, in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (22) of the Planning Act, 

R.S.O. 1990, hereby enacts as follows: 

1. Amendment No. 34 of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan consisting 

of the attached text and maps is hereby adopted. 

2. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of 

Lambton for approval of Amendment No.34 to the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores Official Plan. 

3. This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing 

thereof. 

Read a First and Second Time This 4 th Day of September, 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 

__________________________ 


__________________________ 


103

INDEX 

PAGE 

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS 1 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE 

1. PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 2 

2. LOCATION .......................................................................................... 2 

3. BASIS ................................................................................................. 2 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 5 

2. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT ...................................................... 5 

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION .................................. 5 

PART C - APPENDIX ............................................................................................... 7 

104

-1- 

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute part of this amendment. 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text and map (designated Schedule 

'A') constitutes Amendment No. 34 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan. 

PART C - APPENDIX does not constitute part of this amendment. This appendix contains 

background data, planning considerations and a record of the public involvement associated 

with this amendment. 

105

-2- 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE 

Purpose 

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a 

dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation. 

Location 

The lands affected by this amendment comprise lands described as Part of Lot 26, 

Concession 6, N.E.R., geographic Township of Warwick, and known municipally as 8623 

Townsend Line and are shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. The subject lands are 

located on the south side of Townsend Line, east of Arkona Road. 

Basis 

The north 3 acres of the land are currently designated “Agriculture” in the Lambton Shores 

Official Plan. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include 

the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other 

animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup 

production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm 

dwellings. 

The balance of the lands, located in Warwick Township are predominately designated 

Agriculture in the Township of Warwick Official Plan. However a portion of the south end of 

land is designated “Natural Heritage- Hazard” to recognise a small watercourse which 

bisects the lands and “Natural Heritage - Woodlot” to recognise a portion of a larger woodlot 

that lies on the property. 

Lambton Shores Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall 

generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 11.7 

hectares (29.2 acres), just marginally smaller than exists today. 

Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states: 

A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, 

provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm 

lot comply with the following polices: 

i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two 

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and 

which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 

metres apart; 

ii) 

only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be 

severed from an original farm lot; 

106

iii) 

iv) 

the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the requirements of 

the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water 

supply and sewage disposal; 

the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance with 

the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and 

v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to an 

improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic 

hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection. 

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 

Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas 

shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. 

Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following: 

Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for: 

c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation 

provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are 

prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The 

approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the 

remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal 

approaches which achieve the same objective: and 

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as 

” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation 

(the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). 

Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states: 

“New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock 

facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” 

The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were 

based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following 

with respect to the creation of new residential lots: 

Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be 

permitted only in the following situations: 

(a) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for : 

1. a farm retirement lot; 

2. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 

3. residential infilling. 

107

Wayne Hodgins, owner of the subject lands, operated Austin Hatchery for many years. 

However, the operation has been shut down for a number of years and the poultry quota 

sold. Mr. Hodgins has retired and moved to a dwelling at 8742 Townsend Line, just half a 

mile from the subject lands. His son currently operates what is left of the farming operation 

and resides in the dwelling which will remain with the farm. The large chicken barns on the 

farm are obsolete and have been decommissioned for poultry purposes and they are now 

uses for storage. This second dwelling on the subject lands is excess to their needs. As a 

result they would like to dispose of it. Although the excess farm dwelling is not the result of 

a farm consolidation, it is excess to their needs. The second dwelling on the lands, which is 

proposed to be severed, is occupied by a tenant who wished to purchase the dwelling. 

The lands have been subject of three previous severance applications to sever a lot from the 

farm parcel as generally proposed in the application subject of this report. The first consent 

application, submitted in 1995, was refused by the County Land Division Committee as the in 

their opinion the proposed severance did not meet the minimum distance separation (MDS) 

requirements of the Agricultural Code of Practice as determined by the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Food and Rural Affairs and did not comply with the Village of Arkona Official Plan Severance 

Policies. The applicant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, who 

dismissed the appeal as the proposed severance did not constitute good planning, did not 

comply with the Arkona Official Plan and did not comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice. 

The second consent application, submitted in 2000, was again considered by the County of 

Lambton Land Division Committee and approved, subject to a number of conditions which 

included the barn directly south of the severed portion being made incapable of housing 

livestock and the applicant providing assurances to that effect. The applicant was unable to 

satisfy the County Planning Director that the barn had been made incapable of housing 

livestock, thus the consent lapsed. 

The third application was refused in 2005 again due to non-compliance with the Agricultural 

Code of Practice minimum separation distance. 

It is clear that the dwelling is surplus to the needs of farm and that previous attempts to 

sever the surplus dwelling have been impacted by the location of the former poultry barns, 

which are no longer used for an animal operation. The Provincial Policy Statement requires 

that the creation of lots for surplus dwellings comply with the minimum distance separation 

formulae (MDS). The Municipality has placed a zoning on the retained farm property which 

prohibited animal operations in the existing buildings. As well that a portion on one the 

former chicken barns and the entire second barn are located in Warwick Township and 

currently zoned Agricultural 2, which does not permit intensive large livestock operations. 

Therefore the zoning restriction exists on that portion of the farm parcel in Warwick and will 

placed on that portion of the lands within Lambton Shores . 

The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the 

construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The zoning on that portion of the subject 

lands lying in Lambton Shores will be zoned to prohibit a dwelling. 

108

-5- 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT 

Introduction 

All of this part of the document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following 

text and attached map, designated Schedule “A” (Land Use Plan), constitutes Amendment 

No. 34 to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan. 

Details of the Amendment 

The following amendments affect lands shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. 

Section 1.11(e) of the Official Plan for the Municipality of Lambton Shores is hereby 

amended by adding the following to Section 1.11(e) after section (xiv) 

; and 

(xvi) Part of Lot 26, Concession 6, N.E.R., geographic Township of Warwick, and known 

municipally as 8623 Townsend Line 

Implementation and Interpretation 

The implementation and interpretation of this amendment shall be in accordance with the 

respective policies of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan. 

109

-6- 

110

-7- 

PART C - THE APPENDIX 

The following appendix does not constitute part of Amendment No. 32 but is included as 

information supporting the amendment. 

APPENDIX 1........................................Planner’s Report No. 16 of 2012- May 29, 2012 

APPENDIX 2........................................Planner’s Report No. 27/2012 – August 16, 2012 

APPENDIX 3 .......................................Minutes of Public Meeting – June 4, 2012 

111

APPENDIX 1 


PL Report No.16-2012 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 



RE: 






That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012 and 

Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-02/2012 submitted 

by Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited requesting an 

amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan and Zoning 

By-law as it relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend Line, to 

allow the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling 

which is surplus to a farming operation be TABLED pending 

the submission and approval of a septic assessment for the 

proposed non-farm dwelling lot by the County of Lambton and 

the Municipality. 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

REPORT 

Summary of the Application 

The Applicant, Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited, is requesting: 

Official Plan Amendment 

an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to permit the 

creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation. 

Zoning By-law Amendment Application 

an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in Zoning By-law 1 of 2003: 

(a) as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit: 

(i) the severance of the remaining dwelling and 

(ii) the establishment or re-establishment of any animal operation in the existing 

barns 

(b) as it affects the proposed severed non-farm 112dwelling 

lot to allow the lot to have a lot area

of 0.3 hectares, whereas the By-law requires that a lot have a minimum lot area of 0.8 

hectares. 

The applications are being proposed in order to allow one of the two existing farm dwellings 

to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a non-farm dwelling. The proposed severed 

dwelling is excess to the owners needs as he resides on another property. 

Location 

The subject lands are located on the south side of Townsend Line, east of Arkona Road. The 

lands are partially located in Lambton Shores and partially located in Warwick Township. The 

lands are occupied by two dwellings, two former chicken barns (594m² and 445m²), a 200m² 

barn and various other smaller sheds. The lands have frontage of approximately 163 metres 

(534 ft.) and a lot area of 12 hectares (30 acres). Lands to the east and west of the proposed 

severed lot are occupied by single detached dwellings on similar sized lots. Lands to the 

north of both the proposed severed lot and the remnant farm parcel are occupied by a 

cemetery. The lands abutting most of the remnant farm parcel are under cultivation. 

Correspondence 

Correspondence has been received from: 

Jocelyn Kerrigan, Private Septic System Co-ordinator, County of Lambton; see comments in 

this report related to septic system (see attachment); and 

Frank Garardo, Planner, County of Lambton, (Planner for Warwick Township); see comments 

of this report respecting zoning (see attachment). 

Discussion 

The north 3 acres of the land are currently designated “Agriculture” in the Lambton Shores 

Official Plan. The primary use of lands located within the “Agricultural” designation include the 

growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other 

animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup 

production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures including accessory farm 

dwellings. 

The balance of the lands, located in Warwick Township are predominately designated 

Agriculture in the Township of Warwick Official Plan. However a portion of the south end of 

land is designated “Natural Heritage- Hazard” to recognise a small watercourse which bisects 

the lands and “Natural Heritage - Woodlot” to recognise a portion of a larger woodlot that lies 

on the property. 

Lambton Shores Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall 

generally be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 11.7 

hectares (29.2 acres), just marginally smaller than exists today. 

Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states: 

A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, 

provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained farm 

113

lot comply with the following polices: 

i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two existing 

non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are 

situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 61 metres apart; 

ii) 

iii) 

iv) 

only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be severed 

from an original farm lot; 

the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the requirements of 

the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the Municipality regarding water 

supply and sewage disposal; 

the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance with 

the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and 

v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to an 

improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic 

hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection. 

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 

Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural areas 

shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. 

Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following: 

Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for: 

d) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation 

provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are 

prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. The 

approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the 

remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal 

approaches which achieve the same objective: and 

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation as 

” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation 

(the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). 

Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states: 

“New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock 

facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” 

The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were based 

and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the following with 

respect to the creation of new residential lots: 

114

Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted 

only in the following situations: 

(b) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for : 

4. a farm retirement lot; 

5. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 

6. residential infilling. 

Wayne Hodgins, owner of the subject lands, operated Austin Hatchery for many years. 

However, the operation has been shut down for a number of years and the poultry quota 

sold. Mr. Hodgins has retired and moved to a dwelling at 8742 Townsend Line, just half a 

mile from the subject lands. His son currently operates what is left of the farming operation 

and resides in the dwelling which will remain with the farm. The large chicken barns on the 

farm are obsolete and have been decommissioned for poultry purposes and they are now 

uses for storage. This second dwelling on the subject lands is excess to their needs. As a 

result they would like to dispose of it. Although the excess farm dwelling is not the result of a 

farm consolidation, it is excess to their needs. The second dwelling on the lands, which is 

proposed to be severed, is occupied by a tenant who wished to purchase the dwelling. 

The lands have been subject of three previous severance applications to sever a lot from the 

farm parcel as generally proposed in the application subject of this report. The first consent 

application, submitted in 1995, was refused by the County Land Division Committee as the in 

their opinion the proposed severance did not meet the minimum distance separation (MDS) 

requirements of the Agricultural Code of Practice as determined by the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Food and Rural Affairs and did not comply with the Village of Arkona Official Plan Severance 

Policies. The applicant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, who 

dismissed the appeal as the proposed severance did not constitute good planning, did not 

comply with the Arkona Official Plan and did not comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice. 

The second consent application, submitted in 2000, was again considered by the County of 

Lambton Land Division Committee and approved, subject to a number of conditions which 

included the barn directly south of the severed portion being made incapable of housing 

livestock and the applicant providing assurances to that effect. The applicant was unable to 

satisfy the County Planning Director that the barn had been made incapable of housing 

livestock, thus the consent lapsed. 

The third application was refused in 2005 again due to non-compliance with the Agricultural 

Code of Practice minimum separation distance. 

It is clear that the dwelling is surplus to the needs of farm and that previous attempts to sever 

the surplus dwelling have been impacted by the location of the former poultry barns, which 

are no longer used for an animal operation. As Council is aware, the Provincial Policy 

Statement requires that the creation of lots for surplus dwellings comply with the minimum 

distance separation formulae (MDS). Council has recently dealt with a similar situation in 

which a former livestock building was located on the retained farm parcel and did not meet 

the MDS. In that situation the Municipality placed a zoning on the retained farm property 

which prohibited animal operations in the existing buildings. The complicating factor for this 

application is that a portion on one the former chicken barns and the entire second barn are 

located in Warwick Township and thus not regulated by Lambton Shores zoning by-law. I 

115

have consulted with both Mr. Walden, the applicant’s solicitor and Frank Garardo, the 

Planner for Warwick, and Mr. Garardo advises that the current Agricultural 2 zoning on that 

portion of the subject lands located within Warwick does not permit intensive large livestock 

operations. Therefore the zoning restriction exists on that portion of the farm parcel in 

Warwick. Therefore, Council can place a zoning on the balance of the lands within Lambton 

Shores which would prohibit the barns from being used for any animal operation. 

The Policy Statement would require that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the 

construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. There is still currently a dwelling on the 

remnant farm parcel, but it is located within Warwick I would suggest that the zoning on that 

portion of the subject lands lying in Lambton Shores be zoned to prohibit a dwelling. 

The subject lands are zoned “Agricultural 1” in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. The 

Agricultural 1 (A1) zone requires that a farm parcel have a minimum lot area of 38 hectares 

and a minimum lot frontage of 150 metres. The lands which are to be retained in agricultural 

use do not comply with minimum lot area now and if the severance is granted will not comply 

with the minim lot frontage. The retained farm lot will only be marginally smaller than it exists 

today and the reduction in lot frontage should not negatively affect the lands. 

The Agricultural 1 (A1) Zone requires that a non-farm dwelling lot have a minimum lot area of 

0.8 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 45 metres. The surplus dwelling lot is proposed 

to have a lot area of approximately 0.3 hectares and a lot frontage of 38 metres (124 ft.) and 

does not comply with the minimums established in the A1 zone. The proposed non-farm 

residential lot is serviced by a private septic system and municipal water. Jocelyn Kerrigan, 

Private Septic System Co-ordiantor at the County of Lambton advises that the County's files 

show that the same severance was applied for in 2005, but that no septic assessment was 

applied for at that time, nor has one been submitted for this current application. There is no 

record of any septic, plumbing or building for the property. Also, it is County policy not to 

support any agricultural severance of a lot on clay soil that will be less than 2 acres in size 

(0.8 hectares) for the purpose of septic use approval. 

In light of the concerns expressed by the County and the lack of septic system records, I 

recommend that this application be tabled pending submission to and approval of a septic 

assessment by the County and the Municipality in order that we can ascertain if sufficient lot 

area exists to support a new septic system for the dwelling proposed to be severed. 

Summary 

In light of the above, I recommend that these applications be tabled pending the submission 

to and review of a septic assessment by the County of Lambton and the Municipality. 




116





117

APPENDIX 2 


PL Report No.27-2012 Thursday, August 16, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 



RE: 






That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012, submitted 

by Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited requesting an amendment to 

the Lambton Shores Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it relates to 

lands known as 8623 Townsend Line, to allow the creation of a new 

non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming 

operation as result of a farm consolidation be APPROVED and that 

the By-law to implement the amendment to the Official Plan be 

adopted. 


submitted by Austin Hatchery and Farms Limited, requesting an 

amendment to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 as it 

relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend Line to: 

a) prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on the remnant farm 

parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling, to allow the 

remnant farm parcel to have a lot area of 19.3 hectares and to 

prohibit the existing barns , formerly chicken barns, from being 

used for animal operations; and 

b) allow a new non-farm dwelling lot to have a lot area of 0.3 

hectares and a lot frontage of 38 metres provided the lot is 

serviced wit municipal water and sanitary sewers and any dwelling 

is connected thereto. 

be APPROVED and that the By-law to implement the amendments to 

the Zoning By-law be adopted 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

REPORT 

118

These applications were considered by Council as their June 4, 2012 and Council passed the 

following resolutions: 

Moved by: Councillor Scott 


That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012 and Zoning By-law 

Amendment Application ZO-02/2012 submitted by Austin Hatchery and Farms 

Limited requesting an amendment to the Lambton Shores Official Plan and 

Zoning By-law as it relates to lands known as 8623 Townsend Line, to allow the 

creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a 

farming operation to be tabled pending the submission and approval of a septic 

assessment for the proposed non-farm dwelling lot by the County of Lambton 

and the Municipality. 

Carried 

The Community Services Department has verified that the two dwellings on the property are 

connected to the municipal sanitary sewer located on Townsend Line. One connection serves 

both dwellings. Separate connections will be required as a condition of the consent. 

Therefore, a septic assessment is not required and the size of the proposed new non-farm lot 

at approximately 0.3 hectares does not create any servicing issues. 

In light of the above, I can recommend that these applications be approved subject to the 

conditions contained in the Recommendation Section of this report as they are consistent 

with the Provincial Policy Statement. 




119

APPENDIX 3 

Excerpt from Minutes of the June 4, 2012 Council Meeting 

6.2 Public Meeting – Application for an Official Plan Amendment OP-01/2012 & 

Zone Amendment Application ZO-02/2012 for Austin Hatchery & Farms Ltd. 

– 8623 Townsend Line 




held under the Planning Act to hear an Application for an Official 

Plan Amendment Application and Zone Amendment Application 

submitted by Austin Hatchery & Farms Ltd. for property located at 

8623 Townsend Line. Carried 

The Planner Ms. Richardson explained that the applicant, Austin Hatchery and Farms Ltd. is 

requesting an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan 

and to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in the Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 to one of the two existing 

farm dwellings to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a nonfarm dwelling. Ms. 

Richardson advised that the proposed severed dwelling is excess to the owners needs as he 

resides on another property. 

The Planner further reported that the issue of minimum distance separation for the lot created 

for the surplus dwelling would not be an issue. There is, however, a concern with the lack of 

septic system records and recommended that this application be tabled pending a septic 

assessment by the County and the Municipality in order to ascertain if sufficient lot area 

exists to support a new septic system for the dwelling proposed to be severed. 

Mayor Weber called for questions from the Council and the audience, and there were no 

questions or comments. 





Carried 



That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2012 and Zoning Bylaw 

Amendment Application ZO-02/2012 submitted by Austin 

Hatchery and Farms Limited requesting an amendment to the 

Lambton Shores Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it relates to lands 

known as 8623 Townsend Line, to allow the creation of a new 

non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming 

operation to be tabled pending the submission and approval of a 

septic assessment for the proposed non-farm dwelling lot by the 

County of Lambton and the Municipality. 

Carried 

120


PL Report No. 29-2012 Monday, August 20, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 




LOCATION: Lakeshore Road between Beach O’Pines Road and Jennison 

Crescent 

OWNERS: Brad Oke 


That PL Report No.27-2012 regarding Zoning By-law 

Amendment Application ZO-06/2012, submitted by Brad Oke, to 

change the zoning on the lands described as Part of Lot 7, Lake 

Road West Concession, geographic Township of Bosanquet, 

Municipality of Lambton Shores, known more particularly as 

PARTS 1 to 8, PLAN 25R9881 from Future Urban (FU) to: 

a) “Residential 6-18 (R6-18) Zone” for PARTS 3, 4, 5, and 6, 

PLAN 25R9881, which will prohibit development or alteration 

of the parcels until it has been demonstrated that there will 

be no negative impact on the Old Ausable River Channel 

which is a provincially significant wetland and habitat to 

endangered species; 

b) “Residential 6 (R6) for PART 2, PLAN 25R9881; 

c) “Residential 6-4 (R6-4) for PARTS 7, 8, and PART 1, save 

and except the east 23 metres of PART 1, PLAN 25R9881; 

and 

d) “Environmental Protection - Natural Conservation (EP-NC) 

for the east 23 metres of PART 1, PLAN 25R9881 in order to 

preserve a corridor of trees along Highway 21. 

be received and filed and that the By-law to implement the 

amendment to the Zoning By-law be APPROVED. 

REPORT 

This application was considered by Council as their August 7, 2012 meeting and 

Council passed the following resolution: 

121

Moved by: Councillor Illman 


That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-06/2012, submitted Brad 

Oke, requesting amendments to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1 of 2003, 

as it relates to lands located on the west side of Highway 21 between Beach 

O’Pines Road and Jennison Crescent be APPROVED AS REVISED BY 

STAFF to change the zoning on: 

a) PARTS 3, 4, 5, and 6, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future Development” to 

“Residential 6-18 (R6-18) Zone”, which will prohibit development or 

alteration of the parcels until it has been demonstrated that there will be no 

negative impact on the Old Ausable River Channel which is a provincially 

significant wetland and habitat to endangered species; 

b) PART 2, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future Development” to “Residential 6 (R6); 

c) PARTS 7, 8, and 1, save and except the east 23 metres of PART 1, PLAN 

25R9881 from “Future Development” to “Residential 6-4 (R6-4); and 

d) the east 23 metres of PART 1, PLAN 25R9881 from “Future Development” 

to “Environmental Protection - Natural Conservation (EP-NC). 

I have prepared the amending by-law for Council review and approval. 




122

123 

ATTACHMENT 1


BY-LAW 103 OF 2012 

Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 of 2003 

WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores passed 

a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 on the 4th day of February, 2003; and 

WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law; and 

WHEREAS a public meeting was held on August 7, 2012 under Section 34(12) of the 

Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores enacts as follows: 

1. That Schedule "A" attached hereto (being a description of the lands affected by 

this By-law) is hereby declared to form part of this By-law. 

2. Section 12.3 of By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by adding the following 

thereto: 

s) Exception 18 to the Residential 6 Zone 


lands zoned Residential 6-18 (R6-18) on Schedule “A-1” to this By-law, 

and described as PARTS 3, 4, 5 and 6, PLAN 25R9881, geographic 

Township of Bosanquet, Municipality of Lambton Shores no buildings, 

structure or site alteration, including tree and vegetation removal shall be 

permitted until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 

Municipality, that there is no negative impact on the Old Ausable Channel, 

which is a provincially significant wetland, and habitat to endangered 

species. 

3. Schedule ‘A-1’ to Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 is hereby amended by changing the 

zone symbol that applies to those lands as indicated on Schedule ‘A’ to this Bylaw 

from the: 

“FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (FD) ZONE” 

to the 

“RESIDENTIAL 6-18 (R6-18) ZONE”, 

124

“RESIDENTIAL 6 (R6) ZONE” 

“RESIDENTIAL 6-4 (R6-4) ZONE” 

AAnd 

“ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - NATURAL CONSERVATION (EP-NC)” 

4. This By-law shall come into force and effect pursuant to Section 34(21) or Section 

34(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. 

Read a First and Second Time This 4 th Day of September, 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. 

_______________________ 

MAYOR –Bill Weber 

_______________________ 


125

126


ZONING BY-LAW 103 OF 2012 

Explanatory Note 

The purpose of this zoning by-law amendment is to change the zoning on the lands 

described as Part of Lot 7, Lake Road West Concession, geographic Township of 

Bosanquet, Municipality of Lambton Shores, known more particularly as PARTS 1 to 8, 

PLAN 25R9881 from Future Urban (FU) to: 

a) “Residential 6-18 (R6-18) Zone” for PARTS 3, 4, 5, and 6, PLAN 25R9881, which will 

prohibit development or alteration of the parcels until it has been demonstrated that 

there will be no negative impact on the Old Ausable River Channel which is a 

provincially significant wetland and habitat to endangered species; 

b) “Residential 6 (R6) for PART 2, PLAN 25R9881; 

c) “Residential 6-4 (R6-4) for PARTS 7, 8, and PART 1, save and except the east 23 

metres of PART 1, PLAN 25R9881; and 

d) “Environmental Protection - Natural Conservation (EP-NC) for the east 23 metres of 

PART 1, PLAN 25R9881 in order to preserve a corridor of trees along Highway 21. 

127

128


PL Report No. 30-2012 Thursday, August 23, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Site Plan Agreement between Rice Development Company Inc. 

and the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

Block 26, Registered Plan 25M-42 

Brooklawn Drive (Rice Subdivision) - Grand Bend 


To request that Council approve a by-law authorizing the 

execution of a Site Plan Agreement between Rice 

Development Company Inc and the Corporation of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores for lands known as a Block 26, 

Registered Plan 25M-42. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

REPORT 

Rice Development Company Inc. are proposing to construct a 26 unit condominium 

townhouse development on lands known as Block 26, Registered Plan 25M-42 and 

located on a new street in the Rice Subdivision known as Brooklawn Drive. Over the past 

several months, staff has been working with the developer on an acceptable site plan. 

I am pleased to report to Council that a site plan and agreement has been prepared which 

is acceptable to both staff and the developer, and which is now presented to Council for 

approval. 

The agreement provides for proper development of the lands in keeping with the 

Municipality’s quality site development standards. 

A copy of the agreement and by-law authorizing the Municipality to execute the 

agreement is attached for Council’s consideration. 




129


BY-LAW 104 OF 2012 

Being a By-law to Authorize a Site Plan Agreement 

with Rice Development Company Inc. 

WHEREAS it is deemed desirable that The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores enter into a Site Plan Agreement with Rice Development Company Inc. affecting 

lands known as Block 26, Registered Plan 25M-42 and located on Brooklawn Drive in 

Grand Bend; and 

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

enacts as follows: 

1. The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores is authorized to enter into a 

Site Plan Agreement with Rice Development Company Inc., in the form of the 

Agreement a copy of which is annexed to this By-law. 

2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute such agreement and to affix to 

it the Corporate Seal of The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores. 

3. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th day of September, 2012 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 

_________________________ 


_________________________ 


130

1 

THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2012 

BETWEEN: RICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. 

(Hereinafter called the "Owner") 

OF THE FIRST PART 


(Hereinafter called the "Municipality”) 

OF THE SECOND PART 

WHEREAS the Municipality has enacted a Site Plan Control By-law pursuant to the 

provisions of Section 41 of the Planning Act, 1990; 

AND WHEREAS Section 41 of the Planning Act requires the Owner to: 

(a) 

submit development plans to the Municipality for approval under Section 41(4) of 

the Act: and 

(b) 

authorizes the Municipality to require the Owner to enter into an agreement 

respecting the provision of the services and the approval of the plans and drawings 

under Section 41(7) of the Act; 

AND WHEREAS the Owner represents and warrants that they intend to develop lands 

described in Schedule 'A' to this agreement (hereinafter called “the lands"); 

AND WHEREAS the Owner of “the lands” has submitted plans to the Municipality for 

approval in accordance with subsection (4) of Section 41; 

NOW THEREFORE the parties hereto agree as follows: 

131

1. The following Schedules are hereby declared to form part of this agreement and 

are attached hereto: 

2 

Schedules 

Description 

"A" - being a legal description of the lands 

affected hereinafter referred to as the 

“lands”. 

"B" - being Site Plans, showing the location of 

existing entrances, structures and 

facilities on “the lands” and the plans 

showing the new facilities, works and 

matters to be provided on “the lands”. 

“C” - Letter of Credit Form 

2. The attached Schedule "B" is hereby approved by the Municipality subject to the 

following conditions: 

(A) 

GENERAL 

The Owner hereby agrees that the development shall be carried out and 

completed in accordance with the attached Schedule "B", the Site Plan. Any 

item or feature which is not specifically shown on Schedule “B” or described 

in this Agreement shall be deemed to be prohibited and will only be 

permitted through an amendment to this Agreement. 

(B) 

PAVING DRIVEWAYS & PARKING AREA 

(i) 

The Owner shall pave with asphalt, concrete or other hard surface 

material approved by the Municipality, all parking or loading areas and 

132

3 

lanes and driveways and walkways on the Lands, as shown on Schedule 

“B”, the Site Plan, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Municipality. No 

parking or loading areas or lanes or driveways shall be used as such 

unless they are so paved or surfaced. The Owner shall so construct and 

maintain the surface of all parking or loading areas and lanes and 

driveways on the Lands so that the surface will support fire apparatus 

weighing 18 tonnes under all weather conditions. 

(ii) The Owner shall install and maintain cast in place concrete curbing 

as shown on Schedule “B”, the Site Plan. The Owner shall provide curbing 

around the perimeter of the driveways and parking areas in the locations 

shown on Schedule “B”. 

(C) 

VEHICULAR ACCESS 

(i) The Owner shall provide and maintain vehicular access to and from 

the Lands only as shown on Schedule “B”, the Site Plan, and to the 

satisfaction of the Municipality. The Owner shall prohibit any other 

vehicular access to and from “the Lands”. 

(D) 

LANDSCAPING 

The Owner shall install landscape “the lands” in accordance with Schedule 

“B”. All plant materials shall be installed and maintained in a healthy 

condition to the satisfaction of the Municipality. No underground sprinkler 

systems shall be located on the Municipality’s or County’s right-of-way. 

(E) 

FENCING 

Any fencing required to be constructed on the lands by Schedule “B” to 

133

4 

this Agreement. 

(F) 

LIGHTING 

The Owner shall install and maintain facilities for the lighting, including 

floodlighting, of the Lands or of any buildings or structures including signs 

thereon to the reasonable satisfaction of the Municipality. Any exterior 

lighting of the building, open space or signs shall have its' intensity controlled 

and shall be directed away from the adjacent properties or streets to the 

reasonable satisfaction of the Municipality. 

(G) 

OPEN STORAGE 

The Owner hereby agrees that there will be no open storage carried out on 

“the lands” unless it is within an area specifically designated for such 

purposes and shown on Schedule “B”, the Site Plan. 

(H) 

SERVICING AND INSPECTION 

(i) The Owner shall construct and install or cause to be constructed and 

installed at its expense all services provided for in “Schedule B”, which 

include the following, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement 

including the following plans and specifications in the schedules hereto: 

- Public watermain and appurtenances (including lateral to dwellings) 

- Private sanitary sewers and appurtenances (including lateral to dwellings) 

- Private storm sewer, ditches and swales 

- Private catch basins 

- Private streets , curbs and gutters 

134

5 

- Private and public boulevards sodded 

- Private streetlights 

- Underground power and communications line 

- Natural gas lines. 

(ii) The Owner’s Consulting Engineer shall be a Registered Ontario 

Professional Engineer who shall do all design work. Full-time, on site 

supervision by a qualified inspector is to be provided by the Owner's 

Consulting Engineer for all works to be constructed on the lands and on 

any existing municipal road allowance. Full time inspection is not a 

requirement for site stripping. The preceding does not absolve the Owner 

or the Owner’s Consultant of responsibility for being aware of all activities 

related to this development. Ignorance of on-site activities will be no 

excuse for variance from the Site Plan, Municipal specification or any 

statute under law or the consultant abdicating responsibility for provision 

of a letter of certification upon project completion. Weekly inspection 

reports are to be provided to the Municipal Engineer, and, upon 

completion of the works, a certificate is to be provided by the Owner’s 

Consulting Engineer stating that the works have been completed in 

accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The works and 

services required to be done by the Subdivider shall be wholly at the 

expense of the Subdivider except as may be otherwise herein expressly 

provided, and shall include the items set forth in this agreement and 

Schedule "B" attached hereto. 

(iii) The Owner agrees that all plans and specifications shall be done in 

accordance with the requirements of the Municipality and the Municipal 

Engineer. All construction plans and specifications are to be in 

accordance with Schedules “B" and "C". Upon completion of the 

installation of the services, the Subdivider shall cause the Owner’s 

135

6 

Engineer to complete to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the 

Municipal Engineer, 2 large scale copies, two eleven by seventeen copies 

and copy in digital form (Shape or AutoCAD format) of the drawings, 

showing the exact location of the services as actually constructed and 

deposit, and one set of disks with the Municipality. Before the execution 

of this Agreement, the Owner shall provide security in the form of cash, 

certified cheque or Letter of Credit, as security for the deposit of such 

drawings. Such deposit shall be returned forthwith upon submission of 

such drawings, when such drawings are approved as complete by the 

Municipality. 

(iv) Unless consent is given by the Municipality, the Owner agrees that 

no person shall apply for or be entitled to occupy any building on the 

“lands” until: 

(a) 

In the opinion of the Municipal Engineer, such units are serviced 

and the Owner has complied with the Municipality’s security 

requirements as required under this agreement and also provided 

that the Owner is not in default under any terms of this 

agreement. 

(b) “Serviced” for the purposes of this paragraph “include without 

limiting the generality thereof, water main and appurtenances, 

sanitary sewers and appurtenances, storm sewers, base course 

asphalt on streets curbs, street name sign and underground 

power, communication and natural gas lines provided for in this 

agreement have be constructed and complete to the satisfaction of 

the Municipal Engineer. 

136

7 

(c) 

the Owner has provided the Municipality with a letter of undertaking 

specifying when any deficiencies and outstanding work will be 

completed; and 

(d) 

Letters of credit have been given to the Municipality from a 

chartered bank in form contained in Schedule “C” and with content 

all satisfactory to the Municipality in favour of the Municipality, 

firstly, in an amount equal to the cost of completing all the works 

provided for in this Agreement not then completed, and secondly, in 

an amount equal to 10% of the cost of all public works and 

services provided for in this Agreement, (which latter letter of credit 

may be used for the maintenance period), both as estimated by the 

Owner’s Consulting Engineer and approved by the Municipal 

Engineer. 

(e) 

the Owner has conveyed to the Municipality an easement for the 

public water main and fire hydrants. 

(v) The Owner agrees to notify, in writing, any purchaser of a dwelling 

units on the subject lands that the Municipality may refuse any application 

for a building permit if made before such approvals, works and services 

have been completed. The issuance of a building permit with respect to 

any particular lots shall not be deemed an admission by the Municipality 

that the services to such lot have been satisfactorily completed. 

(vi) The Owner shall guarantee each and every one of the works and 

services in good condition and repair for the period of two years (herein 

after called the maintenance period) after the Municipality is satisfied that 

the works and services required by this agreement have been installed 

incompliance with this Agreement. However, if during the two year 

137

8 

maintenance period the public works and services required by this 

agreement are damaged or are found to be unacceptable to the 

Municipality the maintenance period shall not expire and the letter of credit 

deposited for maintenance shall not be returned until all work required by 

this agreement is completed or repaired to the satisfaction of the Municipal 

Engineer. 

(vii) The Subdivider acknowledges that the public services provided for in 

this agreement shall not become the property of the Municipality nor shall 

the Municipality be deemed to have assumed any works or services unless 

an assumption by-law has been enacted to that effect. The Owner also 

acknowledges and agrees that the Municipality accepts no liability 

whatsoever for the said public services until such time as they are assumed 

by by-law and that all subsequent purchasers shall be notified in writing that 

such unassumed public services are not the responsibility of the 


(viii) If pursuant to this Agreement and in the opinion of the Municipal 

Engineer, the Municipality finds it necessary to enter upon the lands 

covered by this agreement to perform any work, including maintenance, 

which the Subdivider should have completed, the Municipality shall not be 

deemed to have assumed any public service by so doing and the cost of 

such work shall be borne by the Owner and payable on demand. 

(ix) 

The Municipality shall not pass an assumption by-law until: 

(x) 

all the required public services have been installed by the Owner 

and have been certified by a Registered Professional Engineer as 

to being installed strictly in accordance with the requirements of the 

Agreement; 

138

9 

(a) the Owner has provided the Municipal Engineer with final "as - 

constructed" drawings on mylar and in digital form acceptable to the 

Municipality; and 

(b) 

the Municipality is satisfied with the public services and the 

maintenance period has been deemed to have expired. 

(xi) 

Prior to expiry of the maintenance period the Owner's Consulting 

Engineer shall: 

(a) 

correct and repair any deficiencies or difficulties which may have 

occurred or arisen during the maintenance period, all to the 

satisfaction of the Municipal Engineer; and 

(b) 

provide a report to the Municipal Engineer confirming that all 

deficiencies or difficulties have been corrected, which report will act 

as a notice for a request to the Municipal Engineer for the 

maintenance clearance inspection. 

(xii) Upon receipt of the report of the Owner’s Consulting Engineer, the 

Municipal’s Engineer will undertake an inspection of all new public 

services (at the Owner's expense). Subject to the completion of any 

additional required work, the Municipal Engineer shall advise the 

Municipality in writing that the services are complete and the maintenance 

period can conclude. Upon receiving this clearance letter from the 

Municipality’s Engineer, the Municipality, shall within 30 days: 

139

10 

(a) 

release to the Subdivider any money or security which the 

Municipality has to which the Subdivider is entitled under this 

Agreement; and 

(b) 

pass an assumption by-law. 

(I) 

WATER & WATERMAIN TESTING 

i) Unless consent is given by the Municipality, the Subdivider agrees that no 

person shall apply for or be entitled to a building permit with respect to any lot in the 

“Plan”, except as allowed in Paragraph 5(c), until, water mains, including all 

appurtenances, are constructed and installed, at the expense of the Subdivider, in 

accordance with the current Municipal standards as shown on Schedule “B”. The 

water distribution system shall include water mains, fire hydrants, necessary valves 

and appurtenances, including private service connections to the property line of 

every lot as shown on the approved plans. All private connections shall be 

equipped with tracer wire. 

ii) The Subdivider shall not extend a water service to any dwelling prior to the 

approval of the water service connection by the Municipal Engineer and the 

issuance of a building permit for the lot. 

iii) 

Prior to the execution of this Agreement, the Subdivider shall pay to the 

Municipality, fees for water used for flushing said water lines. 

iv) 

Water main Testing 

140

11 

All public water mains shall be inspected and tested up to and including the water 

meter(s) in accordance with the Municipality of Lambton Shores Engineering 

Standards and Specifications by the Municipality which are as follows: 

(a) 

Contractor: 

1. Must ensure a backflow prevention unit that has a current 

testing certificate is installed at any connection point to the 

Lambton Shores Water System. 

2. Must use a meter to record the volume of water used in the 

commissioning of new waterlines. 

3. Must ensure a Lambton Shores Representative is given 24 

hours notice to operate all system valves. 

4. Must provide all equipment and product to conduct 

swabbing, pressure test, super chlorination and dechlorination 

of new waterline. 

5. Must ensure that only Certified Drinking Water Chlorine is to 

be used and is available at ANCHEM Laboratories (1-800- 

387-9799) 

b) Developer/Contractor Engineer: 

1. Must witness all work related to waterline and sanitary 

connections and commissioning to ensure it complies with 

AWWA Standards. 

141

12 

2. Must witness and record pressure testing, super chlorination 

and de-chlorination activities to ensure compliance with 

AWWA Standards. 

c) Lambton Shores Representative: 

1. Must operate all system valves in Lambton Shores’ water 

system. 

2. Must ensure the super chlorination concentrations comply 

with AWWA Standards. 

3. Must take all bacti samples before commissioning the new 

waterline and retain the chain of custody for those samples. 

4. Must report back to contractor/developer as soon as the 

sample results are known. 

(J) 

OCCUPANCY 

(i) The Owner shall notify the Municipality at least one week prior to the 

proposed occupancy date in order to arrange for a site inspection to be conducted. 

(ii) The Owner and Encumbrancer shall not occupy or use or permit to be 

occupied or used any new building or extension or parking lot on the Lands before 

the provisions of this Agreement are complied with. 

(iii) Substantial completion of the site is required before occupancy is allowed by 

the Municipality. The Municipality may permit the occupation or use of any new 

142

uilding or extension or a parking lot before all the provisions of this Agreement are 

complied subject to the following condition being satisfied: 

13 

a) all off-site services required by the Subdivision Agreement affecting the 

lands have been completed to the satisfaction of the Municipality 

incompliance with the terms and conditions of the Subdivision Agreement; 

b) sanitary and watermain easements, on Block 27, to the satisfaction of the 

Municipality are registered on the adjacent lands. 

c) the Owner or Encumbrancer deposits with the Municipality a certified 

cheque or a bank Letter of Credit substantially in the form and terms of 

Schedule 'C' attached hereto and satisfactory to the Municipality in order to 

secure the completion of the provisions of this Agreement after occupancy 

has commenced, including the landscaping. Notwithstanding the 

aforementioned permission, the Owner and Encumbrancer shall not occupy 

or use or permit to be occupied or used any new building or extension or 

parking lot on the Lands before all of the work, except landscaping, in the 

Municipality’s right-of-way is complete. 

(iv) The Owner hereby authorizes the Municipality to carry out the completion of 

any of the provisions of this Agreement and to use the funds secured by the said 

cheque or Letter of Credit for this purpose, if the Owner fails to complete the said 

work within the time agreed to in writing between the Municipality and the Owner at 

the time the Owner provides such cheque or Letter of Credit. Upon completion of 

the work, any unused balance shall forthwith be returned to the Owner and, should 

the funds deposited be insufficient, the Owner shall forthwith pay to the Municipality 

such sum as may be required to make up the total cost of the work. Failure to pay 

the amount within 30 days after the account has been submitted will result in the 

143

cost being added to the tax bill for the Lands and collected in like manner as 

municipal taxes. 

14 

3, FUTURE MAINTENANCE 

The Owner hereby agrees to maintain to the satisfaction of the Municipality and at 

the sole risk and expense of the Owner, those facilities, works or matters required 

to be provided for in this agreement. 

4. COMPLETION 

If the development proposed in this agreement is not carried out and completed in 

accordance with this Agreement within one (1) year of the date of execution of this 

agreement, the agreement shall lapse and the agreement shall be null and void. 

Any deposits given to the Municipality as security for site works shall be retained by 

the Municipality. 

5. STREET CLEANING 

The Owner shall be responsible for cleaning the sidewalk and roadway along the 

street in the vicinity of the lands to remove all dirt, mud and debris which, in the 

opinion of the Municipality, has been deposited thereon as a result of the 

construction activities on the Lands. Such cleaning shall be done at the end of each 

day if required or otherwise as determined by the Municipality. If the Owner is 

unable or unwilling to clean the sidewalk or street to the reasonable satisfaction of 

the Municipality, the Owner hereby authorizes the Municipality to clean the sidewalk 

and street as required by the Municipality and the Owner agrees to pay the 

Municipality all costs associated with the cleaning operation performed by the 


6. DEPOSITS, SECURITIES AND PAYMENT 

144

15 

(A) The Owner has previously deposited with the Municipality the sum of 

$1000.00 which sum shall be held in trust by the Municipality and from which 

engineering review and supervision fees shall be paid during the development 

process. The Municipality may call upon the Owner from time to time to replenish 

the account. Any sum remaining in the account after the site has been completed 

incompliance with this agreement to the satisfaction of the Municipality, shall be 

refunded to the Owner. The amount invoiced to the Municipality for the above fees 

in connection with the work required under this Agreement shall include an 

accounting of the services performed and shall be open to challenge by the Owner 

in proceedings that may be taken in the name of the Municipality with notice to the 

Municipality providing that payment in full has been made of the disputed account 

before such proceedings are taken. 

(B) A legal fee of $400.00. 

(C) Prior to the execution of this agreement the Owner shall deposit with the 

Municipality a security in the form of a certified cheque or Letter of Credit (as per 

Schedule “C”), equal to 100% of the value (including G.S.T.) of the work to be done 

on the Municipality’s or the County’s property. The Owner’s consultant shall 

provide an estimate for the work to be approved by the Municipality. 

7. INDEMNIFICATION 

(A) This agreement and the provisions thereof do not give to any person 

acquiring any interest in the “Lands” any rights against the Municipality or the 

Municipal Engineer with respect to the failure to perform any obligations under 

this agreement or the failure of the Municipality to force any such persons to 

perform any obligations under this agreement or any negligence of any such 

persons in the performance of the said obligations. The only duty and 

145

16 

responsibility of the Municipal Engineer arising out of this agreement is to the 

Municipality and the agreement and any work or service done or performed by 

the Municipal Engineer under this agreement does not in any way create any 

liability on the part of the Municipal Engineer to the Owner or any person 

acquiring any interest in the said lands. 

(B) The Owner covenants that he will indemnify and save harmless the 

Municipality from any and all claims, demands, actions and causes of action, 

whether the same shall be successful or unsuccessful and from all costs to which 

the Municipality may be at, suffer, or be put to in respect of any such action, 

cause of action, claim or demand in any way arising out of or alleged to arise out 

of any work, service, operation or thing constructed, installed, repaired, 

maintained or done or omitted to be done or negligently done by the Owner, his 

servants, agents, contractors or subcontractors under them, in respect of the said 

works and services, whether or not the same shall be required to be done under 

the terms of this agreement, and including (without limiting the generality of the 

foregoing) the alteration of any grade or existing level construction, maintenance 

or repair of any road. 

(C) The Owner or his contractor shall, at his own expense, obtain and lodge 

with the Municipality a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the Municipality 

indemnifying the Municipality and the Owner with cross liability endorsement, 

against any claim for public liability, personal injury, including death, or property 

damage to limits of $5,000,000, inclusive for any one accident arising in any way 

out of the construction, installation, repair or maintenance of the works and 

services required herein to be done. The said policy shall not be subject to lapse 

or cancellation without thirty days prior written notice to the Municipality. The 

Owner or his contractor shall, at his own expense, maintain the said policy of 

insurance in full force and effect until the works required on Schedule “B” are 

146

complete. Failure to procure and maintain the said policy of insurance shall 

constitute a default under this agreement. 

17 

8. The Owner shall ensure that no earth, debris or excavated material shall be 

deposited within the limits of a Municipal/Provincial road allowance without 

permission in writing to do so from the Municipality. In the event that earth, debris 

or excavated material is deposited on the Municipal/Provincial roadway it shall be 

removed by the Owner immediately upon notification from the Municipality. If, the 

earth, debris or excavated material has not been removed from the road allowance 

by the Owner, the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Municipality may take 

it upon itself to remove the said earth, debris or excavated material. 

Notwithstanding this notice to the Owner, the Municipality may at anytime remove 

debris from the Municipal property, and the cost of such removal will be paid for by 

the Owner and may be deducted from the Owner's deposit fee or other securities 

held by the Municipality. 

9. CONSTRUCTION LIENS 

(A) In the event that any construction lien within the meaning of the most 

current Construction Lien Act, is registered in respect of any works or services 

constructed by or on behalf of the Subdivider, the Subdivider, after having been 

given notice by any person or of becoming aware of the existence of any 

construction lien, shall forthwith discharge (or have vacated) any claim for lien 

made in respect of the works and services constructed by the Subdivider under 

this Agreement, or against the security lots held by the Municipality and these 

will be remedied within the time provided for, and following the procedures set 

out and prescribed in the current Construction Lien Act, and Ontario Regulations. 

B) Should any claim for lien remain outstanding for more than 20 calendar 

days, the Municipality may , without notice and without making a declaration that 

147

18 

the Owner is in default or final default, utilize any remedy which would be 

available to it upon the final default of the Owner. The right shall continue until 

the Municipality has been served with evidence satisfactory to it that all liens 

have been discharged or vacated. 

(C) The Subdivider shall not be entitled to a release or re-conveyance of any 

subdivision security until any claim for lien is discharged or vacated. 

10. (A) Pursuant to subsection (10) of Section 41 of the Planning Act, 1990, the 

Municipality will register this agreement against the said lands to which it applies 

and the Municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions hereof against the Owner, 

and subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act, any and all 

subsequent owners of the land. Registration of this agreement is required prior to 

the issuance of any building permit on the said lands. 

(B) Pursuant to subsection (11) of Section 41 of the Planning Act, 1990, Section 

326 of the Municipal Act applies to any requirements made under sub clause (a), 

(b), (c) and (d) of clause 2 hereof and to any other requirements made under this 

agreement. 

11. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this agreement, the Owner shall be subject 

to all of the by-laws of the Municipality and shall construct all work in accordance 

with the requirements of the Municipality, the County of Lambton and the Province 

of Ontario. 

12. The Owner agrees to pay all costs, legal or otherwise, of the registration of this 

agreement. 

148

19 

13. This agreement may be amended at anytime with the consent, in writing, of the 

Municipality and the registered Owner of the said lands at the time of such 

amendment. 

14. The provisions hereof shall ensure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their 

heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their signatures and 

Corporate Seals attested to by the hands of their proper officers, duly authorized in that 

behalf. 

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED 

In the presence of: 

________________________________ 

David Rice – I have the Authority to bind 

the Corporation 

________________________________ 

Roderick W. Rice – I have the Authority to 

bind the Corporation 

Authorized by By-law 



____________________________ 

B. Weber, Mayor 

149

20 

(SEAL) 

_________________________________ 


150

21 

SCHEDULE "A" 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS AFFECTED BY THIS AGREEMENT 

ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and 

being in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in the County of Lambton, and the Province 

of Ontario, and being composed of Block 26, Plan 25M - 42 . 

151

22 

SCHEDULE "B" 

Site Plan 

152

23 

SCHEDULE "C" 

TO: 

LETTER OF CREDIT 

(Bank Letterhead or Form) 

Date: 


Pursuant to the request of our customer (name of Owner), we the undersigned, (name 

of bank) hereby establish an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the total amount of $ _____ which 

may be drawn on by you to the extent required for the proper completion of all works, services 

and improvements and payment of all amounts payable by our customer to you in accordance 

with the terms of the Subdivision Agreement between our customer, (name of Owner) and the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores respecting the respecting the site plan for an 

addition to the Church at 19 Prince Street in the Municipality of Lambton Shores. Drawings 

under this Letter of Credit shall be in the form of a written demand for payment made by the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in the ______ branch of the (name of bank) 

at , Ontario. 

The amount of this Credit shall be reduced from time to time as advised by notice in 

writing given to the undersigned from time to time by the Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores. 

It is understood that this obligation is between the (name of bank) and the Corporation 

of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, and any notice referred to in the preceding paragraph 

shall not be used for any other purpose than herein set forth. 

This Credit will continue for a period of one (1) year and will expire at 23:59 hours local 

time on (date). If this Credit is not renewed at least fourteen (14) days before the expiry date for 

a further period of one (1) year upon identical terms and if alternate securities satisfactory to the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are not deposited with the Corporation of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores by our customer at least seven (7) days before the expiry date 

of this Credit, then we (name of bank) shall promptly forward to the Corporation of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores before the expiry date of the Letter of Credit the total principal 

amount indicated in such Letter of Credit less any amounts previously drawn upon by the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores whether or not the installation of services has 

actually been completed. 

(To be signed by authorized 

signing officers of bank) 

153

STREET F 

STREET B 

NORTH 

DM/LC 

1 : 250 

RFC 

LG1 

MAY 2011 

DM/LC 

RFC 

60118374 

GRAND BEND, ONTARIO 

1 11/09/02 LRC REVISED PER SITE PLAN COMMENTS 

2 12/08/23 CDG REVISED GRADING 

154 

LEGEND

STREET F 

NORTH 

LEGEND 

STORM SEWER 

SANITARY SEWER 

PHASE 2 

PHASE 1 

STREET B 

DM/LC 

1 : 250 

RFC 

SS1 

MAY 2011 

DM/LC 

RFC 

60118374 

GRAND BEND, ONTARIO 

1 11/09/02 LRC REVISED PER SITE PLAN COMMENTS 

2 12/08/23 CDG REVISED SEWER AND SERVICE LAYOUT 

155

156

157


D.C.S. Report No. 72-2012 Wednesday, August 22 , 2012 

TO: 

FROM 

RE: 


Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services 

Grand Bend STF Project Update 


That the D.C.S. Report No. 72-2012 be received for 

Council’s consideration of the various staff recommendations 

contained within. 

REPORT 

This report presents several matters to Council for consideration that were discussed at 

the most recent Joint Sewage Board Meeting. For Council’s reference attached to this 

report are the “DRAFT” minutes of the August 17, 2012 Joint Sewage Bard Meeting. 

During the course of the meeting, the Joint Board passed motions supporting the 

following items that Lambton Shores Council sent to the Board: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirming Option #3, the Orbal process with flow equalization, as the preferred 

technology for the Grand Bend Area sewage treatment facility. 

Supporting that an ESR addendum be filed for the preferred technology. 

Affirming that Lambton Shores, as the administering municipality, submit an 

implementation/scope change request to the BCF Joint Secretariat. 

Affirming that the conventional service delivery model of design, tender, and build 

be the preferred service delivery for this project. 

Affirming that the Working Group has fulfilled its mandate, and shall sit 

disbanded until such time that it is needed to review upgrades for Pump Station 

#2. 

Affirming the Board’s support for the respective CAOs and legal counsel to draft 

a Joint Operating Agreement. 

The items listed below are new matters that were discussed by the Board and are 

presented for Council’s consideration and direction: 

1. ESR Addendum – Selection of a Consulting Engineer 

Completing an ESR addendum for the STF technology change has been supported by 

Lambton Shores and the Board. The next step is to select a consulting engineer to 

complete this work. The work will include updating various sections of the 2009 

Environmental Study report prepared by 158 Dillon Consulting with the study conclusions

that were arrived at by Stantec Consulting. The work will also include planning and 

hosting one public information centre (PIC) to gather the necessary public feedback. 

The Board discussed the matter of how to select a consulting engineer to complete the 

ESR addendum and passed the following motion for the respective municipal Council’s 

to consider: 

Moved by: 

Seconded by: 

Tom Tomes 

Bill Francis 

That the administering municipality request a quote from Stantec Consulting for 

undertaking the ESR addendum and public consultation and accept that proposal 

if it falls within the purchasing policy limits of the partner municipalities and an 

upset limit of $10,000. 

Carried 

Under the terms of the BCF funding agreement all services are to be competitively bid 

so as to follow the lead municipality’s purchasing policy. The contract to complete the 

design review was competitively sourced and awarded to Stantec. If the approach 

above is undertaken the work to complete the ESR addendum could be added as an 

addendum to Stantec’s professional services contract. In staff’s experience this is an 

acceptable approach under the funding agreement. 

Staff have contacted Stantec and requested a quote for these services. The value 

quoted for these services is $19,900 and Stantec’s proposal is attached to this report. 

The approved budget for Stantec’s design review was $52,000. In their proposal 

Stantec indicates that there is still $10,000 remaining in the originally approved budget, 

and they suggest that the work to complete the ESR addendum could be completed by 

increasing their original budget by the difference of $9,900 for a total contract value of 

$61,900. Thus new costs, over and above those that were previously approved, total 

$9,900. Stantec expects the ESR addendum process to take an approximate 10 weeks. 

As with the design review completed by Stantec, at this point in time it is proposed that 

Lambton Shores and South Huron split all costs 50/50. 

Staff requires direction from Council if they prefer to accept the proposal from Stantec 

Consulting to complete the ESR addendum, or if they prefer to competitively bid the 

work. It is staff’s opinion that in an open bid Stantec is the best positioned to be the low 

cost alternative due to their familiarity of the recent design review. Competing firms 

would require additional time to familiarize themselves with the background material of 

the completed Sanitary Servicing Master Plan, original ESR, and recent design review. 

2. Final Design and Construction Management – Selection of a Consulting 

Engineer 

The Board discussed the matter of how to select a consulting engineer for the final 

design and construction management services associated with STF project and passed 

the following motion for the respective municipal 159 Council’s to consider:

Moved by: Elizabeth Davis-Dagg 

Seconded by: Jim Dietrich 

That the tender for the STF redesign be competitively bid so as to follow the 

purchasing policies of the Administering municipal policies; and further 

That the partner municipalities proceed with the bid process conditional upon BCF 

approval of the proposed project implementation change as approved by this Board; 

and further 

That the partner municipalities proceed with the bid process conditional upon 

confirmation that the Board would not meet any potential contractual issues with the 

original Professional Services Agreement with Dillon Consulting. 

Carried 

Under the terms of the BCF funding agreement all services are to be competitively bid 

so as to follow the lead municipality’s purchasing policy. The approach passed by the 

Joint Board is consistent with the funding agreement and staff recommends that Council 

endorse this approach by resolution. 

Staff will solicit a legal opinion from the municipal legal counsel respecting obligations to 

Dillon Consulting. 

3. Pump Station #2 

During their work to complete the environmental assessment for their sewage collection 

system South Huron commissioned their project engineer (Gamsby & Mannerow) to 

conduct a condition and capacity assessment of the main pumping station in Grand 

Bend (known as pump station #2, or PS2). PS2 is jointly owned by both South Huron 

and Lambton Shores. 

The purpose of the assessment was to determine the condition of the asset, and to 

determine if there was sufficient capacity in PS2 for the future flows from South Huron’s 

collection system to be routed through PS2. The G&M report found that there was 

sufficient spare capacity in PS2 for future flows from Bluewater, South Huron, and 

growth flows in Lambton Shores (Grand Bend) to be routed through that location. As a 

result, the South Huron collection system EA has recommended that PS2 be part of 

their preferred route for flows to the upgraded Grand Bend Area sewage treatment 

facility. 

The G&M report also found that there is a total of $1.454M in capital maintenance work 

that is recommended in the immediate to 10 year timeframe at PS2, and an additional 

$3.14M in capital work could be completed at the site to increase capacity for future 

flows to the station. 

Several times over the past number of months there have been informal discussions at 

the Sewage Working Group level and at the Joint Board about considering a change in 

the STF project scope to include the necessary 160 immediate and short term upgrades

equired at PS2. To advance this formally, at the July 27, 2012 Joint Board meeting the 

South Huron representatives presented the following motion that was subsequently 

passed by the Board: 

Moved by: 

Seconded by: 

George Robertson 

Jim Dietrich 

That Gamsby-Mannerow Engineering be invited to the next meeting of the Joint 

Board to present the findings of their review of the condition of Pump Station #2. 

Carried 

At the August 7, 2012 Joint Board meeting Mr. Colin Wiebe, P.Eng., from Gamsby & 

Mannerow attended and presented his firm’s findings respecting the condition survey 

that was completed for PS2 in Grand Bend (presentation attached). 

The presentation identifies a number of maintenance recommendations for completion 

in the immediate to 10 year term representing an investment of $1.454M in capital 

maintenance work. Included in the total work are various upgrades that would represent 

upgrades in technology to the current design standards which are outlined below: 

1. Immediate Upgrades $540,000 

Install Programmable Logic Control (PLC) 

Remove and replace existing flow meter with current technology 

Replace Motor Control Centre (MCC) with current technology 

Replace corroded and seized wet well appurtenances 

Inspect, upgrade, and recoat the surge tank 

Replace air valves on the existing forcemain 

Replace with emergency generator fuel system to meet current Liquid Fuel 

Handling Code and TSSA requirements 

Replace check valve for overflow system 

2. Maintenance Items to be Replaced as Required $174,000 

Clean and recoat pump station piping 

Replace pump station valves that have exceeded their life cycle 

3. Future Upgrades (5 – 10 year window) $740,000 

Remove and replace existing wet well pumps 

Install new inlet grinder pump 

Install new generator, surge tank, and investigate odour controls 

Total Value of the Work $1,454,000 

If the partners chose to move forward with all of the work the duplicate items would 

need to be eliminated (i.e. you wouldn’t invest the fuel system upgrade in #1 if you 

chose to replace the generator as in #3) and the total budget would need to be updated. 

When viewing the Gamsby & Mannerow presentation 161 there are numerous pictures that 

show corrosion and it is natural for concerns to be raised that the pump station has not

een properly maintained. Mr. Wiebe provided his perspective the pump station is akin 

to a 1970’s era vehicle that is still running well, and simply needs maintenance. Mr. 

Wiebe further qualified his opinion stating that he believes that the owners and 

operators of the facility have maintained the asset properly. Mr. Wiebe comments: 

“The condition of the PS-2 and associated forcemain equipment is typical for a 

station over 30 years old. While some items have exceeded their life expectancy 

and should be replaced soon, our overall impression was that the station has 

been regularly maintained and has served the community well.” 

Following the presentation by Gamsby & Mannerow the Joint Board discussed the 

possibility of adding the immediate to ten year capital maintenance items to the scope of 

the STF upgrade project. This would necessitate a scope change application be filed 

with BCF. The Board passed the following motion for the partner municipalities to 

consider: 

Moved by: 

Seconded by: 

Jim Dietrich 

Tom Tomes 

That recommendations 1, 2, & 3 of the Gamsby Mannerow report on upgrades and 

maintenance of Pump Station 2 be submitted to the Building Canada Fund for 

inclusion with the overall grant approval for this project. 

Carried 

At this point in time Council is being asked to consider if they are supportive of further 

investigating the addition of PS2 upgrades to the scope of the sewage treatment facility 

project. 

In staff’s perspective this proposal contains two elements to consider: the technical 

elements and the political elements. 

For Council’s information it is a normal practice to upgrade the main pumping station for 

a sewage system at the time of a sewage treatment plant upgrade should the age and 

condition of the asset dictate it, and most importantly, should a cost effective method to 

achieve the upgrades be available. 

Respecting the condition assessment of PS2 G&M make valid points that the equipment 

at the site is over 30 years old and near the end of its useful life. In Dillon’s review they 

concurred and concluded that PS2 should be upgraded to incorporate comprehensive 

operational records (i.e. SCADA) and that pump replacement and upgrade may be 

required between the immediate and five year period. Thus, there is a need for 

additional works at the site and as a joint owner Lambton Shores will be responsible for 

a portion of the costs. 

Respecting the approach of applying to the BCF Joint Secretariat to use surplus funding 

dollars to fund capital maintenance upgrades in PS2 it is staff’s opinion that this would 

represent a cost effective way to accomplish this work. These maintenance upgrades 

will be required at a point in time, and Lambton Shores will be required to fund our 

162

proportionate share. As such, directing government funding to the work does represent 

a future cost avoidance. 

The long term question is whether or not PS2 does in fact have sufficient capacity to 

handle the proposed future flows. From a technical perspective there are considerations 

that should be satisfied before fully committing to the future upgrades to increase 

capacity in the pump station. The premise of the South Huron EA recommendation is 

that there is sufficient capacity in the pump station for all future flows, and thus an 

upgrade at this point in time would be a good use of any surplus funding dollars. In 

February 2012 Dillon reviewed the G&M capacity and condition study on behalf of 

Lambton Shores and identified a number of concerns in the methodology that G&M 

used in their study. In Dillon’s recommendation they concluded that further work is 

needed to determine if the spare capacity actually exists at the pump station. 

It is staff’s opinion that it prudent to determine if PS2 truly represents the long term 

pumping solution for the Grand Bend area plant and has sufficient capacity for future 

flows. It is important that the question of the spare capacity be determined because if all 

flows are directed to PS2 in the future and there is not sufficient spare capacity, there is 

a risk of sewage surcharge for all connected properties. This includes those properties 

in Lambton Shores that are currently connected to the system and that the municipality 

carries a duty of care for. 

Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to retain a professional firm to work with 

G&M to achieve a common understanding of the spare capacity at PS2 for future flows. 

Dillon Consulting would likely represent the lowest cost firm to complete this work as 

they were the authors of the current peer review. 

From a political perspective any change in the scope of the STF project will need to be 

approved by the BCF Oversight Committee to determine if the change is approved and 

if the work will be grant eligible. That is the first political component to be satisfied. 

Next, staff recommends that Council take the position that it will be supportive of 

upgrades to PS2 only if a fair and equitable cost sharing arrangement is agreed to. Both 

South Huron and Bluewater will receive a greater future benefit from the proposed 

upgrades, and this should be taken into consideration when the cost sharing scheme is 

developed. Should Bluewater choose not to participate or use PS2 as their preferred 

route then all costs would be split based on South Huron and Lambton Shores’ future 

flows. The equitable apportionment of costs is the second political consideration that 

staff feel should be satisfied before upgrades at PS2 are undertaken. 

In summary, respecting PS2, staff recommends that: 

Council pass a resolution endorsing its support to add upgrades at PS2 to the 

scope of the project for the STF upgrades and apply to the BCF joint secretariat 

for a scope change; and further 

That Council authorize staff to retain a professional firm to work with G&M to 

achieve a common understanding of the spare capacity at PS2 for future flows; 

and further 

That Council direct staff to undertake negotiations with the other partner 

municipalities respecting the cost sharing formula for upgrades at PS2 and that 

no work begin until an agreement is 

163 

reached and BCF funding is confirmed.

Should Council choose to add PS2 upgrades to the scope of the project this change will 

need to be reflected in any joint agreement that is drafted. Previously the Board 

resolved that the respective municipal Administrator’s meet to begin negotiations for the 

new Joint agreement, and the Board has also resolved that the Working Group be 

disbanded until such a time that upgrades at PS2 were to be discussed by the partners. 

On August 28, 2012 the project Oversight Committee met to discuss the pending joint 

agreement negotiations with Bluewater. The Oversight Committee recommends to 

Council that the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Working group be restruck, 

with the inclusion of the respective Administrators, to act as a vehicle to move 

negotiations for PS2 upgrades and the joint agreement along. 

4. The Municipality of Bluewater’s Participation in the Project 

The Municipality of Bluewater chose not to participate in the Working Group process, 

and then further agreed not to participate on Board votes that related to the review 

process. Now that the Working Group review is completed, and an ESR addendum is 

planned Bluewater has communicated that they wish to be a part of that process, and 

thus have voting rights for that portion of the project (letter attached). 

The Board discussed this at length, and deferred the following motion for the respective 

Council’s to consider: 

Moved by: 

Seconded by: 

Dave Maguire 

Elizabeth Davis-Dagg 

That voting rights for Bluewater are limited to those pertaining to any Class EA 

amendments. Full voting rights for Bluewater on operational issues of the plant will 

be granted once a formal commitment to connect to the plant is made by Bluewater. 

Deferred 

Moved by: 

Seconded by: 

Jim Dietrich 

Bill Francis 

That this motion (above) be deferred to the respective Council’s for consideration 

and recommendation. 

Carried 

Council is asked to consider their position on Bluewater’s participation and provide 

feedback and direction to staff and the Joint Board members. 

Summary 

This report has presented a number of matters and subsequent staff recommendations 

for Council’s consideration. Staff respectfully requests direction on these matters for the 

purpose of advancing the Grand Bend STF Upgrade project. 

164


Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. 

Director of Community Services 

Attachments: 

1. August 7, 2012 DRAFT Joint Sewage Board Minutes 

2. Stantec Consulting ESR Proposal 

3. August 7. 2012 Gamsby & Mannerow Presentation (Pump Station 2) 

4. Municipality of Bluewater Letter 

165

GRAND BEND AREA SEWAGE TREATMENT BOARD 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 17 th , 2012 – 9:30 am 

MINUTES 

Thedford Village Complex 

(Pearl Street & Main Street, Thedford – Lambton Shores) 

Board Members 

(Bluewater) 

Board Members 

(Lambton Shores) 

Board Members 

(South Huron) 

Mayor Bill Dowson 

Councillor George Irvin 

CAO Stephen McAuley 

Mayor Bill Weber (Chair) 



CAO John Byrne 

Director of Community Services Brent 

Kittmer 

Deputy Mayor Jim Dietrich 

Councillor Tom Tomes 

Councillor Bill Francis 

Environmental Services Director 

Don Giberson 

1. Introduction and Welcome 

Board Chair Weber called the meeting to order at 9:30 am and welcomed all in 

attendance. In his opening welcome remarks the Chairman acknowledged and 

welcomed Mr. David Kester the newly appoint Public Works Manager for the 

Municipality of Bluewater. 

2. Approval of Agenda 

Moved by: Dave Maguire 


That the agenda for the August 17 th , 2012 Meeting of the Joint Sewage Board 

be accepted as presented. 

Carried 

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 

The Board Chair called for members of the Board who may have a pecuniary 

interest on any of the business before the Board to declare them at the appropriate 

time. There being none declared the meeting proceeded. 

4. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting 

4.1 Minutes of July 27 th , 2012 Grand Bend Area Sewage Board Meeting 

Moved by: Tom Tomes 

Seconded by: Bill Francis 

166

That the minutes of the July 27 th , 2012 meeting of the Grand Bend Area Joint 

Sewage Board be accepted and approved as presented. 

Carried 

5. New Business 

5.1 August 14, 2012 Letter from Municipality of Bluewater 

Moved by: Jim Dietrich 

Seconded by: Dave Maguire 

That the letter from the Municipality of Bluewater dated August 14 th regarding 

its understanding of the partnership in the Grand Bend Area Joint Sewage 

Board and it participation and voting rights be received and filed. 

Carried 

The Chairman declared that as a result of the above noted motion that The 

Municipality of Bluewater would act in the capacity of “observers” for the balance of 

the meeting. 

5.2 Staff Report D.C.S. No. 75-2012 – Re: Grand Bend Area STF Preferred Solution 

and Next Steps 

The Chairman invited Mr. Kittmer to come to the Board table to present his report 

(D.C.S. 75-2012) to the Board and as he did so, the Board made decisions relative 

to the various raised in the report. Mr. Kittmer responded to questions from the 

Board as the process unfolded. 

Carried 



That Option #3, the Orbal process with flow equalization and value 

engineering, as outlined in the Stantec Consulting report be selected as the 

preferred alternative for the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Plant, and 

that the preferred process include an ESR Addendum. 

Carried 

167

Moved by: Bill Francis 


That the Administering Municipality be authorized to submit a letter to the 

Building Canada Fund to seek approval to the proposed changes in the 

implementation of the project as approved by this Board. 

Carried 



That the administering municipality request a quote from Stantec Consulting 

for undertaking the ESR addendum and public consultation and accept that 

proposal if it falls within the purchasing policy limits of the partner 

municipalities and an upset limit of $10,000. 

Carried 



That the tender for the STF redesign be competitively bid so as to follow the 

purchasing policies of the Administering municipal policies; and further 


BCF approval of the proposed project implementation change as approved by 

this Board; and further 


confirmation that the Board would not meet any potential contractual issues 

with the original Professional Services Agreement with Dillon Consulting. 

Carried 


Seconded by: Elizabeth Davis-Dagg 

That the service delivery model for the STF project implementation follow the 

“Conventional Service Delivery” model of design, tender, and build as outlined 

in D.C.S. Report No. 75-2012 as it offers the highest degree of control for the 

partner municipalities. 

168

Carried 



That the Working Committee for STF project be disbanded and that the 

Technical Committee of municipal staff and the professional consultant 

proceed with its work related to the development of the STF project; and 

further 

That the Working Committee be re-established if necessary to 

maintenance and upgrades of Pump Station # 2. 

review 

Carried 



That the issue of a new Joint Operating / Administrating Agreement be 

referred to the CAO Committee and municipal solicitors for a report and 

recommendations back to this Board. 

Carried 

5.3 Pump Station 2 Condition and Capacity Report (Presentation by Colin Wiebe, 

P.Eng., Gamsby & Mannerow Limited) 

Mr. Colin Weibe of Gamsby Mannerow gave the Board a PowerPoint presentation 

outlining their observations during a recent (2011) inspection of Pump Station #2 

and responded to questions from the Board following that presentation. 


Seconded by: Tom Tomes 

That recommendations 1, 2, & 3 of the Gamsby Mannerow report on upgrades 

and maintenance of Pump Station 2 be submitted to the Building Canada Fund 

for inclusion with the overall grant approval for this project. 

Carried 

6. Correspondence 

169

6.1 August 8, 2012 letter from the BCF Joint Secretariat 



That the letter received from the BCF Joint Secretariat dated August 8 th , 2012 

be received and filed. 

Carried 



That voting rights for Bluewater are limited to those pertaining to any Class 

EA amendments. Full voting rights for Bluewater on operational issues of the 

plant will be granted once a formal commitment to connect to the plant is 

made by Bluewater. 



That this motion (above) be deferred to the respective Council’s for 

consideration and recommendation. 

Carried 

7. Next Board Meeting 

By consensus the Board agreed that the next meeting would be at the call of the 

Chair. 

8. Adjournment 



That this Board now adjourn. 

Carried 

Time: 11:21am 

170

Stantec Consulting Ltd 

300 - 675 Cochrane Drive 

Markham, Ontario 

L3R 0B8 

August 28, 2012 

File: 160700448 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores 

Northville Office 

9575 Port Franks Road, RR#1 

Thedford, ON 

N0M 2N0 

Attention: 

Mr. Brent Kittmer, P.Eng., Director of Community Services 

Reference: Grand Bend STF ESR Addendum 

Dear Mr. Kittmer, 

BACKGROUND 

The municipalities of Lambton Shores, South Huron and Bluewater completed the Schedule C Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility (STF) in 2009. Subsequently the detailed 

design of the preferred option was prepared and tendered in October 2011. The tender was not awarded and 

in summer 2012 Lambton Shores and South Huron retained Stantec/OCWA team to assist in the evaluation 

of alternative approaches to reduce the capital cost. From this review a short list of candidate alternatives 

were developed by the Sewage Treatment Facility Working Group. The Joint Sewage Board reviewed the 

recommended approaches and the municipal councils (Lambton Shores and South Huron) elected to move 

forward with the Alternative Option #3, the Orbal process with flow equalization and value engineering. 

Alternative Option 3 results in the facility treating less flow than what was discussed in the previous 

Environmental Assessment and the Ministry of the Environment has recommended that a Class EA 

Addendum be completed. 

The following letter has been prepared to present our Work Plan, Schedule and Fees for completing the 

Class EA Addendum 

SCOPE OF WORK 

The scope of work for this assignment includes preparing a Class EA Addendum for the Option 3, the Orbal 

Process with flow equalization and value engineering in accordance with the MEA Class Environmental 

Assessment Process. 

171

August 28, 2012 


Page 2 of 4 


WORK PLAN 

Kick off meeting with the Steering Committee 

Stantec will meet with the partner municipalities to establish the detailed schedule outlining the deliverables of 

both the Municipal partners and Stantec. The consultation list will be confirmed and any additional 

stakeholders and agencies will be identified. 

Preparation of an Addendum Brief 

An Environmental Study Report (ESR) addendum brief will identify the changes from the main document and 

summarize the alternative option review process. The brief will summarize all consultation during the 

addendum process and full documentation will be provided as an appendix. 

Agency Contacts 

During the alternative options evaluation the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and provincial and federal 

funding agencies were contacted to seek input on how review the alternative review process could impact the 

federal and provincial funding. Lambton Shores is currently composing a response to the funding agencies 

concerning the project status. During the addendum phase the MOE will be consulted to ensure all 

requirements are being met for the addendum. In addition, we will also prepare a letter to BCF and FCM 

describing the changes in the project to assist in obtaining confirmation that the funding will still be available 

for the modified project. 

The 2009 ESR contains a complete list of Agencies contacted throughout the process. Since that time the 

municipality has undertaken EAs for the proposed collection systems that are planned to provide wastewater 

flow to the STF. Stantec will provide a draft letter for approval to be mailed to all agencies listed in the 2009 

ESR appendix as well as any additional agencies identified by the partner municipalities. 

Aboriginal consultation 

The 2009 ESR does not have record of any significant consultation with First Nations. Since 2009 the 

government has modified the consultation requirements for First Nations during the EA process. Any 

consultation requested by First Nations that is not described in this letter is not included in the fee estimate. If 

required, Stantec will provide a separate fee estimate prior to undertaking any additional First Nations 

consultation. We will however send the agency contact letter to the local First Nations Groups. 

Stakeholder Consultation 

Stantec will provide a draft newspaper advertisement for approval and publishing in two consecutive editions 

of the Forest Standard, Exeter Times, Clinton News-Record, and Lakeshore Advance. The cost for the 

newspaper ads will be billed directly to Lambton Shores. The partner municipalities will be responsible for all 

costs and labor associated with posting the ad on their respective websites and social media as well as direct 

mail to the municipal residents. 

172

August 28, 2012 




Public Information Centre (PIC) 

A drop-in public information centre will be hosted by Stantec in the former Village of Grand Bend. Stantec 

representatives will be present to answer the public questions and document the PIC activities. Lambton 

Shores will cover any costs associated with facility rentals. 

Publish a Notice of Addendum 

A notice of addendum will be published in the Forest Standard, Lakeshore Advance, Exeter Times and the 

Clinton News-Record. This notice can be completed in conjunction with the notice of PIC and comment 

period. 

PROJECT TEAM 

Mike Gundry, P.Eng, PMP would be the project manager. Mike led the technical review of alternative options 

for the Grand Bend STF. He has extensive wastewater Environmental Assessment experience in the 

province of Ontario. 

Mike will be assisted by Anna Cleaver, P.Eng. Anna was a key team member during the review of the 

alternative options to reduce the construction costs. She has over 7 years of experience in municipal 

wastewater projects and Environmental Assessments and was involved in the previous Master Plan work in 

Lambton Shores. Additional staff from the Stantec London office will be utilized as needed. 

SCHEDULE 

To complete this project a ten week schedule is proposed. A detailed schedule will be prepared and outline 

the deliverables from the Municipality and Stantec. It is imperative both parties keep open lines of 

communication to anticipate and react to potential road blocks that may impact the schedule. 

173

August 28, 2012 




FEES 

Our fees to carry out this assignment are $19,900 including disbursements, but excluding HST. In the 

Working Group Assignment which has previously been approved, we have approximately $10,000 of budget 

that will not be used. Thus, in order to complete this addendum we would request that the budget for our 

current assignment be increased by $9,900. 

Alternatively, we could complete the EA Addendum Brief using our existing budget and the Public and 

Agency consultation completed under a new budget with an upset limit of $9,900. 

Regards, 

Stantec Consulting Ltd 

Michael Gundry, P.Eng, PMP 

Practice Lead Water 

Tell (905) 944-6878 

Fax: 

c. Anna Cleaver, Stantec 

174

Gamsby and Mannerow Limited 

Grand Bend Sewage Pumping Station (PS2) 

Condition Assessment 

As presented to the 

Grand Bend Area Sewage Board 

August 17, 2012 

175

Grand Bend PS2 - Background 

Gamsby and Mannerow assessed the condition and capacity 

of the Main Sanitary Pumping Station, PS-2, in Grand Bend 

for the Municipality of South Huron as part of their Grand 

Bend Area Sewage Collection System Environmental 

Assessment. 

Capacity assessment of the station and forcemain was a key 

aspect of the original report; however, this presentation 

focuses on the condition assessment and obsolescent 

equipment. 

176

Grand Bend PS2 - Condition Assessment 

Physical 

Condition 

Inventory 

Capacity and 

Efficiency 

Ease of 

Maintenance 

Typical 

Assessment 

Categories 

Redundancy 

Regulatory 

Compliance 

Risk 

Management 

Controls and 

Data 

Management 

177

Grand Bend PS2 - Inventory 

Built in 1978 

• Single gravity inlet sewer 

450mm diameter (18”) 

• Dry pit and wet well 

arrangement 

• Divided wet well with screen, 

isolation valve and level 

instruments 

• Three constant speed 40 hp 

pumps located in dry pit 

• Control building with backup 

power generator 

• 9,000 L surge tank 

• 3.3 km ductile iron forcemain 

350mm diameter (14”) 

178

Grand Bend 

Aerial Image 

179

Grand Bend PS2 – Forcemain Profile 

180

Grand Bend PS2 - Building 

• Building and valve chambers 

in good condition 

• Wet well confined space access 

• Overflow check valve broken 

181

Grand Bend PS2 – Inlet Sewer 

• Inlet sewer screening 

• Sluice gate operator seized 

182

Grand Bend PS2 – Wet Well 

Light non-functional 

Wet well landings, 

moderate corrosion 

Concrete in good condition, 

moderate corrosion 

183

Grand Bend PS2 – Wet Well 

• Typical grease and solids buildup 

• Heavily corroded sluice gate operator 

184

Grand Bend PS2 – Level Instruments 

• Backup float system entangled 

and abandoned 

• Level controls outdated 

185

Grand Bend PS2 – Wet Well Ventilation 

Ventilation duct work corroded, 

fan non-functional 

186

Grand Bend PS2 – Dry Pit 

• Dry pit pumps non-submersible 

• Pumps seals leaking, corroded 

• Pumps 32 years old 

187

Grand Bend PS2 – Dry Pit 

• Flowmeter original to station 

• Check valve anti-slam worn 

188

Grand Bend PS2 – Surge Tank 

• Surge tank components 

corroded, air leaking out 

189

Grand Bend PS2 – Surge Tank 

• Surge tank and compressor 

original to station 

190

Grand Bend PS2 - MCC 

• Motor Control 

Centre 

• Original to station 

• No longer 

supported by 

Westinghouse 

• No PLC control 

• Minimal alarming 

191

Grand Bend PS-2 – Backup Power 

• Backup power system 

functional but over 30 

years old 

• Fuel system components 

do not meet latest codes 

from TSSA 

192

Grand Bend PS2 - Forcemain 

• Forcemain air valve chambers 

• Air valves corroded and plugged 

• Maintenance required. 

193


194


• Forcemain exposed in chamber (previous slide), and in ground (this slide), 

no measurable loss due to external corrosion 

195

Grand Bend PS2 - Recommendations 

1. Immediate Repairs and Upgrades 

• PLC: simple controller to manage pumps, alarms, communications 

and data logging. 

• Instrumentation: flow meter and backup pump control replacement 

• MCC: Replace obsolete pump starters (consider soft starters). 

• Wet well: Replace seized slide gates, loose and corroded grating, 

broken lighting, ventilation fans. 

• Surge tank: Internal inspection, replace air supply system, corroded 

fittings, air valves and instruments, re-coat tank. 

• Forcemain: Air valve replacement. 

• Generator: Replace fuel system. 

• Overflow: Replace broken check valve at Walker Drain outlet. 

196


2. Repairs as Maintenance Requires 

• Slide gates: Replace all valves in wet well which have exceeded their 

normal life expectancy. 

• Dry Well Appurtenances: Check valves, isolation valves, pressure 

gauges, sump pump replacement. 

• Dry Well Piping: Clean and re-coat existing piping for corrosion 

control. 

• Surge Tank Chamber / Air Valve Chambers: Clean and re-coat 

existing piping for corrosion control. 

197


3. Future Upgrades (5 to 10 years) 

• Pump Replacement 

• Inlet Grinder 

• Generator and Fuel System 

• Surge tank Replacement 

• Odour Controls / Gas Monitoring (depends on public tolerance) 

4. Upgrades to Increase Capacity (Demand Dependent) 

• Installation of variable frequency drives (VFD’s) 

• Installation of larger pumps (when peak flows reach 104 l/s) 

• Larger Power Supply / Generator as required with larger pump size 

• Twinned forcemain (when peak flows approach 160 l/s) 

198

Grand Bend PS2 – Opinion of Costs (2012 Dollars) 

1. Immediate Work $ 540,000.00 

2. Repairs as Maintenance Requires $ 174,000.00 

3. Future Upgrades (5 to 10 years) $ 740,000.00 

4. Upgrades to Increase Capacity $ 540,000.00 

5. Twinned Forcemain $2,600,000.00 

Total (includes 10% contingency) $4,594,000.00 

199

Grand Bend PS2 - Conclusions 

Almost all equipment continues to be functional at this 

time, with relatively low operating hours, but has 

reached the end of its normal expected service life. 

At current average daily flows it takes about 2.5 hours 

before untreated sewage overflows into the adjacent 

Walker Drain if the pumps do not come on. 

We recommend taking action on the most vulnerable 

items as soon as finances are available to mitigate 

these risks. 

200

Examples 

• Bypass connection 

• Lifting davit, safety 

gratings, 

201

BEFORE 

202

AFTER 

203

204

Example Air Valves 

205

Example Operator Interfaces 

206

Example Operator Interfaces 

207

Example Flow Meters 

208

Will add more here … 

209

210 

Questions?

P.O. Box 250 14 Mill Avenue, Zurich Ontario ~ N0M 2T0 

PHONE: (519)236-4351 FAX: (519) 236- 4329 

www.town.bluewater.on.ca 

August 14, 2012 

Delivered by Email & Mail 

Mayor and Members of Council 

The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

c/o Ms. Carol McKenzie, Clerk 

7883 Amtelecom Parkway 

Forest, ON N0N 1J0 

Mayor and Members of Council 

The Corporation of the Municipality of South Huron 

c/o Mr. Michael Di Lullo, Clerk 

322 Main Street South 

Exeter, ON N0M 1S6 

Dear Mayors and Members of Council: 

Re: 

Municipality of Bluewater 

Based on the decisions made at the last meeting of the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment 

Board, it appears that the recommendation of the Working Committee is to construct a scaled 

down plant to service areas in both Lambton Shores and South Huron. While the Municipality of 

Bluewater, having not participated in the Working Committee, has no comment as to the 

suitability of the proposed plant to meet the needs of Lambton Shores and South Huron, we 

would like to comment on the process of amending the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) 

that was completed on behalf of, and funded by, all three municipalities. 

Based on the information provided to the Board by Stantec, an amendment of the EA will be 

required to document the change in flows being contemplated to the initial phase of the plant. As 

noted above, this phase would only serve Lambton Shores and South Huron. The Municipality of 

Bluewater has no objection to amending the EA, understanding that the intent of the original EA 

would remain intact with an overall study area that includes all service areas for Lambton 

Shores, South Huron, and Bluewater. As expressed in our previous letter, Bluewater has 

withdrawn from participating in the first phase of the project; however, we would like to 

maintain the ability to be involved with future expansions of the plant based on the Class EA that 

was completed on behalf of all three municipalities. 

211 

Valuing our unique quality of life, recognizing our diversity, respecting our traditions.

In closing, we would ask that any discussions that are held regarding amendments to the EA for 

the plant include the board members from all three municipalities, recognizing that the EA 

contemplated servicing all three municipalities and was paid for based on the share of calculated 

flows from each municipality. 

Sincerely, 

Steve McAuley C.Tech. 

Chief Administrative Officer 

The Corporation of the Municipality of Bluewater 

cc: 

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. Director of Community Services, Corporation of the 


Roy Hardy, CAO, Corporation of the Municipality of South Huron 

212 

Valuing our unique quality of life, recognizing our diversity, respecting our traditions.


D.C.S. Report No. 74-2012 Tuesday, August 14, 2012 

TO: 

FROM 

RE: 



2012 Tar and Chip Program - UPDATE 


That the report be received for Council’s consideration. 

REPORT 

At the regular Council meeting on July 9, 2012 Council received report number DCS 48- 

2012 which outlined the 2012 tar and chip program, and identified Cornell Construction 

as the successful low bidder. 

Roads scheduled for tar and chip in 2012 include: Lakeview Ave, Williams Street, 

Gordon Road, Lakeview Haven Drive, Vance Drive, Glendale Drive, Cedar Point Line, 

Arkona Road (spot repair). Klondyke Road was added to the list of roads to be 

completed at the August 7, 2012 regular Council meeting (see report DCS 70-2012). 

As of August 14, 2012 all roads have received the surface treatment except for 

Klondyke Road, and the second application on Lakeview Ave in the Southcott Pines 

subdivision. Community Services has received a number of complaints from property 

owners in residential areas that the road surface is inadequate. 

In response to these concerns Community Services has produced the attached 

information sheet to provide information regarding this type of surface treatment. The 

points to keep in mind are: 

The binding material is naturally derived, and the MOE does not consider it to 

have an impact on the environment. 

When first laid, the road surface contains loose aggregate. With heat and traffic 

over a period of a few days the aggregate begins to “knit”. “Knitting” of the road 

surface improves over time to the point where the road surface is comparable to 

a traditional asphalt roadway (Bog Line is a good example). 

This type of roadway is chosen for low speed and low traffic roads where there is 

a poor base. The road surface is flexible so that it moves as the base heaves 

thus preventing cracking. 

Lakeview Avenue 

The largest number of complaints has been related to the road surface on Lakeview 

Avenue in Southcott Pines. Tar and chip surface treatment was chosen for this roadway 

as a means to extend the useful life of the 213 existing road, and delay the need for a full 

reconstruction. Tar and chip was preferred over a single lift of concrete asphalt due to

the flexible nature of tar and chip. The existing road base on Lakeview avenue is prone 

to heaving and settlement, which coupled with the high water table in the area creates 

frost breakthrough in rigid road surfaces like concrete asphalt. Tar and chip surfaces are 

flexible enough to withstand these forces and is an acceptable surface treatment to 

extend the life of existing roadways. 

The second application of tar and chip on Lakeview Avenue was delayed as a result of 

a poor weather forecast, and has been delayed to September when Cornell 

Construction returns to complete the work on Klondyke Road. Lakeview Ave is a special 

circumstance in that in September the canopy cover on the interior portion of the road 

will delay the curing of the binding product. To accommodate for this challenge staff 

have met with Cornell and approved a change in the size of the aggregate (from 3/8” to 

¼”) and a change in the binding material to a faster curing product. There is no cost 

increase anticipated as a result of this change, and the net effect will be that the 

aggregate will “knit” and compact quicker. 

Even after these changes are made Council is likely to receive complaints from the area 

that the road surface is not as smooth as a paved surface. Given the typically cool and 

wet September weather and the reduction in traffic in the subdivision after Labour Day it 

is likely that the road surface on Lakeview avenue will not fully compact (or “knit”) until 

the spring/early summer of 2013. 

Should Council be desirous of implementing an immediate solution to improve the 

smoothness of the roadway on Lakeview Ave Cornell has provided costing to apply a 

further surface treatment of LIQUID ROAD to the road surface for a cost of $12,654. 

The LIQUID ROAD product is a proprietary product that Cornell has exclusive 

distribution rights for. The contractor has provided product information for roadways that 

have received this treatment, and the result is a surface that is more quickly bound and 

results in a smoother surface. The contractor has provided information based on 

projects for other municipalities that have used this product as a road sealant to 

increase the lifetime of an asphalt road. At some point in the future staff plan to apply 

this product to a section of roadway to determine if it is a suitable product for extending 

the life of cracked roadways. 

Should Council wish to pursue this option for Lakeview Avenue staff recommends that it 

be decided by a resolution that indicates that this surface treatment is being applied to 

Lakeview Avenue without prejudice or precedent so that the municipality’s minimum 

construction standard for tar and chip roads is not inadvertently changed to include this 

surface treatment. As noted previously the majority of complaints regarding the road 

surface have originated from the users of Lakeview Avenue. 

The application of LIQUID ROAD on this roadway on Lakeview Ave could be completed 

as the first trial roadway. This roadway would be a good candidate as it does 

experience elevated traffic volume in the summer months as a “collector” road for those 

travelers that use an alternate route into Grand Bend rather than Highway 21. 

Should Council’s preference be to apply the LIQUID ROAD surface treatment on all 

residential area roads that received a tar and chip treatment in 2012 staff have provided 

214

the cost per roadway below. This option is presented so that Council provides equal 

consideration to all roadways. 

For the residential area roadways that have received tar and chip the cost to apply 

LIQUID ROAD is as follows: 

Roadway 

Cost of LIQUID ROAD (less HST) 

Lakeview Haven $20,794 

Glendale Drive $20,127 

Cedar Point Line $25,946 

Vance Drive $20,848 

Lakeview Avenue $12,654 

Total $100,369 

The contract for the 2012 tar and chip program was tendered with a total budget of 

$443,000 in the Community Services capital budget as approved by Council. Including 

the Klondyke road work approved August 7, 2012 the total 2012 program costs are 

expected to be $373,424.35. Presently there are not sufficient funds remaining in the 

2012 tar and chip budget to complete a LIQUID ROAD application to all of the roads 

that received tar and chip treatment in residential areas. Should Council wish to apply 

the surface treatment to all residential roads completed in 2012 a reallocation of the 

capital budget will be necessary to ensure sufficient funding. 

It is important to keep in mind that a decision to include the LIQUID ROAD surface 

treatment for tar and chip roads in residential areas would represent an increase in 

service level for these roadways. As recommended previously, should Council decide to 

approved this product for use on any municipal roadway staff recommends that it be 

approved without prejudice or precedent so that the current municipal construction 

standard for these types of roads is not inadvertently changed. 




215


D.C.S. Report No. 76-2012 Wednesday, August 22, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup 


That the recommendation in D.C.S. 76–2012 report be 

approved and that Council support the St. Clair Region 

Conservation Authority’s request to sponsor the Great 

Canadian Shoreline Cleanup on Centre Ipperwash Beach. 

REPORT 

On August 10, 2012 the Community Services Department received a request from Ms. 

Jessica VanZwol of the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA) seeking 

Council’s support to sponsor a Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup event scheduled for 

September 15, 2012 on Centre Ipperwash Beach. Please see the attached letter in 

‘Schedule A’. 

The Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup is an initiative to promote understanding and 

education about shoreline litter issues by encouraging Canadians to rehabilitate 

shoreline areas through cleanups. 

The St. Clair Region Conservation Authority would like to register Centre Ipperwash 

Beach as a site for the Shoreline Cleanup. They are seeking Council support for the 

following: 

1. To work with the SCRCA to host a cleanup at Centre Ipperwash Beach 

2. To consider donating gloves, garbage bags and/or loan garbage pickers for 

volunteers 

3. To provide staff assistance for garbage pickup after the event 

4. To advertise for the event in the Living in Lambton Shores email and ad in the 

Forest Standard 

St. Clair Region Conservation Authority hopes to use this event as a way to engage the 

community and provide information about issues such as dune management and 

maintenance, Phragmites, septic system maintenance and grant information for 

property owners. It is also anticipated that Lambton Shores would be available at the 

216

event to provide information about Communities in Bloom, and other issues affecting 

residents. 

The Community Services Department has reviewed the above requests and believes 

that all requests can be accommodated. As this event is in line with the Communities in 

Bloom mandate, it is recommended that Council support the Great Canadian Shoreline 

Cleanup initiative. 




Report Prepared by Ashley Farr 

Attachment: Letter of Request from St. Clair Region Conservation Authority 

217

Schedule A 

August 10, 2012 

Dear Ms. Farr, 

The St. Clair Conservation Authority would like Council’s support in jointly 

sponsoring a Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup event in Lambton Shores on September 15 

(1 pm - 3 pm) at Centre Ipperwash Beach that will engage the public, raise awareness about 

water quality and the importance of keeping our shorelines clean, and encourage water 

stewardship. 

The Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup (http://www.shorelinecleanup.ca/) is a 

conservation initiative to promote understanding and education about shoreline litter 

issues. The goal of the cleanup is to fully engage and commit Canadians to keeping our 

shorelines free from litter. 

The SCRCA would like to set up a tent on the beach that day to provide literature 

about dune maintenance and planting, Phragmites, septic system maintenance, and 

available grants for landowners of Lambton Shores to improve practices on their property. 

This tent would also serve as a meeting point and place for first aid. We anticipate that the 

Municipality and Communities in Bloom would set up tents as well, similar to Aquafest. This 

cleanup event would not require the beach to be closed for the day. 

We would like to request the following of the Municipality: 

1. To work with the SCRCA to host a cleanup at Centre Ipperwash Beach 

2. To consider donating gloves, garbage bags, and/or loan garbage pickers for 

volunteers, 

3. To provide staff assistance for garbage pickup at the end of the event, and 

4. To advertise for the event in the Living in Lambton Shores email newsletter and in 

the Forest Standard. 

Please feel free to circulate this letter among Council. We look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

Jessica Van Zwol 

Healthy Watershed Specialist 

519-245-3710, 

jvanzwol@scrca.on.ca 

218



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



2012 Volunteer Recognition Barbeque 


For Council information. 

REPORT 

The services of volunteer organizations are invaluable as these groups provide 

countless hours to improving the quality of life for residents. In Lambton Shores, 

volunteers plan community events, programs and services for all ages and walks of life, 

community beautification, and much more. Without volunteers, many of our existing 

programs, events and beautification efforts would cease to exist. 

In 2007, the Municipality of Lambton Shores established the annual Volunteer 

Recognition Barbeque after discussions with community organizations indicated that 

volunteers would prefer to be recognized through an informal gathering such as a 

brunch or dinner and/or public notoriety. This event has been extremely successful and 

has recognized over 200 volunteers annually. 

The 6 th Annual Volunteer Recognition Barbeque will be held on Thursday, September 

27, 2012 at the Legacy Recreation Centre in Thedford, starting at 5:30pm. This event is 

open to all Lambton Shores volunteers and Council members are invited to attend in 

honour of our local volunteers. It should be noted that the general public is not invited to 

attend the Barbeque. 

The evening will include a free catered meal and a presentation by Mayor Weber. The 

first volunteer recognition awards will also be presented this evening. 28 volunteers 

have been nominated by their peers this year and the selection committee has awarded 

volunteers under the categories established in the Volunteer Recognition Policy that 

was passed by Council on July 4, 2012. A copy of the policy and nomination form can 

be found in ‘Schedule A’. Community groups are being encouraged to submit photos of 

volunteers in action for a slideshow that will scroll throughout the evening. 

Invitations to this event have been sent to community organizations via email and mail, 

and the event is being advertised on the municipal website, through community signs, in 

local newspapers through the Living in Lambton Shores weekly advertisements, through 

219

email updates and social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and in the Living and 

Playing in Lambton Shores quarterly newsletter. A copy of the 2012 invitation has been 

included in ‘Schedule B’. 

This event is a great way to thank the volunteers of Lambton Shores for helping to make 

our community naturally the best place to thrive! 




Report Prepared by Shannon Prout, Acting Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure 

Schedules: 

A. Policy #064 Volunteer Recognition Policy 

B. 2012 Volunteer Recognition Barbeque Invitation 

220

Volunteer Recognition Policy 

Purpose 


Policy # 064 

Effective Date: July 4, 2012 

To recognize volunteers whose efforts have contributed significantly to the quality of life 

in Lambton Shores. 

PART A – Volunteer Appreciation Awards 

This program recognizes individual volunteers in a specific category for their 

contributions to the community. One award is available per category unless otherwise 

stated. 

Definitions 

1. Accessibility Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to the elimination 

of barriers to people with disabilities, and/or the inclusion of people with disabilities in 

all facets of the community. 

2. Arts & Culture Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to the 

development, support, preservation or promotion of culture, music, visual, 

performing or literary arts. 

3. Environment Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to the protection, 

preservation, beautification, awareness and/or promotion of our local environment. 

4. Good Neighbour Awards: awarded to Lambton Shores residents for their 

outstanding efforts and actions that have enhanced or improved our community. A 

maximum of three individuals per ward may be awarded each year. 

5. Heritage Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to heritage 

preservation, architectural conservation, research and/or interpretation of local 

heritage. 

6. Sports and Recreation Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to the 

promotion, development and/or support of recreation and/or sport in the community. 

7. Lambton Shores Civic Awards (adult 26 and over, youth 25 and younger): 

recognizes two individuals who have made an outstanding voluntary contribution to 

the well-being of our community over a number of years. This award recognizes 

local champions who build communities and show us all what can be achieved with 

passion and determination. 

Eligibility 

1. Must be a resident of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, own a business in the 

municipality or attend school in the municipality. Individuals outside of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores may be considered if his/her contributions are with a 

221

Lambton Shores community organization that has a main focus within the 

municipality. 

2. Elected officials of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are not eligible 

3. Paid staff, full time or part time are not eligible 

4. Services must have been performed on a wholly volunteer basis and not for pay 

5. Nominees must be aware of the nomination and sign the nomination form 

Procedures 

1. Nomination forms (‘Appendix A’) will be made available at Lambton Shores 

municipal offices and on the municipal website at the beginning of April each year. 

Availability of forms will be advertised in local newspapers, through social media, on 

community signs, the Living and Playing in Lambton Shores newsletter and the 

municipal website beginning in April of each year. 

2. Award nominations will be solicited from the community at large 

3. Nominations shall be made in writing on an approved nomination form 

4. Nomination forms and supporting documents will be submitted to the Lambton 

Shores Community Services Department no later than August 17 each year 

5. All nominations and supporting documents become the property of the Municipality 

of Lambton Shores and will not be returned 

Selection 

1. A selection committee shall be appointed by Council for the inaugural year of the 

program. In subsequent years, the selection committee will be comprised of the 

previous year’s award recipients. A staff member from the Community Services 

Department will provide staff assistance to the committee but will be a non-voting 

member. 

2. The committee will review nomination forms and supporting documents and provide 

a listing of all nominees and recommendations to Lambton Shores Council for 

recipients of all awards categories. A scoring sheet (‘Appendix B’) will be utilized to 

establish a fair and consistent process. The nominee with the highest overall score 

will be recommended as his/her category awards recipient to Lambton Shores 

Council. 

3. The selection committee and/or Council may choose to not recommend/select an 

award recipient in a category if there are no appropriate nominees. 

4. There shall be no publicity as to the proposed nominees or voting at any time. The 

only name(s) to be released to the public shall be the recipients of awards. 

5. Nominees who are eligible for selection but were not selected will be kept on file for 

future consideration for a period of three (3) years. 

6. Only individuals selected for a volunteer award will be contacted. 

7. A nominee may be excluded if he/she has previously received an award in the same 

category for which he/she is presently being nominated. 

8. Nominee’s may be entered in more than one award category but will qualify for only 

one award. 

222

Presentation 

Awards certificates will be presented by the Mayor or his/her designate at the annual 

Volunteer Recognition Barbeque held in September. 

PART B – Annual Volunteer Recognition Barbeque 

The annual Volunteer Recognition Barbeque is held in September to celebrate the 

accomplishments of Lambton Shores volunteers. An open invitation to volunteer 

organizations is sent out to community groups, and the event is advertised in the local 

newspapers, the Living and Playing in Lambton Shores newsletter, the municipal 

website and through social media. Funds for this event are allocated through the 

Community Services operational budget. Presentations for the Volunteer Appreciation 

Awards will be made at this event. 

PART C – Provincial and Federal Awards and Recognition Programs 

Each year, the provincial and federal governments administer volunteer/citizen awards 

programs. The Community Services Department will send out a reminder letter to 

community organizations in October of each year outlining the various awards available 

and deadlines for nominations. It will be the responsibility of the organizations to apply 

for awards on behalf of their volunteers, with municipal staff lending support if 

necessary. 

Review 

This program will be reviewed by the Community Services Department on an annual 

basis. 

Appendix A 

223

Volunteer Appreciation Awards 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes and honours the achievements and 

contributions of community volunteers. These prestigious awards express Council’s 

appreciation of the many individuals who are helping to enhance the quality of life in Lambton 

Shores. We invite you to submit nominations for those individuals whom you believe to have 

made a significant contribution to our community. 

Award Categories 

Accessibility Award: awarded to an individual who has 

contributed to the elimination of barriers to people with 

disabilities, and/or the inclusion of people with disabilities in 

all facets of the community. 

Arts & Culture Award: awarded to an individual who has 

contributed to the development, support, preservation or 

promotion of culture, music, visual, performing or literary 

arts. 

Environment Award: awarded to an individual who has 

contributed to the protection, preservation, beautification, 

awareness and/or promotion of our local environment. 

Good Neighbour Awards: awarded to Lambton Shores 

residents for their outstanding efforts and actions that have 

enhanced or improved our community. A maximum of three 

individuals per ward may be awarded each year. 

Heritage Award: awarded to an individual who has 

contributed to heritage preservation, architectural 

conservation, research and/or interpretation of local 

heritage. 

Sports and Recreation Award: awarded to an individual who 

has contributed to the promotion, development and/or 

support of recreation and/or sport in the community. 

Lambton Shores Civic Awards 

Adult Award (26 years and older), Youth Award (25 years 

and younger) 

Recognizes individuals who have made an outstanding 

voluntary contribution to the well-being of our community 

over a number of years. This award recognizes local 

champions who build communities and show us all what 

can be achieved with passion and determination. 

General Information 

Nominees must live, own a business or 

go to school in the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores and have 

demonstrated volunteer commitment 

with Lambton Shores. Considerations 

for outside residents may be made if 

he/she has made a significant 

contribution to a Lambton Shores 

organization. 

All nomination forms and supporting 

documents becomes property of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores and will 

not be returned. 

Nomination Forms are available from 

any municipal office or online at 

www.lambtonshores.ca. 

DEADLINE FOR NOMINATIONS: 

Friday, August 17, 2012 

Awards will be presented at the annual 

Volunteer Recognition BBQ, Thursday, 

September 27, 2012 at the Legacy 

Recreation Centre in Thedford. 

For more information, contact the 

Lambton Shores Community Services 

Department, 1-866-943-1400 or email 

events@lambtonshores.ca 

224

Lambton Shores Volunteer Appreciation Awards 

Nomination Form (please print clearly) 

In addition to the completed nomination form, supporting documents (i.e. reference letters, 

newspaper articles, etc.) exemplifying the nominee’s outstanding achievements are welcomed. 

Please note that any documents submitted will become the property of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores and will not be returned to the nominator or nominee. All supporting 

documents must be printed clearly. 

Nomination Category (select one): 

□ Accessibility Award □ Good Neighbour Award □ Civic Award (25 and under) 

□ Arts & Culture Award □ Heritage Award □ Civic Award (26 and older) 

□ Environment Award 

□ Sports and Recreation Award 

** The Municipality of Lambton Shores may not present awards in all categories. The Selection committee 

reserves the right to consider any nomination for other awards, if deemed appropriate. 

Nominee Information: 

Full Name: 

________________________________________________________________ 

Mailing Address: 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

Daytime Phone Number: 

Email: 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

I hearby allow my name to stand for nomination and consent to publication of my photograph 

and information from my nomination package as applicable. 

Signature: 

________________________________________________________________ 

Print Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________________ 

Nominator #1 Information: 

Full Name: 

________________________________________________________________ 

Relationship to Nominee: 


____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

225


Email: 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

Signature: _________________________________ Date: _______________________ 

Nominator #2 Information: 

Full Name: 

________________________________________________________________ 

Relationship to Nominee: 


____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 


Email: 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

Signature: 

__________________________________ Date: _______________________ 

** Two nominators are required for all nominations. 

Nominee’s Volunteer Activities: 

Organization Position Held Description of Duties Years of Service 

226

Nomination Questions: 

** Please be as specific and detailed as possible, add additional pages if necessary. Please 

print clearly. See the scoring sheet for how each question is weighted. 

1. Describe how the nominee goes above and beyond and is dedicated to making a 

difference in the community. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2. Describe why the nominee is a role model and exemplifies the spirit of community 

service. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. Describe the impact that the nominee’s contribution has had on the community and 

within the volunteer organization. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B 

Accessibility Award 


227

Volunteer Appreciation Awards Scoring Sheet (Sample) 

Accessibility Award: awarded to an individual who has contributed to the elimination of barriers to 

people with disabilities, and/or the inclusion of people with disabilities in all facets of the community. 

Each nomination criteria has been assigned a weighted value. Score each nominee based on how well 

they fulfill the nomination criteria. 

Weight Nominee 1 Nominee 2 Nominee 3 

Primary Volunteer 2 points 

Activity 

Supports the category 

description 

Other Volunteer 

1 group (2 points) 

Activities 

2 groups (4 points) 

Involved in a variety of 3 groups (6 points) 

organizations 


5+ groups (10 points) 

Years of Service 1-9 years (2 points) 

10-14 years (4 points) 

15-24 years (6 points) 

25+ years (8 points) 

Volunteering above and 1 group (2 points) 

beyond 


The volunteer’s 3 groups (6 points) 

experience has 4 groups (8 points) 

reached one or more 5+ groups (10 points) 

groups where they 

have contributed time 

and skills. 

Role Model 

1 improvement (2 points) 

Achievements that 2 improvements (4 points) 

have been uplifted or 3 improvements (6 points) 

improved by the 4 improvements (8 points) 

volunteer’s efforts 5+ improvements (10 points) 

Impact on Lambton 1 achievement (2 points) 

Shores 

2 achievements (4 points) 

Volunteer activities 3 achievements (6 points) 

help to improve the 4 achievements (8 points) 

quality of life for 5+ achievements (10 points) 

residents in Lambton 

Shores 

Involvement in a 

program or project has 

provided a lasting 

benefit to residents 

Total Score 

‘Schedule B’ 

228

October 2012 

Dear Community Organization 

The Provincial and Federal government has established a number of prestigious awards 

to recognize volunteer efforts. 

There are many outstanding people within this community that have made significant 

contributions. Some contributions are subtle, quiet acts of kindness on an ongoing basis 

while others contribute in higher profile endeavors, both very deserving of recognition. 

The provincial and federal award categories, along with nomination deadlines are 

highlighted below. Nomination forms and additional information about these programs 

can be found online at www.citizenship.gov.on.ca (Provincial) or www.gg.gc.ca or 

www.pm.gc.ca (Federal). 

Please take a moment to consider nominating someone for any one of these awards 

listed below. It is important to note that nomination deadlines vary, so please ensure 

that nominations are submitted to the appropriate agency prior to the deadline stated 

below. If no deadline is stated, please check the provincial and federal government 

websites for deadlines. 

Provincial Awards 

 

 

 

 

The Order of Ontario: One of the most prestigious awards created in 1986, it 

recognizes the highest level of individual excellence in and achievement in any field. 

Deadline: March 16 

Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship: This medal recognizes and encourages the 

virtues of good citizenship by honouring Ontarians who have made outstanding 

contributions through exceptional long-term effort. Deadline: July 17 

Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers: Salutes young volunteers (ages 15 – 24) for 

their outstanding achievements. Deadline: January 31 

June Callwood Outstanding Achievement Award for Voluntarism: This award 

recognizes extraordinary leadership, innovation and creativity for exceptional 

contributions to the community and province through voluntary action in any field. 

Deadline: December 5 

Ontario Volunteer Service Award: Recognizes volunteers who contribute 

consecutive years of committed service to a group for which no payment has been 

received. Deadline: January 25 

Ontario Senior Achievement Award: Recognizes individuals who, after the age of 65, 

have made significant contributions to their communities. Deadline: June 15 

 

Lincoln M. Alexander Award: Recognizes young people who have demonstrated 

excellent leadership in eliminating racial discrimination. Deadline: May 31 

229

Ontario Newcomer Champion Award: Recognizes individuals and groups for making 

a difference in their community through active citizenship and support of newcomers. 

Deadline: March 15 

Federal Awards 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caring Canadian Award: Recognizes living Canadians and permanent residents who 

have made a significant, sustained, unpaid contribution to their community, in 

Canada or abroad. 

Lifelong achievement: Nominees have demonstrated significant dedication to 

making a difference in their communities by volunteering and providing leadership 

over the course of their life. 

Emerging Leader: Nominees are new volunteers who help build stronger 

communities through exceptional voluntary leadership, and have made or are 

making a positive difference in their community. 

Community Leader: Nominees are individuals or groups who have provided an 

exceptional contribution to their community that improves the well-being of 

individuals and families. 

Business Leader: Nominees are businesses that demonstrate social responsibility 

and support the well-being of their communities. 

Social Innovator: Nominees are not-for-profit organizations that use innovative ideas 

and approaches, including the adoption of business practices, to improve their ability 

to respond to social challenges. 

Thank you for taking the time to consider nominating someone from Lambton Shores for 

one or more of these awards. Should you require assistance with the nominations, 

please contact the Community Services Department at 1-866-943-1400. 

Sincerely, 

Brent Kittmer 


230

Lambton Shores Volunteers are Invited to Attend the 6th 

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION BBQ 

DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2012 

TIME: 

5:30 pm 

LOCATION: The Legacy Recreation Centre, 

Thomas Hall, 

16 Allen Street, Thedford 

Join us for a FREE dinner in honour of 

Lambton Shores volunteers. 

Thank you for making Lambton Shores 

naturally the best place to thrive! 

We would like pictures of volunteers in action! Please send 

digital photos to events@lambtonshores.ca no later than 

September 12, 2012. 

RSVPs are required by Wednesday, September 12, 2012 to: 

Email: events@lambtonshores.ca 

Phone: 519-243-1400 / 1-866-943-1400 

First and last names of attendees is required. Only active volunteers of a Lambton Shores organization may attend. 

The Volunteer Recognition BBQ is hosted by the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

Council in support of the tireless efforts and many hours of hard work of our 

dedicated volunteers. 

231


D.C.S. Report No. 79-2012 Thursday, August 23, 2012 

TO: 

FROM 

RE: 



Lake Valley Grove Ravine Drainage Request 

(Section 4 of the Drainage Act) 


That the petition request to improve a drainage system through an 

engineer’s report under section (4) be approved as outlined in 

D.C.S. Report 79-2012; and further 

That RJ Burnside be appointed for the project conditional on the 

expiration of the 30 day notice period. 

REPORT 

A petition has been received under Section 4 of the Ontario Municipal Drainage Act by 

the owners of (5296) Broadview Ave and (5284) Cliff Rd. The petitioners have brought 

forth concerns that they may soon be losing their family cottage and home due to 

excessive erosion. 

In West Lambton Shores a natural ravine dropping 20 meters over a lineal distance of 

365 meters intersects the unopened road allowance of Cliff Road and Broadview 

Avenue. This serves as a storm water outlet for the Vance Drive road allowance and 

the Murray Drain. (See Schedule A). A pathway which is used primarily for foot traffic 

connects Sunnydale Development via Cliff Road (non maintained) and Broadview 

Avenue in Lake Valley Grove. 

In particular during spring runoff and heavy rainfalls this ravine become aggressively 

turbulent causing excessive erosion to the banks. (See photo’s Schedule B). 

Lambton Shores Community Services Department has responded to numerous 

problems resulting from the heavy flows. Given that this particular area is considered to 

be natural water course the St. Cair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA) and 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) were invited for a site visit at the ravine. 

During the meeting SCRCA and DFO members reviewed the eroded area and 

commented on their observations. Although they agreed that there was an erosion 

problem the SCRCA stated that their organization was not in the position to fund any 

projects of this significance but do need to be consulted if any works are to proceed. 

A teleconference has been held with with Elizabeth and Walter Haussner, Margret 

Torrie (property owners), Al Little (Drainage Superintendent for Lambton Shores), 

232

Richard Moore (DFO Compliance and Monitoring Technician, Jeff Lawrence 

(Regulations Officer for SCRCA), and Heather MacKenzie (Aquatic Systems Biologist 

for SCRCA). 

Post Meeting Comments from SCRCA 

Once at the site it was apparent that there was a great deal of erosion and slumping 

along both side slopes of the deeply incised valley of the unknown tributary on the 

downstream side of Broadview Avenue. New disturbance on the south bank of the 

unknown tributary has occurred recently. A maple tree approximately 10 inches in 

diameter, which was on the top of bank, had slid down into the channel of the water 

course. It was also observed that there was an abundance of brush and yard waste 

dumped over the side of the north bank. This should be cleaned up off the side slopes 

so vegetation can take hold. If new growth was allowed to take hold it would help 

stabilize the slope. 

There was evidence of scouring on both the upstream side and the downstream side of 

the culvert that runs under the walking/biking path adjacent to 5296 Broadview Road. It 

would be a good idea to have an engineer examine the area for a professional opinion. 

Richard Moore suggested a naturalized approach. He suggested that the culvert could 

be replaced by a clear span walkway bridge. The toe of the banks could be reinforced 

by cement blocks and the rest of the slope could be seeded. He also suggested 

creating steps up the channel which would create a fish ladder affect and it would help 

slow down the water. 

Options for Proceeding 

Option 1: Petition under the Municipal Drainage Act for a Municipal Drain. 

For the affected landowners this would be the most cost effective way to proceed for the 

ravine repairs. The start to finish timeline of a drainage report can stretch over a year. 

For this option to proceed a petition for drainage works would need to be filed and 

signed by: 

 

The owners of lands in the area representing at least 60 per cent of the affected 

drainage area (as shown by the last revised assessment roll) 

and/or 

 

The majority in number of the property owners in the drainage area, including the 

owners of any roads in the area (as shown by the last revised assessment roll of 

lands in the area) 

Option 2: Extension of the Existing Culvert 

This option would entail an extension of the culvert beyond the “danger zone” and 

creating a stabilized outlet at the lake. The existing culvert is slightly misaligned and 

233

appears to be creating a “swirling effect” as it discharges towards 5296 Broadview. 

Erosion of the west embankment is more prominent that of the east side. 

Option 3: Remove Existing Culvert and Construct a Bridge 

The upstream side of the Broadview Avenue road allowance has some undercutting at 

the intake of the culvert. It appears that over time there will be a need to stabilize this 

area, remove the “bridge path” as it is an unopened road allowance, and install a foot 

bridge for continued use of the path. Staging areas would be created to allow cesspools 

for fish habitat and reducing flows. This is a preferred option by DFO and SCRCA as it 

allows the habitat to continue throughout the ravine while giving an adequate outlet. 

Conclusion 

The photos clearly identify problems and property owners along the ravine are at risk of 

losing their buildings to the erosion of the embankment. A practical but economical 

solution may be determined by an engineer whom specializes in hydraulic flows. 

On July 26, 2012 an onsite meeting was once again attended by SCRCA Regulations 

Officer Dallas Cundick, Lambton Shores Drainage Superintendant Al Little, residents 

Rui Baptista (5284 Cliff Road), Margaret Torrie and Elizabeth Haussner (5296 

Broadview Avenue). After revisiting the issues, it was determined that the best avenue 

to take would be Option #1. 

The next step is for Council to accept the petition and assign a drainage engineer to this 

file. Attached to this report is a list of the Ontario drainage engineers for Council to 

select from. Typically Spriet and Associated is the firm selected to act on Lambton 

Shores drainage files. 

For this report staff is recommending that Council appoint RJ Burnside and Associates 

from Stratford, ON. There is an advantage is changing your engineer from time to time 

so that one firm does not get overburdened with files, and it is advantageous for staff to 

work with other firms to learn different perspectives. 




Report prepared by Allan Little, Drainage Superintendent 

234

Schedule A 

Overview of the subject area shows contributing drainage to the affected ravine. 

235

Schedule B 

Eroded property north side of the ravine. 

236

Outlet culvert under foot path connecting link to Cliff Rd and Broadview Ave. 

237

Erosion south side of ravine. 

238

239

240

241

242

243

244



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Licensed Area at the Arenas 


That the Thedford Dirty Dogs hockey club be permitted to 

operate a licensed area at games during the 2012-2013 

season, conditional upon full satisfaction of the requirements 

listed in report DCS 80-2012 and the attached 

“Memorandum of Agreement”, and further 

That the Lambton Shores Predators hockey club be 

permitted to operate a licensed area at games during the 

2012-2013 season, conditional upon full satisfaction of the 

requirements listed in report DCS 80-2012 and the attached 

“Memorandum of Agreement; and further 

That should the clubs not satisfy the requirements at any 

point during the 2012-2013 season, licensed area privileges 

may be temporarily suspended at the discretion of the 

Director of Community Services. 

REPORT 

Lambton Shores is fortunate to be the home of two major hockey clubs – the Thedford 

Dirty Dogs Senior AA Club at the Legacy Recreation Centre and the Lambton Shores 

Predators Junior B Club at the Shores Recreation Centre. 

Both clubs are continually looking for ways to generate revenue to offset the expenses 

incurred with operating the teams. In 2011, both clubs made requests to Council to 

operate a licensed area during game time at their respective facility. Games are 

typically played on Saturday evenings with a few on Friday and Sunday evenings. 

Council approved the requests by offering each club a one year trial period after which 

staff would review and determine if it was a worthwhile venture. 

The Dirty Dogs operated their bar on the far side of the upper walkway behind the 

stands (see ‘Schedule A’) during their home games. Tables and chairs were assembled 

behind the stands and alcohol was not permitted beyond this area. They used the 

storage room within the area to store items required to host the bar. The Dirty Dogs 

were required to obtain a “Special Occasions Permit” from the LCBO for every game 

they wished to operate the bar and their insurance policy contained liability coverage for 

245

licensed events within it. The permit holder reviewed the Municipal Alcohol Policy with 

municipal staff on a monthly basis as well. 

The Dirty Dogs bar proved to be a successful venture as can be seen in ‘Schedule B’ – 

the 2011/12 game finances as reported by Mr. Shawn Dickey, President of the Thedford 

Dirty Dogs. The revenue generated from the bar was put towards such expenses as 

referees and ice rental fees. 

Mr. Dickey has requested Council approval to operate the licensed area again for the 

2012/13 season in the same manner as it operated last season. Staff feels that the 

club ran their bar in a professional manner and without incident. It proved to help with 

their finances and therefore it staff does not have any issues with the club operating it 

again. 

The Lambton Shores Predators were also granted approval in 2011 to operate a 

licensed area within the Shores Recreation Centre during their home games. ‘Schedule 

C’ illustrates the site approved by Council for the licensed area. The Predators had 

planned to use their storage locker under the stands to store any items required to host 

a bar. They also agreed to abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy and provide proof that 

the area was properly insured. 

This club ideally wanted to work with a local service club to operate their bar, with the 

service club obtaining the permits and insurance. Any profit earned would be split 

between the hockey club and the service club, under the terms of the agreement 

between the two groups. Unfortunately, the hockey club was not able to form an 

agreement and therefore, did not attempt to operate a licensed area in 2011. 

The Predators would like to ask for Council’s permission to attempt this venture again 

for the 2012/13 season. The bar will operate out of the same location and the hockey 

club will try to establish partnerships with service clubs once again. 

Staff recommends that the licensed areas at both the Legacy Recreation Centre and the 

Shores Recreation Centre only be open a half hour prior to the game starting and will 

close halfway through the third period (approximately 3 hours of operation). As 

mentioned earlier, both clubs must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy and will have 

both Smart Serve and security representation within the area. The area will also be 

roped off to keep the patrons who choose to consume alcohol within the designated 

area. Proof of a Special Occasion Permit and insurance will be provided to the 

Municipality prior to any sale of alcohol taking place. Staff recommends that each group 

sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in ‘Schedule D’. This agreement reinforces 

what is stated above. 

Staff is seeking Council direction on this matter. 




246

Report Prepared by Shannon Prout – Acting Facilitator of Recreation & Leisure 

Schedules: 

A. Schedule A - Approved licensed area occupied by the Thedford Dirty Dogs 

Senior AA Club in 2011 – Illustration 

B. Schedule B – 2011/12 Game Finances – Thedford Dirty Dogs 

C. Schedule C - Approved licensed area for the Lambton Shores Predators 

Junior B Club in 2011 - Illustration 

D. Schedule D - Memorandum of Agreement 

247

‘Schedule A’ 

Approved licensed area occupied by the Thedford Dirty Dogs Senior AA Club in 2011 

248

‘Schedule B’ 

2011/12 Game Finances – Thedford Dirty Dogs 

2011-2012 GAME FINANCES 

GAME DOOR BAR REFEREE TOTAL 

DATE REVENUE PROFIT COST PROFIT 

SEPT.24 $ 177.00 $ 309.00 $ 334.00 $ 152.00 

SEPT.30 $ 126.00 $ 615.00 $ 277.00 $ 464.00 

OCT.8 $ 24.00 $ 220.00 $ 252.00 -$ 8.00 

OCT.15 $ 116.00 $ 549.00 $ 334.00 $ 331.00 

OCT.29 $ 100.00 $ 525.00 $ 288.00 $ 337.00 

NOV.4 $ 68.00 $ 273.00 $ 336.00 $ 5.00 

NOV.12 $ - $ 200.00 $ 288.00 -$ 88.00 

NOV.26 $ 32.00 $ 212.00 $ 304.00 -$ 60.00 

DEC.2 $ 8.00 $ 360.00 $ 252.00 $ 116.00 

DEC.17 $ 97.00 $ 407.00 $ 330.00 $ 174.00 

DEC.23 $ 80.00 $ 210.00 $ 290.00 $ - 

DEC.30 $ 77.00 $ 338.00 $ 290.00 $ 125.00 

JAN.21 $ 125.00 $ 345.00 $ 280.00 $ 190.00 

$ 1,030.00 $ 4,563.00 $ 3,855.00 $1,738.00 

249

‘Schedule C’ 

Approved licensed area for the Lambton Shores Predators Junior B Club in 2011 

250

‘Schedule D’ 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

THIS AGREEMENT made this ____ day of ______________ 20__ 

BETWEEN: 

- AND – 

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”) 

_____________________________ 

hereinafter called the “Club” OF THE FIRST PART 

THE “MUNICIPALITY” OF LAMBTON SHORES 

hereinafter called the “Municipality” OF THE SECOND PART 

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 User Group 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 User Group must provide proof of insurance for such events to the 

Municipality two (2) weeks prior to the date of the event. 

c) The User Group must abide by the Alcohol Policy set in place by the 

Municipality. The User Group must review the policy with municipal staff 

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 User Group 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 User Group is responsible for the set up of the licensed area. It will 

be inspected by arena staff prior to the sale of any alcohol. 

f) The licensed area must be clearly defined with ropes and the points of 

entry must be manned with security. 

g) The User Group 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 User Group and/or arena staff 

reserves the right to request identification from any patron looking yonger 

251

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 User Group 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 8.12). 

j) The User Group will not serve any patron whom is believed to be 

intoxicated (see Alcohol Policy 8.17). 

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 half (1/2) way through the third period. 

No alcohol will be sold after the game has concluded. 

m) 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 September 1, ______. 

6. RENTAL FEE 

There will be no rental fee for the use of the “leased premises”. 

7. INSURANCE 

The User Group will have to provide proof of Special Occasions Insurance in the amount of 

two million ($2,000,000) dollars at a minimum, to provide protection for any one liability 

claim. 

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. 

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 

252

If either the “Club” or the “Municipality” 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: 


9575 Port Franks Road 

R. R. # 1 

Thedford, ON N0M 2NO Attention: Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure 

The “Municipality” agrees that a notice to terminate the Lease as described above shall be 

delivered or mailed to: 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

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. 

Failure to meet the above terms may result in an immediate eviction. 

_____________________________ 

Lambton Shores Predators Jr B President 

_____________________________ 

Lambton Shores Predators Jr B Representative 

_____________________________ 

Date 


_____________________________ 

Community Services Department Representative 

_____________________________ 

Date 

253


D.C.S. Report No. 81-2012 Friday, August 24, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Forest Three Phase Improvement Plan 


That D.C.S. Report No. 81-2012 be received for Council 

consideration for the purpose of providing direction to staff. 

REPORT 

In 2012, Council allocated $100,000.00 into the capital budget for the construction of a 

BMX park for Forest: 



That a $100,000.00 allocation for the Forest BMX Park be added to the 10 Year 

Capital Forecast and that staff provide a report on the construction of the Forest 

BMX Park, and include ways to achieve the goal, and deal with issues such as 

liability, drainage, landscaping, potential partners and a preliminary budget for 

further consideration by Council. Carried 

In June 2012, staff submitted D.C.S. Report No. 35-2012 addressing the above items 

and also recommending that a public open house be held due to the mixed public 

response in relation to the project. A copy of the report is included in Schedule A for 

reference. 



That a public open house be scheduled in the near future to gather public 

feedback prior to implementing the BMX park project. Carried 

Further to the above motion, Councillor Underwood brought forth a motion at the June 

18, 2012 Council meeting to expand the public information session proposed for the 

BMX Park to a three-phase plan which included: 

254

Phase One: Build a BMX Park and implement trail improvements to the old train 

tracks, which includes upgrades to the existing fence on the bridge 

Phase Two: Plan for either a combination ice rink/splash pad or simply a splash 

pad at Rotary Park 

Phase Three: Identify and build connecting trails from the old Forest Arena to 

the Shores Recreation Centre, and along the old railway tracks through the rear 

of King and Broadway Streets. 

This report will provide Council with a brief update on the feedback discovered through 

the public consultation program, and options to consider moving forward. 

Relationship to the Lambton Shores Community Design Plan and Recreation and 

Leisure Services Master Plan 

In 2006, a Community Design Plan was completed for Lambton Shores. This involved a 

community consultation process for identifying improvements to each Lambton Shores 

community. Two of the themes identified for the former Town of Forest included 

connecting trails and building up the heritage district (downtown core). Feedback also 

included the desire for a splash pad. 

255

In 2011, a Recreation and Leisure Services Master Plan was completed. This plan 

employed extensive public consultation which included phone interviews, key 

stakeholder interviews, public surveys, stakeholder surveys, public meetings and 

workshops with Council and staff. 

Part of this process was to identify priority spending on facility types, and top facilities 

voted as most needed. The public responses to these items are depicted in the charts 

below. 

As a result of this feedback, the following recommendations were made through the 

Master Plan: 

7-11 To address the need for outdoor aquatics, the Municipality should 

integrate basic cooling features into at least one existing playground in 

Thedford, Forest and Arkona 

7-14 The Municipality should engage in consultation with youth (who are 

traditionally primary users) to gauge interest in the provision of this BMX / 

mountain bike park. This endeavour should only be undertaken if a suitable 

256

partner can be secured for assistance with items such as fundraising, 

maintenance, construction, etc. 

Further to the above plans, Ward Councillors for Forest organized a public expo in 

September 2011. A survey was distributed at the event asking respondents to prioritize 

9 possible projects for the Forest area. Based on 37 responses, the priorities are as 

follows: 

1. Directional/wayfinding signage for all recreation, arts, leisure facilities, trails 

entrances 

2. Splash pad at one playground in Forest 

3. Continue to develop the Forest trail system including parking, benches and other 

amenities at key access points 

4. Greening strategy for Lambton Shores 

5. Esli Dodge Amphitheatre enhancements 

6. Minor modular skateboard park at Rotary Square in the summer and in the old 

Forest Arena during the winter months 

7. Hard surface outdoor basketball court 

8. BMX / mountain bike park 

9. Old Forest Arena feasibility study 

Three Phase Plan for Forest – Public Consultation Program 

The public consultation process for the three phase plan included a public meeting and 

the creation of a Facebook group as a method to engage younger generations in the 

proposed project. For the purposes of the remaining sections of the report, the terms 

BMX Park and “X-Park” will be used interchangeably. X-Park refers to a modular or 

concrete skate park. 

The following chart provides Council with a general summary of the support for or 

against the proposed projects received through public consultation. 

For Against Change Location 

BMX / X-Park 39 2 4 

Splash Pad 24 0 5 

Connecting Trails 9 3 

25 - Against the paving 

of a trail between 

Broadway and King 

Streets. 

Results of both the Public Meeting and Facebook group are discussed in detail in the 

following subsections. 

257

Feedback Received Through the Public Meeting – July 25, 2012 

It was determined that the best format for this meeting would be a formal presentation 

from Ward Councillors which included a review of the Community Design Plan and the 

Recreation and Leisure Services Master Plan, an introduction of the proposed three 

phase plan, and a question and answer period. 

The meeting was held on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at the Shores Recreation Centre 

and approximately 51 people attended. Staff were present to take notes and to receive 

comment forms from the meeting. A copy of the notes and comment forms can be 

reviewed in Schedule B. 

Phase One: BMX Park/Trail Upgrades 

There was a general consensus that something is needed in Forest for youth; however, 

there was a discussion that perhaps a concrete or modular skate park (X-Park) would 

be of more benefit as it is more versatile than a dirt bike track and therefore would 

receive more use over time. Three youth attending the meeting spoke about their 

preference to use an X-Park versus a dirt BMX track as various disciplines would be 

able to utilize the facility (bikers, bladers, scooters, skateboarders, etc.). 

There was considerable concern over the proposed location of the BMX Park, including 

the size of the location, the proposed seniors’ apartment complex across the road (in 

the former co-op lot), and concerns from the adjacent property owner over vandalism, 

children safety and drainage. Please refer to the handout provided by Mr. Richard 

Dinyer, the adjacent property owner, which can be reviewed in Schedule C. It should 

be noted that others felt the location is suitable as it is highly visible and is easily 

accessible to the youth. 

Phase Two: Splash Pad 

Comments surrounding the splash pad were generally positive. There were questions 

regarding the annual operating costs (approximately $4,000.00 per year based on data 

from the Grand Bend splash pad). The location of Whyte Park was suggested as an 

alternative, although it should be noted that this park is not serviced for water, whereas 

Rotary Park already has services available. One attendee stated that the splash pad 

should be made the first priority as it would benefit the largest group of people. 

Phase Three: Connecting Trails 

A large group of residents along Broadway Street and King Street attended the meeting 

to discuss their opposition for a connecting trail along the old railway tracks between the 

aforementioned streets. Property owners were vehemently opposed to the paving of 

this trail as it would not only take away from the natural pathway, but it would also 

increase traffic to the area, which in turn would possibly increase litter amounts to the 

area. 

258

There was concern that paving this area may encourage the use of motorized vehicles, 

resulting in safety and liability issues. The property owners were also concerned about 

the maintenance costs; currently, property owners maintain the area, however they 

would be unwilling to continue this practice should the paving of the trail go ahead. 

Councillor Underwood stated that there were no immediate plans to pave this trail. The 

property owners adjacent to this area did bring forth a petition, of which 25 residents 

had signed at the time of the meeting. A copy of the petition can be reviewed in 

Schedule D. 

It should be noted that many of the issues surrounding the connecting trails focused 

solely on paving the area between King and Broadway Streets, although there were 

comments regarding the planting of trees and potential drainage issues this would 

cause to that specific area. Councillor Illman assured the group that drainage issues 

will be addressed before any trees or shrubs are planted. Residents were also 

concerned about potential privacy issues and wondered about the possibility of erecting 

a form of privacy fencing or shrubbery. Residents of these areas do recognize that the 

old railway tracks are already being used occasionally by trail users. 

Along with the petition, additional comments were submitted by individuals representing 

these areas and can also be reviewed in Schedule D. 

Other Themes: 

The issue of a public pool was raised by one attendee, and a discussion ensued on the 

annual operating costs of maintaining an indoor pool. It was stated that a community 

the size of Lambton Shores would not be able to sustain a pool as it would not see 

enough traffic to make the facility viable. 

There was also a question regarding a donation from a former resident Lily Verhoeven. 

Councillor Illman stated that she was a part of this fundraising committee, and due to 

lack of funds a decision was made to donate the money raised to other community 

projects such as the Esli Dodge Tennis Courts and the Public Library. 

Feedback Received Through Facebook 

The Community Services Department created a Facebook group on June 26, 2012 to 

receive feedback on the proposed three phase plan. Staff posted photos of each phase 

in order to receive input. It should be noted that staff did not provide comments on any 

issues as this group was intended to be a forum for public discussion. 

A copy of the Facebook comments can be reviewed in Schedule E. 

259

Phase One: BMX Park/Trail Upgrades 

Overall, 29 comments were received with respect to the BMX Park/Trail Upgrades. Ten 

of these comments supported the idea of a BMX Park, 2 comments did not support the 

idea, 13 comments supported an X-Park instead of BMX and 4 comments supported a 

combination of a BMX / X-Park. 

There were no comments that addressed the trail upgrades proposed in this phase. 

Phase Two: Splash Pad 

There were a total of 20 comments that specifically addressed the splash pad concept. 

All of the comments received supported the idea of a splash pad, and 4 suggested that 

the splash pad be moved to one of: Coultis Park, Whyte Park or the vacant co-op lot. 

One comment suggested that the Splash Pad be the first priority. 

Phase Three: Connecting Trails 

Unlike the public open house, the connecting trails phase was the least controversial 

topic on Facebook with a total of 5 comments received, all supporting the idea. 

Other Themes 

Tennis Courts: 3 comments were received regarding the current state of the tennis 

courts at Esli Dodge Conservation Area. The comments received enquired about the 

current condition of the courts and possible upgrades for the future. A number of 

photos were posted showing the current condition of the tennis courts at Esli Dodge. 

Public Pool: There were 13 comments that explicitly expressed the desire for a public 

pool in Forest. Many other comments surrounding the pool were regarding the Lily 

Verhoeven donation, which was addressed at the meeting and relayed to the Facebook 

group by other group members. 

Next Steps: Moving the Project(s) Forward 

As a result of the public consultation program it has become apparent that there is 

support for immediate action and implementation of an X-Park concept for bike, 

skateboard, rollerblade, and scooter users, and a spray pad for the community of 

Forest. In a best case scenario both projects would be implemented in the short term, 

budget permitting. 

During the research for this report the Optimist Club of Forest approached Lambton 

Shores with a proposal to develop a partnership for the construction of a spray pad in 

Rotary Park. Council has received a presentation from the Optimist Club at the 

260

September 4, 2012 meeting to bring forward this proposal. The Optimist Club is asking 

for Lambton Shores to commit $50,000 to the project. 

Through research staff has determined that a more than adequate X-park consisting of 

modular units installed on a hard top surface can be constructed for well below the 

budgeted amount of $100,000 and it is more likely that the X-park construction costs 

would fall in the order of $50,000. Sample designs for this budget value are attached in 

Schedule F based on projects that other municipalities have undertaken. It is proposed 

that the Forest X-Park be installed on a 40’x80’ asphalt pad. Also please not that the 

equipment is installed in a semi-permanent fashion by way of bolting it directly into the 

asphalt pad. 

To move both of these projects forward staff proposes the following approach for 

Council to consider: 

 

 

Council directs staff to proceed with the X-Park concept of modular units on a 

hard top surface, and begin preparation for the hard top surface coating and 

equipment installation at the preferred location. 

Once the X-Park is constructed, Council commits to allocating the surplus funds 

from the original $100,000 budgeted for the BMX facility into the 2013 capital 

plan for a spray pad construction to be completed in Partnership with the Forest 

Optimist Club. 

The approach identified above accomplishes both of the preferred projects within the 

original budget allocation, and represents the greatest benefit to the greatest number of 

people based on the feedback that has been received. 

Staff respectfully request direction if they should proceed with this project concept. 

Assuming Council supports this approach, the following matters outlined below will need 

to be considered. 

X-Park Considerations 

There are two main considerations for Council to provide direction regarding the X-Park. 

First is how the design, supply and installation of equipment is to solicited. For this 

project a request for proposals for the service is the most applicable as there are not 

specific linear unit rates to bid, and there is an expectation for a creative design to be 

submitted. To accomplish this a budgeted amount for the work would be set, and 

contractors would be asked to provide their recommended design within the budgeted 

amount. Because the budgeted amount is fixed the expenditure will be known ahead of 

time, and value for dollar is achieved by selecting the design that best uses those funds 

261

For this project staff foresee two possible options to solicit a contractor using the RFP 

process: 

1. Single Source – the municipal purchasing policy does not provide for this option, 

however it may be selected should Council decide that is the best use of 

municipal funds. Through research staff have found that the successful 

contractor for many municipal and private X-Parks is the Canadian Ramp 

Company, who is a reputable company that has previously provided designs to 

the Forest youth for this project. Single sourcing the X-Park equipment would 

represent the most expeditious way to complete this project. 

2. RFP by Invite – Under this approach staff would recommend that the competitive 

process be completed by invite and not by open advertisement. The advantage 

of this approach is that the municipality can select only those companies that 

specialize in the provision of X-park equipment design and installation so that 

there is a guarantee that all equipment provided will meet CSA standards. Under 

this approach there will be an approximate 2-3 delay as the RFP document is 

drafted, circulated, and returned. 

In either option, once the designs are completed and submitted staff will post the 

submitted design(s) on the project Facebook page for feedback. This method of 

communication has achieved the most success in reaching out to the youth users of the 

facility. 

Staff respectfully request direction on Council for the solicitation of the X-Park services. 

The second matter for Council consideration is the location of the X-Park. The most 

suitable size for the X-Park is a recommended footprint of 40’ x 80’ based on the other 

municipal projects that have been researched. The location that was presented at the 

public open house is the parcel of municipal land located on Railroad Way. This location 

has received negative feedback, and as a result staff is requesting that Council consider 

the three proposed location below and provide direction on their preferred location. 

Each location is shown with a scaled overlay of the 40’x80’ hard surface. 

1. Municipal Land Located on Railroad Way – This is the location that was 

presented at the public open house as the preferred location. Negative feedback 

for this location was received by the adjacent landowner and his concerns 

included possible vandalism to his property, reduced business as a result of the 

close proximity of the X-Park, and concerns about the effect of the dirt bike path 

on drainage. 

Respecting drainage, the X-Park concept will have little to no effect on the 

drainage of the lands as the hardtop surface will be constructed at ground level 

with a 1% - 2% grade in the direction of the natural flow of water. 

262

A schematic of the X-Park location on the property is shown below. The positive 

attributes of the location is that it is in the downtown core of Forest and well 

supervised during the day and night time. The negative attributes is the lack of 

support from the adjacent property owner, and possible concerns related to the 

nearby tower. 

2. Coultis Park – This location is presented as an alternate location for Council to 

consider. When reviewing the comments that this project has received on 

Facebook from youth members of the community this location has been 

suggested a number of times. 

The benefit of locating the park at Coultis Park is that the location is currently 

used for recreation uses so the addition of an additional recreation feature at this 

location is supported by its current use. The location also currently has available 

public washrooms, is regularly attended by the public and municipal staff, and is 

relatively central to the residential portion of town. 

263

The downside of this location is that it is not located in the downtown business 

core of Forest as was the intent of the original proposal. 

For Council’s information, the 40’x80’ footprint of the X-Park is shown in the next 

figure outlining several possible locations for it at Coultis Park. 

3. The Shores Recreation Centre – The last location presented for Council’s 

consideration is the Shores Recreation Centre. 

The benefit of locating the park at the Shores is that the location is currently used 

for recreation uses so the addition of an additional recreation feature at this 

location is supported by its current use. The location also currently has available 

public washrooms, and is regularly attended by the public and municipal staff. 

The downside of this location is that it is not located in the downtown business 

core of Forest as was the intent of the original proposal. 

264

For Council’s information, the 40’x80’ footprint of the X-Park is shown in the next 

figure outlining several possible locations for it at the Shores. 

Spray Pad Considerations 

Similar to the X-Park proposal there are two main considerations for the spray pad 

proposal. 

First and foremost Council should consider if they wish to enter into a project 

partnership with the Forest Optimist Club for delivering this project. It is staff’s opinion 

that such a partnership represents an advantageous way to deliver one of the 

recommendations of the Recreation and Leisure Master Plan ahead of the proposed 

schedule. This would also fit with the need that was identified in the public consultation 

program for this project. 

The second consideration is the location of the proposed spray pad. Under the current 

project design the location is identified as the Rotary Park. This fits with the 

recommendations of the Recreation and Leisure Master Plan and it is staff’s 

recommendation that Council support this location. 

265

Summary 

This report has presented the results of the public consultation program completed for 

the proposed Forest Three Phase Plan which identified an X-Park and a spray pad as 

the top two projects to be implemented. To move these projects forward staff have 

presented a number of options for Council to consider. Staff requires direction on the 

following matters: 

X-Park 

Is Council supportive of moving forward with the proposed X-Park concept of 

modular units installed on a 40’x80’ hard top surface? 

What is Council’s preference for sourcing the X-Park equipment design and 

installation? 

Single Source to Canadian Ramp Company with a fixed budget for design 

and installation? 

RFP by invite to specialized ramp companies only with a fixed budget for 

design and installation? 

What is Council’s preferred location for the X-Park? 

Municipal property on Railroad Way? 

Municipal property at Coultis Park? 

Municipal Property at the Shores Recreation Centre? 

Spray Pad 

Is Council supportive of a partnership with the Forest Optimist Club for the 

construction of a spray pad, with surplus funds from the X-Park project to be 

directed to this partnership? 

Is Rotary Park the preferred location for the proposed Spray Pad? 




Report Prepared in Part by Ashley Farr, Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure 

Schedules: 

A. D.C.S. Report No. 35-2012 

B. Public Meeting Notes and Comment Forms 

C. Richard Dinyer Submitted Information 

D. Broadway/Main Street Trail Petition and Submitted Information 

E. Facebook Group Comments 

F. Sample design from Canadian Ramp Company for a project in Clarington 

266

Schedule A 


D.C.S. Report No. 35 – 2012 Thursday May 10, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Project Update: BMX Park - Forest 


That the report be received for Council consideration 

REPORT 

In 2011 staff was requested to report on the feasibility and logistics of the construction 

of a BMX Park located in Forest on the municipally owned land located adjacent to 71 

King Street and the abandoned CNR Right-of-Way (see attachment 1 A). Staff report 

DCS 93-2011 was presented to Council on September 19, 2011 and the following 

direction was provided: 



That staff is directed to consult with Councillor Underwood, the user 

group and the public to develop a work plan, liability plan and 

timeframe for the development of a BMX Park within the Town of 

Forest. 

Carried 

In addition to the above, Council has allocated $100,000 in the 2012 capital budget to 

accomplish this project. 



That a $100,000.00 allocation for the Forest BMX Park be added to the 10 

Year Capital Forecast and that staff provide a report on the construction of 

the Forest BMX park, and include ways to achieve the goal, and deal with 

issues such as liability, drainage, landscaping, potential partners and a 

preliminary budget for further consideration by Council. Carried 

This report is a brief update on items that Council wished to have completed. 

267

Schedule A 

Proposed Work Plan 

A BMX facility is a bicycle motocross course that provides artificially developed earth 

structures to be used by bicycle riders. 

Staff is estimating that the basic BMX Park such as the one shown in Attachment 1 will 

require approximately 5,000 cubic meters of soil. This soil will have to include the 

appropriate amount of fines, granular and clay. Currently the Community Services 

Department does have this amount however materials testing will be required prior to 

placement, to ensure that this material is appropriate for this type of activity. 

Presently the site is bordered on the West by an asphalt walkway, and it is anticipated 

that this walkway will need to be re-located to the west at the property line. Staff feel this 

step is necessary to remove the hard surface from the spill zone of the jumps and 

rollers. 

With respect to drainage for the site, the Municipality is obligated to ensure that water 

collected at the location does not affect the adjacent properties. As such, staff propose 

that a drainage plan for the property be developed such that the site is graded to direct 

sheet flow and run-off to the street. 

The adjacent property owner has expressed a concern to Council that building up the 

municipal property will affect drainage on his property in that water will no longer be 

allowed to flow across the municipal property to its outlet. Council should be aware that 

under drainage law there is no obligation for one property owner to accept drainage for 

another. Individual property owners are responsible for an outlet for their own water, 

and if an adjacent property owner chooses to build up their site thus preventing 

drainage, this is acceptable under the Act. However, consideration must be give as to 

whether or not this is a “neighbourly” practice. 

It should be noted that a convenient access to water is necessary for jump construction 

and maintenance. Water is critical to the quality of the park. Without water the jumps 

become too hard to work on and could increase liability should a rider fall. There is a 

watermain located adjacent to the property however a meter and tie-in would be 

required. 

The proposed site layout for the park is attached to this report. 

Liability Plan 

The construction and maintenance of a BMX Park can be a very technical one as to 

decrease the liability and the amount of maintenance which can occur if not built 

adequately. The park that is presently proposed for Forest is not a full scale BMX park, 

however from a due diligence standpoint it is better to err on the side of caution and 

evaluate the risks of the site as though it is such a site. 

Other local municipalities that have recently implemented similar projects submitted 

their proposed park designs to the National BMX Authority for review and buy-off. The 

purpose of the review is to ensure that the design is correct for the expected experience 

levels of the users. As a part of the strategy to reduce the liability involved in this project 

staff are recommending that this course of 268 action be implemented.

Schedule A 

During the research of this initiative the municipal insurer was contacted for comments, 

and staff were provided a general guidance document for limiting liability associated 

with bike parks. Best practices include the development of a risk management plan, 

installation of effective signage, and implementation of a maintenance and inspection 

policy. 

A methodically written Risk Management Plan is the best way to ensure safety 

measures are developed and implemented. At a minimum, the plan should include the 

steps to take in an emergency, an overview of signs, and delineation of boundaries, a 

description of the inspection and maintenance plan, and information regarding 

insurance. An effective Management Plan will also assist in mitigating liability due to: 

negligent design, negligent maintenance, negligent supervision or failure to warn the 

public of dangerous conditions. This activity would occur in-house. 

It is important to develop a comprehensive signage system for the park. Signs should 

be placed at the entrance and other key locations. The main sign should describe safety 

guidelines, helmet rules, risk warnings, a "Use at Your Own Risk" message, responsible 

riding tips, emergency contact information and more. The rules should be posted in 

visible locations and be easily understandable with the use of pictographs, if feasible. 

Included in the signage should be warning signs for any risks that the Municipal is 

aware of that cannot be eliminated. A statement should also be included within the 

signage regarding the location of a spectator’s area. 

Like all municipally owned facilities this area will also require monthly inspection by a 

trained person. A written log should be kept to ensure jumps and surrounding area are 

being looked after regularly and maintenance work is documented. This step is 

imperative to reducing liability. This program would be developed in-house with 

assistance from Provincial and National Recreational Groups publishing’s. It should be 

noted however that it is important to develop a stewardship ethic among riders that 

encourages everyone to repair and groom the jumps regularly and keep the park clean. 

Relationship to the Community Improvement Plan 

The current site proposed for the BMX park is located within “Forest Heritage District” 

as identified in the Community improvement plan (see diagram below). During the 

development of the community improvement plan residents were polled for their ideas 

to improve their locale. During this process a detailed review of possible recreation 

facilities/parks was not conducted, however there was feedback from the community 

that Forest would be well suited for a splash pad. 

269

Schedule A 

Forest Heritage District 

1 

2 

3 

6 

5 

4 

Location of Proposed 

BMX Park 

7 

8 

Master Plan Legend 

1. Multi-use pathway 

2. Main Intersection Enhancement 

3. New planting area 

4. Pedestrian Crosswalk (typical) 

5. Improvements to Rotary Park 

6. Intersection streetscape 

improvements 

7. New street tree planting (typical) 

8. Southern Entrance 

Public Consultation & Relationship to the Recreation & Leisure Master Plan 

To date there has not been a formal public consultation program undertaken for this 

project specifically, however there have been two other public consultation activities 

completed in relation to this project. 

The first was completed as a part of the Recreation & Leisure Services Master Plan. 

During the master plan process a survey was conducted and respondents were asked 

to indicate which services they thought should be allocated additional municipal funding. 

Respondents were also asked to indicate which two facilities were needed most in the 

community. The public response to these questions is presented below: 

270

Schedule A 

Although the results of the survey indicate that a BMX park is not a high priority for the 

general respondents of the survey, when developing the master plan the consultant 

recognized that localized interest does exist for such a facility, and such interest has 

been expressed by the youth members of the public in Forest. 

As a result of this recognition, the master plan made the following recommendation in 

Strategic Direction 7: 

“7-14 The Municipality should engage in consultation with youth (who are 

traditionally primary users) to gauge interest in the provision of this BMX / 

mountain bike park. This endeavor should only be undertaken if a suitable 

partner can be secured for assistance with items such as fundraising, 

maintenance, construction etc.” 

271

Schedule A 

The second public consultation that involved this project was held when staff and the 

two Ward Councillors for Forest organized a public expo for September 14, 2011. A 

survey was handed out at that event and respondents were asked to rank the priority of 

nine different possible projects for the Forest Area. A total of 37 responses were 

received with the following priority ranking for the projects: 

1. Directional/wayfinding signage for all recreation, arts ,leisure facilities , trails 

entrances 

2. Splash pad at one playground in Forest 

3. Continue to develop the Forest trail system and include Parking, benches and 

other amenities at key access points 

4. Greening strategy for Lambton Shores-native tree planting program , landscaping 

and naturalizing parks and open spaces 

5. Esli Dodge Amphitheatre enhancements , particularly a covered stage and in 

partnership with St Clair Conservation and Forest Community groups 

6. Minor modular skateboard park ie: modular components , rails, fun boxes, small 

ramps @ Rotary Square in summer and moved indoors in winter when existing 

facility is not being used (old arena) 

7. Hard surface outdoor basketball court 

8. BMX/Mountain Bike Park 

9. Old arena feasibility study 

As Council may be aware, projects like BMX/bike facilities and skateboard parks are 

typically hot topics of discussion in the community. The project as proposed represents 

a $100,000 investment in the community that should be a long-term solution for the 

identified need. The information above presents mixed results when attempting to 

determine the level of public support for this project. 

During the preparation of this report staff met with Councillor Underwood at the 

proposed site of the park, and collected additional feedback from Councillor Illman. 

Also, during the preparation of this report staff received a letter by registered mail from 

the owner of the two properties that bound the proposed site. This letter expresses 

opposition to the proposed site, and makes numerous requests of Council (please see 

attached). 

As a result of the mixed public response, staff recommends that a public open house or 

meeting be scheduled in the near future for the two ward representatives, Council, and 

staff to gather feedback from the public one last time prior to implementing this project. 

Staff feels this is necessary from a due diligence perspective to ensure that the 

investment Lambton Shores makes in the proposed facility represents a long-term 

solution. 


Brent Kittmer 


272

Schedule A 

Proposed Site Layout 

273

Schedule B 

Forest Open House Meeting 

July 25, 2012 

Shores Recreation Centre 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Illman welcomed approximately 60 people 

Councillor Illman: Introduction of Council and staff 

Councillor Illman: Power Point – Background information on Community Improvement 

Plan (2008) and the Recreation and Leisure Services Master Plan (2011) 

Councillor Underwood: PowerPoint – Proposed 3 Phase Plan 

Question and Answer Period: 

BMX Park 

o Gord Minielly: 

• There will be a 54 unit County seniors apartment building going up at the 

vacant lot behind the library (old co-op lot) 

• Doesn’t agree with the location for the BMX park due to seniors, would 

suggest land at the Shores instead 

• Complex is still waiting for provincial funding 

Councillor Underwood: Kids will still be respectful of seniors and 

building is not registered yet 

o Marilyn Smith (Forest Business Owner – Trin’s Fashions, Lambton Shores Trail 

Committee) 

• Finds youth to be very polite, courteous 

• Would like activities for youth kept in town 

• Need to find a balance of young and old in the community 

o Tammy St. Louis 

• Skatepark needed as kids are doing it anyway (Rotary Park) 

• Needs to be put in a larger area – no point in building if it’s not big enough 

o Patrick O’Hagan (Forest Youth) 

• Skatepark is needed more than a track 

• Dirt is only good for bikes; skatepark would be used for skates, 

skateboards, scooters, etc. 

• At this time, kids are biking out to Kettle Point to use their facilities – a 

long, dangerous ride 

o Dalton Pearson (Forest Youth) 

• Concrete skatepark needed – when kids get tired of biking they will be 

back in Rotary Park 

• Only so many would use a dirt bike park 

• Concrete skatepark can be used for bikes, skateboards and scooters 

Councillor Underwood: Certain resistance among skatepark 

because it is more permanent 

Councillor Illman: Modular skatepark components an option 

274

Schedule B 

o 

Trails 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• Modular – the kids have spent hours using their own wood to make 

jumps. They are already getting use. The kids have to transport them 

from their houses up to the park. 

Kyle Brinnacombe (Forest Youth) 

• Tillsonburg has a good park – invested $50,000. Bikes, bladers, 

skateboarders, etc. use park 

• Waterpark nearby 

Fred Devine (Broadway/King) 

• Does not believe that many people were consulted about the plans 

Councillor Illman: we try to get information out as best we can 

through newspapers, internet, etc. for public consultation. 

• Type of trail going between Broadway and King and who will be using it? 

Councillor Underwood: plan would be to identify exercise stations, 

no plan currently to pave but could look at this in the future. 

Identify the path there, beautify with trees, brush, etc. 

Marilyn Smith 

• Example of Exeter trails 

• Incorporates private lands 

• ABCA taking a group on a hike – Marilyn has posters with information 

• Trails used for jogging, hiking, wheelchair accessible 

• Experimented with different surfaces 

• Enhances real estate, connects the community 

Klaus Keunecke (LS Trails Committee) 

• Envisions down the road: 

Europe examples of trails 

Corridor of trees 

Pollinator habitats 

Alvin Stewardson (Broadway/King) 

• Drainage issues along Broadway/King Street trail – trees will plug the 

drains 

• Who will pay for cleaning the drains 

• People on Broadway St are not supposed to encroach on the ditch – two 

homeowners have and Town hasn’t done anything about it 

Councillor Illman: Drainage report would come before tree planting 

• Concern with people littering 

• Residents have sidewalks in front of their homes, do they need it in their 

backyard too? 

• Homeowners currently look after the trail property 

Councillor Underwood: area is public property 

Dan McKellar (Broadway/King) 

• See Schedule D 

Lewis McGregor (Broadway/King) 

275

Schedule B 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• See Schedule D 

Dan McKellar 

• People are already using the area as a trail 

• Are we talking about enhancing, making nicer, etc.? 

• Any thoughts about making it so property owners can have some privacy 

– i.e. fencing, shrubbery, etc. 

Councillor Underwood: plant white pine cedar, create gateway, 

etc. 

Gerald VanGrinsven 

• Put money into improving sidewalks 

• Redundant to put in trails where two sidewalks run parallel 

• Property value drop? 

• Privacy issues – does not want people to work out in his backyard 

• Hedges: town doesn’t have time to cut hedges – would be put back on 

property owners 

Councillor Underwood: the trails being discussed have been 

identified in a series of studies that took place over the last 6 

years 

• What about activities for snowmobiles in winter – treat all recreation the 

same/provide opportunities 

• Complaints about lack of promotion for public meeting 

Nicci (Krista) McCann 

• How much are Broadway/King residents pays for the “extra property” of 

the trail 

Dianne McKellar 

• Connecting trails – use sidewalks & lights for crossing at major 

intersection instead of proposed crossing 

Ian Wellington (Broadway/King) 

• Not opposed to people using trail 

• Does not want it paved 

• Something needs to be done about the garbage 

• No motorized vehicles supposed to be there, but it is happening 

• Liability issues? 

• Get businesses on board with anti-littering campaign 

Councillor Illman: It is a never ending battle trying to keep the 

community clean and beautiful 

Lewis McGregor 

• Noted issue about website not being updated (particularly Council 

Meeting Minutes) 

Councillor Illman: Minutes go up on the website once they have 

been approved by Council 

BMX Park 

276

Schedule B 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Richard Dinyer (Business Owner) 

• See also Schedule C 

• Moving BMX park further west than proposed location (i.e. over railway 

track) 

• Reasons why BMX is going where it is? 

• Any way to move it? 

• It will have a negative impact on his businesses 

• Solar panels on roof – doesn’t want them broken 

• Vandalism concerns – i.e. history of the Tourist Booth at Rotary Park 

• Suggestions for locations: Shores, Esli Dodge 

Councillor Underwood: Site is town land/property that is central to 

the Town of Forest and is the best location 


• Kids can stay on paths/sidewalks for a safe route to the proposed site 

Richard Dinyer 

• Piles of dirt put at the site before, and kids still used dangerous paths (i.e. 

in way of traffic) 

Councillor Illman: Removed the dirt due to liability 

• Short street, once of the only main connectors; 3 driveways, parking lots, 

it is a dangerous, busy street 


• If moved to another area it would be secluded – issue of safety for the 

kids. Likes public, visible location 

Richard Dinyer 

• Worries that children would get hurt 

• Natural spillway to creek, adding BMX would change landscape, will 

increase drainage issues (3 catch basins there) 

Councillor Underwood: Engineering studies done for drainage 

• BMX and business/residential areas do not mix – vandalism 

• Increased cost to taxpayers due to police costs 

• People donated to the Shores to have things built there 

Councillor Underwood: Kids won’t walk to the Shores 

Dianne McKellar 

• Other options considered for location – i.e. fairgrounds? 


• Kids will spend money downtown 

Tammy St. Louis 

• Kids are currently driving 2 – 3 hours away for BMX 

• They will go anywhere in town to use the park 

Susan O’Hagan 

• Broadway Trail – concerned with trails because of more strangers; issue 

for families with young children 

• We need to invest in our children as they are our future 

• Childhood obesity a problem 

277

Schedule B 

o 

• There will always be issues with elderly and children conflicting 

• Son gets yelled at for being on streets and pathways 

• Need something to keep kids busy and out of trouble 

Councillor Illman: Encourage people to get on Facebook, read 

comments and participate 

Jean Brandon (Forest Post Office) 

• Problem with skateboarders/bikes 

• When staff go out and ask kids to leave, they are good/respectful 

• Kids have hit vehicles in the parking lot 

• Worried about child safety 

• Kids need a place to play – keep them uptown 

• Can’t generalize that kids are bad 

• Ensure enough garbage containers available 

Public Pool 

o 

o 

Fran Wilson 

• Consideration to public pool 

• Verhoeven funding? 

Councillor Underwood: Feasibility of pools – run about $400,000 

deficit each year, and that’s with 70,000 people coming through. 

Summers are slowest time. 

Councillor Illman: when they were looking at Shores they 

discovered the operating/additional costs for pools are huge 

o Lily Verhoeven money: Councillor Illman was on the 

committee to raise money for the public pool. They got to 

a point where they knew they couldn’t raise enough 

money. Committee met, made a decision to install tennis 

courts. Leftover money went to the library. 

Shawn Hartle 

• How do other municipalities afford pools (i.e. Petrolia?) 

Splash Pad 

o 

o 

o 

Lewis McGregor 

• Annual operating costs? 

Brent Kittmer: $4,000.00 annually in Grand Bend, approximately 

$100,000 for capital 

o Water service already exists at Rotary 

Ken Parsons 

• Make splash pad first priority 

• In summer kids don’t always have access to lake/pools 

• Good for kids infant – teens 

Misty Garside 

• If the operating cost is minimal then why not have a splash pad in Forest 

278

Schedule B 

o 

o 

o 

Gerald VanGrinsven 

• Difference between a splash pad and a spray pad 

Brent Kittmer: Spray pad: no standing water, less legislation, less 

standards and testing 

o Splash Pad has standing water 

o Grand Bend spray pad – water is designed to be 

reclaimed; it is drained into a cistern, re-used to water 

plants 

o To re-use water (even for plants) there has to be a system 

of chlorination and have to guarantee water is e-coli free 

o For a small minor spray pad it is more cost effective to let 

the water drain (not be re-used) 


• Has Whyte Park been considered for the splash park? 

Councillor Underwood: we are planting trees and have tennis 

courts there already 

Klaus Keunecke 

• Concept of downtown, splash pad and trails, is good 

• Good sense to follow the plan – make downtown the focal point of Forest 

BMX Park 

o 

Dalton Pearson 

• Difference in operating costs for BMX vs. Skateboard Park? 

Brent Kittmer: we are aware that the costs for the BMX would be 

higher i.e. Town of Warwick has had to water their park 3 times 

daily during the heat wave 

General Comment 

o 

Glen VanValkenburg 

• Great concept – not perfect, but drawing everything downtown is ideal 

• As property owner/resident: Shores Recreation Centre was a huge 

argument at one time and is now one of our biggest assets. 

• We need to provide people with something to come back to (bring 

families back to Forest to settle here) 

• Good to keep plans like the CIP and Rec Master Plan in the forefront 

279

280

281

282

283

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

Schedule E 

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

This page is the creative property of Canadian Ramp Company. It cannot be copied or redistributed. 

311

460 Brant Street 

Unit 309 

Burlington, Ontario 

L7R 4B6 

Central and Eastern: (905) 777-1SK8 

Western: (604) 800-1667 

Toll Free: (800) 591-2417 

Fax: (888) 863-2858 

sales@canadianrampcompany.ca 

DRAWN BY 

Todd Petillo 

DATE 8 June ‘12 

REP. AGENCY 

Canadian Ramp Company 

REP. NAME 

Carlo Citrigno 

REP. PHONE 

(800) 591-2417 

CUSTOMER 

APPROVAL 

DATE 

PARK ENCLOSED? No 

PRO SERIES - 

X SERIES - 

STEALTH SERIES - 

SOLO SERIES 

 

PROJECT NAME 

Hampton Skate Park 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW DESIGN VIDEOS 

DESIGN NO. 2816 

This page is the creative property of Canadian Ramp 312 Company. It cannot be copied or redistributed.

460 Brant Street, Unit 309 

Burlington, Ontario 

L7R 4B6 

Toll-free: 800-591-2417 

Central and Eastern: 905-777-1SK8 

Western: 604-800-1667 

Fax: 888-863-2858 

sales@canadianrampcompany.ca 

Options and upgrades: 

Design # Ready to Ship FOB 

2816 30-60 Days Hampton, ON 

Item Obstacle Height Width Length 

1 Extra Deck 4.0' 4.0' 8.0' 

2 Quarter Pipe (ND) 4.0' 8.0' 7.0' 

3 Grind Rail, Kinked (Square) 9"-16" 3" 20.0' 

4 Grindbox 1.0' 4.0' 8.0' 

5 Extra Deck 2.0' 6.0' 8.0' 

6 Bank Ramp (Flat) 2.0' 8.0' 6.0' 

7 Wave 2.0' 4.0’ 16.5' 

8 Grind Rail (Round) 1.0' 2" 8.0' 

9 Skate Bench 1.5' 1.0' 6.0' 

10 Bank Ramp (Flat) 2.0' 4.0' 6.0' 

11 Grind Rail, Kinked (Round) 1.5' 2" 12.0' 

12 Stairs 1.5' 4.0' 2.5' 

13 Bank Ramp (ND) 4.0' 8.0' 9.0' 

14 Extra Deck 4.0' 4.0' 8.0' 

Subtotal $45,276.29 

Precast Discount -$8,152.19 

TOTAL $37,124.10 

Installation $4,873.05 

GRAND TOTAL $41,997.15 

 

 

 

 

Freight included. HST extra. 

Add 10% to enclose framework. 

Add 10% if equipment is installed in ground (Note: Footings for equipment must be poured before installation and 

pad must be poured after equipment is installed). 

If your project is subject to prevailing wage or bonding requirements, please call for revised quote. 

WE LOOK FORWARD TO BUILDING YOU A GREAT 

SKATE PARK! 

This page is the creative property of Canadian Ramp 313 Company. It cannot be copied or redistributed.


TR Report No. 52-2012 Tuesday, August 21, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Janet Ferguson, Treasurer 

2011 Development Charges Statement 


That Council approves the 2011 Development Charges 

Statement for submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 

and Housing as per the Development Charges Act. 

REPORT 

Now that the Financial Statements for 2011 have been approved by Council, there is 

one further item required to be reported on. The Development Charges Act requires 

that a statement of charges and distribution of funds be prepared and submitted within 

60 days of Council approving the annual financial statements. 

Attached to this report is the Development Charges Statement for 2011. As you can 

see we received $224,672.74 in fees and allocated $125,677.83 to the wastewater 

department. This statement does incorporate any development charge funds from the 

municipalities prior to amalgamation. 

Upon Council’s acceptance of this report, the statements will be filed with the Ministry of 

Municipal Affairs and housing. 


Janet Ferguson, 

Treasurer 

314


Development Charge Statement 

as per Sec. 43 of the Development Carges Act, 1997 

Period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 

Year End Interest Contributions Rebate Distribution Year End 

2010 Redistribution Earned 2011 

Water $ 209,375.05 

$ 2,796.39 $ 37,903.69 

$ 250,075.13 

Waste Water $ 445,670.93 

$ 5,656.61 $ 101,841.33 $ 1,583.89 $ 125,677.83 $ 425,907.15 

Public Works Facilities $ 8,776.30 

$ 110.07 

$ 8,886.37 

Public Works Vehicles $ 1,574.76 

$ 19.75 

$ 1,594.51 

Roads & Related $ 163,170.44 

$ 2,158.65 $ 42,546.43 

$ 207,875.52 

Recreation $ 91.56 -$ 91.56 

$ - 

Outdoor Recreation Services $ 64,963.14 $ 91.56 $ 800.59 $ 15,779.38 

$ 81,634.67 

Indoor Recreation Services $ 72,963.40 

$ 1,123.34 $ 22,140.70 

$ 96,227.44 

Parking $ 18,146.05 

$ 224.98 $ 2,671.21 

$ 21,042.24 

Administration / Consulting $ - 

$ 81.04 $ 1,597.23 

$ 1,678.27 

Fire -$ 10,913.20 

-$ 10,913.20 

Fire Protection Services $ 837.17 

$ 9.78 $ 192.77 

$ 1,039.72 

Balance $ 974,655.60 $ - $ 12,981.20 $ 224,672.74 $ 1,583.89 $ 125,677.83 $ 1,085,047.82 

December 31, 2011 Page 1 of 2 

315


Development Charge Statement 

Period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 

Development Charge Related Capital Projects 

Capital Project DC Reserve Other Gas Tax Operating Grant Other Loan Total 

Fund Draw R / RF Draw 

Wastewater $ 125,677.83 

$ 125,677.83 

(applied to loan from general 

revenues for debt repayment) 

Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 

December 31, 2011 Page 2 of 2 

316


TR Report No. 53-2012 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Water / Wastewater Rate Study and Development Charges Study 


That Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. be contracted 

to provide a Water / Wastewater Rate Study and 

Development Charges Study as outlined in Treasurers report 

TR#53-2012. 

REPORT 

At the July 9 th Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a Request for Proposal for 

the Water / Wastewater Rate Study and the Development Charges Study. A request for 

proposals was prepared and advertised and subsequently closed on August 16 th . There 

were three submissions and the results are as follows: 

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd $35,700.00 

3 rd Generation Engineering Inc. $70,401.00 

Hemson Consulting Ltd $50,555.00 

As part of the request for proposal a scoring scheme was included to evaluate the 

proposals. The review was completed by two separate staff members and the results 

were very similar in numbers and had consistent outcomes. The following represents 

how the proposals ranked: 

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 

Hemson Consulting Ltd. 

3 rd Generation Engineering Inc. 

All proposals submitted followed the scope of work requested. If council requests 

additional items, there will be additional costs and all proposals provided the hourly rate 

for additional work. 

As you are aware Watson & Associates have done work for the Municipality in the past 

and we have been very happy with them. Staff is confident that they will meet the 

deadlines and comply with the legislative requirements. It is staff’s recommendation 

that Watson & Associates be awarded the project and that work begins immediately so 

the schedule can be adhered to and deadlines met. 



Treasurer 317



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



A By-law to Establish a Fee 


That By-law 100 of 2012, implementing a fee for applications 

for Telecommunication Facilities as outlined in CL Report No. 

95-2012 be approved. 

REPORT 

At the Council meeting held the 21 st of March, 2012, Policy # 61 “Establishing a Protocol 

for Establishing Telecommunication Facilities” was approved (Copy attached). At that 

time, a fee was not established for the application process. 

With the application, the onus is on the applicant to provide information on how the 

application meets or complies with Policy # 61. 

The municipality will be required to ensure the applicant complies with the policy 

requirements and will need to provide the contact information for all persons within 500 

metres of the proposed site. In order to cover the time expended by the Planner to 

review the application and ensure policy compliance, and the staff time and costs for 

preparing and providing the contact information, it is recommended that a fee of 

$1,000.00 be established. This fee would be applied to any pending applications. 

The by-law to implement the amended fees has been prepared, and is included for 

Council’s review and consideration. 



Clerk 

318


Policy # 61 

Effective Date: 2012, March 21 

PROTOCOL FOR ESTABLISHING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 

PURPOSE / DEFINITION: 

The purpose of this Policy is to establish criteria for Municipal response on proposals to 

locate telecommunication facilities in the Municipality of Lambton Shores that require 

comments from the Municipality in accord to Industry Canada Client Procedures 

Circular CPC-2-0-03. This Policy is also to provide criteria for location of these 

telecommunication facilities and the public consultation relating to these 

telecommunication facilities. 

APPLICATION: 

This Policy applies to telecommunication facilities under Industry Canada jurisdiction 

such as: 







POLICY STATEMENT: 

Purpose & Scope 

Submission of Application: 

An Application shall be submitted to the Municipality for any tower / antenna / 

telecommunication facility meeting the criteria for the height listed in this Policy. The 

Applicant is required to complete an Application Form and submit required drawings, 

elevations and reports as listed. 

Application Fee: 

The payment of an Application fee shall be made in accordance to the current 

Municipality of Lambton Shores Fees and Charges By-law. 

319

Location Criteria: 

The Municipality and the Applicant will review the opportunities for the use of existing 

telecommunication facilities in the Municipality prior to considering the establishment of 

new tower locations. 

Tower / antenna / telecommunication facility meeting the criteria for height shall be 

discouraged from locating in the following areas: 

1. In any area zoned Residential in accord to the Municipality’s current Zoning Bylaw; 

2. Within 300 metres of any area zoned Residential in accord to the Municipality’s 

current Zoning By-law; 

3. Within 300 metres of any residential dwelling; 

4. Lands identified as being Wetlands, Woodlands or other environmental 

constraints; 

5. Lands where tree cutting is required for site improvements, access routes or 

tower location; 

6. Lands requiring the approval of the local Conservation Authority; 

7. Lands where significant site alteration is required. 

The Municipality and the Applicant will review the type and design of the proposed 

telecommunication facility to determine the type and design of the facilities that so most 

in keeping with the visual appearance of the proposal location and surrounding area. 

Public Consultation Requirements: 

Public consultation is required for any tower / antenna / telecommunication facility 

meeting the criteria for height listed in this Policy. There is a minimum circulation 

distance requirement of 500 metres. This distance maybe increased at the 

determination of Municipal staff if the Application is located in an agricultural or rural 

area of the Municipality. 

This public consultation shall occur in the following manner: 

A. Notice of Application 

1. Written Notice of Application to all persons listed in the current assessment 

rolls within 500 metres of the entire property subject to the Application; 

320

2. Written Notice of Application to government agencies that are determined to 

have a planning related interest; 



4. Written Notice of Application to any adjoining Municipalities within 1 kilometre 

of the subject lands; 



6. A sign posted on the property providing Notice of Application in the manner 

determined by the Municipality; 

7. Notice of Application to be advertised in the local newspapers; 

8. All public documentation related to the application to be available for public 

viewing at the Customer Service Department of the Municipality. 

B. Conducting Public Information Session 

The Municipality will conduct a Public Information Session to allow the Applicant 

provide to the public the information on the application. Notice of this Public 

Information Session shall be provided at least 20 calendar days prior to the 

scheduled day. Notice of the Public Information Session shall be provided in the 

following manner: 

1. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to all persons listed in the 

current assessment rolls within 500 metres of the entire property subject to 

the Application; 

2. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to government agencies that 

are determined to have a planning related interest; 

3. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to all persons who have 

requested in writing to be advised of any applications; 

4. Written Notice of Public Information Sessions to any adjoining Municipalities 

within 1 kilometre of the subject lands; 

5. A sign posted on the property providing Notice of Public Information Session 

in the manner determined by the Municipality; 

6. Notice of Public Information Sessions to be advertised in the local 

newspapers. 

321

Municipal Response: 

Following the Public Consultation process, if staff deems necessary, a Report will be 

prepared for consideration of Municipal Council and the Applicant will be advised of the 

Municipality’s comments and recommendations on the application and forwarded to the 

applicable Approval Authority. The response time from the date of the receipt of a 

complete application will be 120 days. 

322

Application No. ____________________ 

TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES APPLICATION 

THIS PORTION TO BE COMOPLETED AND SUBMITTED BY APPLICATION. (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) and 

submit with fee to: 

LOCATION OF SUBJECT LANDS 


7883 Amtelecom Parkway 

Forest, Ontario N0N 1J0 

Street Address: ______________________________________________________________ 

Legal Description: ____________________________________________________________ 

REGISTERED OWNER OF PORPOSED SITE: 

Name: ________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ______________________________________________________________ 

Province: ____________________________ 

Phone: ______________________________ 

Postal Code: _____________________ 

Fax: ____________________________ 

INQUIRES REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO (CARRIER): 

Company Name: ________________________________________________________________ 

Contact: ______________________________________________________________ 

Address: ______________________________________________________________ 

Province: ____________________________ 

Phone: ______________________________ 

Postal Code: _____________________ 

Fax: ____________________________ 

Email: ________________________________________________________________ 

323

PROPOSED TELECOMUNICATION FACILITY - TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 

Type of Tower: _________________________________________________________ 

Distance from Residential Zone: ____________________________________________ 

Are any of the following to be provided? 

An equipment building greater than 10 square metres in area? □ Yes □ No 

An equipment room located within an existing building? □ Yes □ No 

Towers that are to be mounted or attached to an existing building? □ Yes □ No 

Type of Proposed Installation: ________________________________________ 

Height of Proposed Installation: _______________________________________ 

CHECKLSIT FOR COMPLETE SUBMISSION 

Written documentation from the proponent (carrier) outlining the steps taken by the proponent 

to investigate all non-tower and co-location options and/or why a tower option is the preferred 

alternative. A pre-consultation meeting with Lambton Shores planning staff is strongly 

encouraged in conjunction with this exercise to discuss and rationalize the proposed site. 

A full site plan drawn to a metric scale showing the subject property (or leased area if the property 

is not owned by the proponent), site grading, the location of existing property lines, existing or 

proposed new buildings, fences, buffering, existing and proposed landscaping, access, parking and 

the type and height of the proposed tower structure. Any significant vegetation on a particular 

site should be inventoried on the plan (2 copies required). 

Two sets of scaled engineered drawings (stamped) to identify the tower design. In case of roof 

mounted, a structural engineer’s report may also be required to address the structural effect5s on 

the existing building. 

A statement from the proponent to indicate the need for the proposed tower height and the 

location of the proposed tower. 

A map showing the horizontal distance between the tower installation and the nearest residential 

zone and/or residential area. 

A cheque in the amount of $ 1,000.00 payable to the Municipality of Lambton Shores. Please 

refer to the Municipality of Lambton Shores Fees By-law. 

324


BY-LAW 100 OF 2012 

Being a By-law to amend fees for Municipal Services 

________________________________________________________________ 

WHEREAS: 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores provides certain 

services on a “user pay” basis; 

AND WHEREAS: 

The Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores has 

deemed it appropriate to set a fair and equitable price for the 

provision of these services provided on behalf of businesses 

and residents in the Municipality, and to ensure that the 

services provided meet the cost recovery goal, and are fair 

and equitable 

THEREFORE: 

The Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts: 

1. That the fees for Municipal Services, listed in the attached 

Schedules “A” to this by-law are hereby approved. 

2. This by-law comes into force on the final passing thereof. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 

Read a THIRD time and passed this 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 

_____________________________ 


_____________________________ 


325

Schedule “A” to By-Law 100 of 2012 

Application – Telecommunication Facility $ 1,000.00 

326


CL Report No. 96-2012 Monday, August 27, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Cell Tower Replacement – 10246 Lakeview Ave, Southcott Pines 


For information only. 

REPORT 

On May 14, 2012, the agent for Bell Canada, Proliferate Consulting Group, applied to 

Industry Canada for “guidance” to determine if the upgrade of the antennas on the 

existing tower at 10246 Lakeview Ave qualified for a “repair or replacement” exemption 

under Industry Canada’s CPC-2-0-03 document, and if the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores’ telecommunication tower policy was applicable. 

On August 7, 2012, Industry Canada rendered a decision that stated in part: 

As it is proposed, the replacement of the existing 45 metre guyed tower 

with a 56 metre self-support tower meets the exclusion criteria of our CPC 

document and as such Bell Mobility is not required to undertake LUA and 

public consultation The construction of the new replacement tower and 

subsequent removal of the existing guyed tower, may now begin. 

Also included in the letter was a notation that the technical parameters of the proposed 

installation were reviewed and were shown to be in full compliance with the limits 

specified in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Citizens in the area have also been 

provided responses directly from Bell, which included similar information, and a copy 

one of the responses is attached. 

Following up on Council’s direction to provide information to the residents on the tower, 

Mayor Weber recently issued a press release advising of the above noted decision, and 

included the fact that Industry Canada has advised a municipal building permit is not 

required for any structure authorized to be built by the Federal government, as the 

National Building Code and its regulations would be the applicable legislation. (Copy 

attached). 

The “Press Release” also advised that the Municipality of Lambton Shores had 

contacted the Prime Minister and every Federal Member of Parliament, with among 

other requests, that the Federal Government adopt regulatory standards that reflect 

327

current international standards for Electromagnetic Radiation long term exposure and 

proximity to cellular towers. A response was also received from the Federal Minister of 

Health, Leona Aglukkaq, providing general information on safety guidelines and RF 

exposure limits. (copy attached) 

The resolution was also sent to all municipalities in Ontario, and to date, there have 

been responses from 13 municipalities, 8 of which supported the recommendation and 

sent correspondence to the Federal Government. 

All the above is provided for information. 



Clerk 

328

329

330

In response to questions from residents with respect to Cell Tower installations, 

Lambton Shores’ Mayor Bill Weber has advised that “Radio-communication and 

associated antennas and antenna structures (e.g. towers) fall under the jurisdiction of 

the federal government, more specifically, Industry Canada. As such, federal legislation 

dictates the requirements for the structures not the municipality. Industry Canada has 

advised that Municipal building permits are not required for these structures as the 

National Building Code would be applicable.” 

He reported that Bell Canada recently sought guidance from Industry Canada with 

respect to the proposed replacement antenna installation at 10246 Lakeview Ave. 

(Southcott Pines area) in Grand Bend, and requested confirmation that the proposed 

Bell Canada tower replacement proposal both satisfied the exemption criteria provided 

for under Section 6 of Industry Canada’s document CPC-2-0-03, and also, was 

excluded from the public consultation requirement in the Lambton Shores’ 

telecommunication tower protocol. The response from Industry Canada, rendered on 

August 7, 2012 was that the tower as proposed did meet the exclusion criteria, and 

therefore public consultation was not required. 

While disappointed with the response, Mayor Bill Weber noted that it was a Federal 

decision, on an issue which the municipality has no jurisdiction. He further noted that 

the municipality had contacted the Prime Minister and every Federal Member of 

Parliament, asking among other requests, that the Federal Government adopt 

regulatory standards that reflect current international standards for Electromagnetic 

Radiation long term exposure and proximity to cellular towers. Residents can contact 

their Member of Parliament if they have any issues or concerns. 

331

332

333

334

335

336



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Public Meeting – Declaring Municipal Lands Surplus – Beach O’Pines 

Subdivision 


For consideration during the public meeting. 

REPORT 

The Municipality has been working with the Beach O’Pines and Huron Woods Associations 

for a number of years to resolve several property and access issues. At the August 7 th 

meeting, Council considered C.A.O. Report No. 58-2012, which advised that the parties 

had reached an agreement that was satisfactory to the parties. 

One of the municipal obligations in the agreement was to transfer the public portions of the 

roads within Beach O’Pines, and the “private easements” lands owned by the Municipality 

to the Beach O’Pines Association. In order to achieve this, lands must be declared “surplus 

to the municipal needs” and notice of the intention to dispose of the lands is to be provided 

to the public. 

The following notice was provided in the “Living in Lambton Shores” section of the local 

papers for the past 3 weeks: 

Be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores will consider passing a 

by-law declaring the “Huron Place” road allowance and adjoining public walkways, more particularly 

described below, to be “Surplus to the Needs of the Municipality” and will consider “Stopping up and Closing” 

the road allowance and transferring the lands to the Beach O’Pines Association, under certain conditions: 

The lands to be declared surplus include: “Huron Place” Road Allowance and those parts of the “Huron Drive” 

road allowance, as shown on Registered Plans 666, 675 and 680, and adjoining public walkways Block 7 on 

Registered Plan 666 and Block 6 on Registered Plan 675, and Part 1 on 25R9668 and Part 14 on 25R 3353, 

except Part 1 on 25R9394 

Attached for Council’s consideration is By-law 99 of 2012, which will declare the lands 

surplus, and “Stop up and close” the highway portions of the lands. 

Municipal solicitor Barry Scott will be in attendance at the Council meeting to answer any 

questions from Council or the public. 



Clerk 

337


BY NUMBER 99 OF 2012 

Being a By-Law to stop up and close certain highways; to declare certain lands as 

surplus to the needs of the Corporation; and to approve the sale and transfer of such 

lands to an abutting owner on terms; 

WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

The Corporation is the owner of Part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 

Lake Road West, in the Geographic Township of Bosanquet, being 

all of PINs 43465-0169 and 43465-0171, which lands are subject to 

certain privately held rights of easement (the “Private Easement 

Lands”); 

The Corporation is the owner of Huron Place on Registered Plans 

666, 675 and 680, Block 7 on Registered Plan 666 and Block 6 on 

Registered Plan 675, all in the Geographic Township of Bosanquet, 

being all of PINs 43465-0159, 43465-0160, 43465-0161, 43467- 

0113 and 43467-0250 (the “Highway Lands”); which Highway 

Lands are a public street and laneways dedicated on the aforesaid 

Plans; which public street and laneways have not been assumed 

by the Corporation; and which public street and laneways are not 

connected to, or accessible from, any public highway; 

The said public street and laneways are accessed by lot owners 

within Registered Plans 686, 687, 708, 711 and 780, all in the 

Geographic Township of Bosanquet, through privately held rights of 

easement for the purpose of pedestrian access to the beach lying 

along the shore of Lake Huron; 

The said public street and laneways are accessed by the owners of 

certain lots through the private roads owned by the Beach O’Pines 

Association for the purpose of accessing those lots and for the 

purpose of pedestrian access to the beach lying along the shore of 

Lake Huron; 

It is deemed expedient to stop up and close permanently the said 

public street and laneways being Huron Place within Registered 

Plan 666, 675 and 680, Block 7 on Registered Plan 666 and Block 

6 on Registered Plan 675; 

The Private Easement Lands and the Highway Lands are no longer 

required by the Corporation and have been determined by the 

Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores to 

be surplus to the needs of the Corporation; 

338

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

AND WHEREAS: 

It is deemed expedient and in the best interests of the Corporation 

to sell and transfer the Private Easement Lands and the Highway 

Lands to the Beach O’Pines Association, an owner of lands 

abutting both the Private Easement Lands and the Highway Lands 

, in accordance with the terms set out in this By-Law; 

The requirements of the Municipal Act with respect to the closing of 

highways have been adhered to; 

Notice of the proposed passing of this By-Law has been published 

in the Forest Standard Newspaper and the Lakeshore Advance 

Newspaper, being newspapers having general circulation in the 

area; 

The Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores has provided an opportunity for the public to comment on 

the proposed closures and on this By-Law; 

It is in the interests of the Corporation to acquire certain easements 

over other lands owned by the Beach O’Pines Association; 

NOW THEREFORE: The Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts 

as follows: 

1. The Private Easement Lands and the Highway Lands are deemed to be surplus 

to the needs of the Corporation. 

2. All of Huron Place as shown on Registered Plans 666, 675 and 680, Block 7 on 

Registered Plan 666 and Block 6 on Registered Plan 675, all in the Geographic 

Township of Bosanquet, are hereby closed and stopped up. 

3. The Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

are hereby authorized to sign or execute such transfers or other documents as 

may be necessary to convey an easement over the Highway Lands for all nature 

of ingress and egress and for pedestrian access to the beach lying along the 

shore of Lake Huron for the benefit of all lots currently fronting on such lands or 

obtaining access over such lands. 

4. In entering into the transfer to the Beach O’Pines Association of the Highway 

Lands, as subsequently authorized below, the Corporation shall ensure that a 

right of pedestrian access to the beach lying along the shore of Lake Huron is 

preserved to the benefit of the owners of lots within Registered Plans 686, 687, 

708, 711 and 780, in the Geographic Township of Bosanquet. Such right of 

easement may be ensured by one or a combination of the reservation of an 

339

easement in favour of the Municipality; a grant of easement directly to the 

owners of the said lots; or by the grant of a right of easement to the Huron 

Woods Association on behalf of such lot owners. The Mayor and Clerk of the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized to sign 

or execute such transfers or other documents as may be necessary to ensure 

the preservation of such easement rights. 



may be necessary to convey the Private Easement Lands to the Beach O’Pines 

Association in accordance with the terms of this By-Law. 



may be necessary to convey the Highway Lands to the Beach O’Pines 

Association in accordance with the terms of this By-Law. 

7. The Corporation shall receive, in consideration for the conveyances set out 

above, the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

In respect of the conveyance of the Private Easement Lands, the sum of 

Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($5,300.00); 

One-half of the legal fees and disbursements incurred by the Corporation 

in respect to this matter, to a maximum of Ten Thousand Dollars 

($10,000.00); 

A municipal services easement in favour of the Corporation on terms 

satisfactory to the Corporation over the private roads owned by the Beach 

O’Pines Association, including the Highway Lands and including the 

private roads known as Huron Place, Huron Drive, Red Pine Road. 

DuCharme Lane and Beach O’Pines Road. The Mayor and Clerk of the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized 

to sign or execute such transfers or other documents as may be 

necessary to convey such easement. 

An emergency access easement in favour of the Corporation on terms 

satisfactory to the Corporation over the private roads owned by the Beach 

O’Pines Association, including the Highway Lands and including the 

private roads known as Huron Place, Huron Drive, Red Pine Road, 

DuCharme Lane and Beach O’Pines Road. The Mayor and Clerk of the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized 

to sign or execute such transfers or other documents as may be 

necessary to convey such easement. 

An easement in favour of the Corporation on terms satisfactory to the 

340

Corporation providing for public access for pedestrians and non-motorized 

vehicles to the east of the guardrails located on the causeway serving the 

Beach O’Pines Road where the causeway lies across the thirty-three foot 

road allowance (known as the “tow path”) on the east side of the Old 

Ausable River. The Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized to sign or execute 

such transfers or other documents as may be necessary to convey such 

easement. 

READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINAL TIME THIS 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. 

_____________________________________ 

MAYOR –Bill Weber 

_____________________________________ 

CLERK - Carol McKenzie 

341



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Agreement between Michael Gerardus VanEngelen and the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores – 8770 Gordon Road 


That the request from Michael Van Engelen to retain an 

existing dwelling on a property while constructing a new 

dwelling at 8770 Gordon Road as outlined in CL Report No. 

99-2012 be approved, 

And By-law 105 of 2012 authorizing the execution of an 

Agreement between Michael VanEngelen and the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores be 

approved. 

REPORT 

Michael Gerardus VanEngelen is requesting permission to allow the existing single 

family dwelling to remain on the above noted lands while their new home is under 

construction. They indicate that the dwelling will be occupied by an employee during 

this time for security reasons. 

This request is similar to others that this Council and previous Councils have considered 

and approved over the years. 

The agreement has been prepared by staff and is presented for Council approval. The 

agreement allows the existing dwelling to remain on the lands and be occupied until 

April 30, 2013. A by-law authorizing the Municipality to execute the agreement is 

attached for Councils’ consideration. 



Clerk 

Report prepared by Jackie Mason 

342


BY-LAW 105 OF 2012 

Being a By-law to Authorize an Agreement 

with Michael Gerardus VanEngelen 

WHEREAS it is deemed desirable that The Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores enter into an agreement with Michael Gerardus VanEngelen 

affecting lands known municipally as 8770 Gordon Road, in the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores in the County of Lambton. 

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores enacts as follows: 

1. The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores is authorized to enter 

into an Agreement with Michael Gerardus VanEngelen, in the form of the 

Agreement a copy of which is annexed to this By-law. 

2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute such agreement and to affix to 

it the Corporate Seal of The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores. 

3. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th day of September, 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. 

________________________ 


________________________ 


343

THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 2012 

BETWEEN: 

MICHAEL GERARDUS VANENGELEN 

(hereinafter called the “Owner”) 

- and – 

OF THE FIRST PART 


(hereinafter called the “Municipality”) 

OF THE SECOND PART 

WHEREAS the Owner has requested permission to allow the existing single family 

dwelling to remain on the property while a new dwelling is being constructed on the lands 

located at 8770 Gordon Road and described as Concession 3, W Pt. Lot 17 and W Pt. 

Lot 18 (Bosanquet), Municipality of Lambton Shores. 

AND WHEREAS the subject lands are zoned Agricultural - 1 (A1) in Zoning By-law 1 of 

2003 and two dwellings on one parcel of land is not permitted in the Agricultural - 1 (A1) 

Zone and would require special permission from Council; 

AND WHEREAS the Council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores has agreed to the 

request to allow the existing single family dwelling to remain on the property and be 

occupied during the construction of a new single family dwelling, on the condition that an 

agreement outlining the terms and conditions of the approval is executed with the Owner 

of the lands; 

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for and in consideration of 

the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 

The Municipality hereby agrees that the existing single family dwelling may remain on the 

property and be occupied as a residence on a temporary basis, while a new dwelling is 

being constructed on the lands subject to the following conditions: 

1. The Owner agree that occupancy of the original single family dwelling will cease 

and the dwelling be demolished no later than April 30, 2013; 

2. That should the occupancy of the original single family dwelling not cease and the 

dwelling not be demolished by April 30, 2013, the Municipality shall pursue legal 

action against the Owners the cost of which shall be borne by the Owner and their 

successors in title. Where such legal costs are not paid to the Municipality, the 

Municipality may add such default to the tax roll for the property. The Owners 

344

covenant and agree to always indemnify the Municipality and keep it indemnified 

against actions, suits, claims and demands which may be brought against the 

Municipality or made upon the Municipality arising out of the Municipality, its 

servants, owner and contractors entering onto the lands in order to remove the 

recreational vehicle. 

3. The Owners acknowledge that the Municipality is entitled to enforce these 

provisions against the Owners and, subject to the Registry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 

R.20, and the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, any and all subsequent owners 

of the Lands. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 

day of September, 2012. 

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED 

in the presence of 

_________________________________ 

Michael Gerardus VanEngelen 



_________________________________ 

Bill Weber, Mayor 

_________________________________ 


345


CL Report No. 101-2012 Monday, August 27, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Requests for Municipal Resolution for Agricultural Buildings with Solar 

Installations 


That staff be directed to prepare a report on issue relating to 

solar panel installations on agricultural buildings. 

REPORT 

The municipality has recently received 2 requests for support for “rooftop solar 

installations” on farm buildings, one on Northville Road and one at the end of Allen 

Street in Thedford. (on agricultural property) 

With these “projects”, the landowner agrees to lease a portion of his property to the 

solar company, and pay the ongoing costs for the building, and in return, the solar 

company will construct the building (approximately 50’ X 225’), install a 120kW (DC) 

solar installation on the roof, and be responsible for the interconnection of the solar 

installation to the grid, upon receipt of a “FIT” contract from the Ontario Power 

Association. 

Due to the large number of pending FIT program applications, the Ontario Power 

Association initiated changes to the program, one of which was the designation of a 

“points program” for applications. Points are awarded to applications that receive a 

resolution of support from the local Municipality. According to the information, the 

resolution does not indicate support for the design and integrity of the structure, but 

support for the “construction and operation of the project”. 

Attached is the “Hay Solar Farm Building Fact Sheet” and the prescribed “Municipal 

Council Support Resolution” for Council’s review. 

As this program and its requirements are new to Lambton Shores, there hasn’t been an 

opportunity to review the requirement and identify potential issues. In order to ensure 

that the Municipal issues are addressed, it is recommended that staff prepare a report 

on any issues relating to solar installations on agricultural buildings. 



Clerk 

346

Hay Solar Farm Building Fact Sheet 

1. Overview of Hay Solar Farm Building Program. Under the Hay Solar lease, in exchange for the 

landowner agreeing to lease a small piece of his or her property and paying certain ongoing 

costs after completion of construction, Hay Solar agrees to construct the Farm Building 

described in 2 below upon receipt of a FIT Contract from the Ontario Power Authority(" OPA"). 

The term of the lease is for a minimum of 20 years, which runs coterminous with the 20 year 

term of the FIT Contract. 

2. Hay Solar Farm Building Specifications. The Farm Building shall be a post framed, pitched roof 

design structure with footings, 6 x 6 posts, wooden truss roof using a 6/ 12 pitch, and other 

materials commonly used in the construction of farm buildings. The building dimensions are 

anticipated to be 50 feet x 225 feet, creating 1,040 square meters of internal storage. The 

building will have interior height clearance of 17 feet at the north end and 8 feet at the south 

end. Both the north and south sides of building will have steel siding. The east and west side of 

the building will have 16 feet of steel siding, commencing on the south end of each side and 

proceeding north. The north and south sides of the pitched roof will be covered with metal 

roofing material. On the north side of the roof, periodic translucent panels will be inserted to 

allow for passage of natural light into the building. On the south side of the roof, Hay Solar will 

install a 120 kW( DC) solar installation using Tier 1 quality solar modules. The Farm Building is 

being designed to have a useful life of 40 years. A picture of the Farm Building is attached for 

your review. 

3. Location of Farm Building. Under the lease, the landowner makes the Farm Building location 

decision. Most landowners desire that the Farm Building be located in close proximity to other 

existing structures within the landowner' s farm yard on land that is not currently being used for 

crop production. 

4. Total Cost of Farm Building Project. The total cost of the Hay Solar Farm Building project is 

approximately$ 480,000. Of this amount, approximately$ 90,000 relates to the cost of the Farm 

Building, with the remainder( approximately$ 390,000) associated with the solar installation. 

S. Construction Responsibiiitv., Hay Solar assumes all responsibility for the construction of the 

Farm Building and interconnection ofthe solar installation including, but not limited to, (I) 

complying with all local and provincial laws, rules, regulations and ordinances,( ii) obtaining all 

permits from the local municipality and all approvals from the OPA and local distribution 

company,( iii) arranging all material deliveries from local and regional Ontario suppliers, and( iv) 

coordinating construction by local or regional contractors. 

347

6. , 

Solar Installation. Hay Solar assumes all responsibility regarding the coordination of the solar 

Installation interconnection and achievement of solar commercial operation under the FIT 

Contract. 

7. 

Construction Time Frame. The Farm Building and solar installation will be constructed over a 2 

month time period. Delivery of materials and construction labor activity will occur during normal 

business hours to mitigate any disturbance to the local community. 

B. 

Maintenance of Solar installation and Farm Building. Hay Solar assumes all responsibility 

regarding the ongoing maintenance of both the solar installation and the farm building during 

the term of the lease. Lease expressly precludes the landowner from any involvement with the 

solar installation to mitigate risk of injury to landowner. 

9. Payment of Farm Building PropertyTaxes. Under the lease, the landowner is responsible for the 

payment of the additional property taxes arising from the construction of the Farm Building. 

The annual property taxes associated with the Farm Building are estimated to be approximately 

400.00. 

10. impact of Municipal Council Support Resolution. The Council support under this FIT resolution 

is preliminary in nature. It is an indication of support for a project concept that is a 

precondition to the filing of a FIT Application under the Ontario FIT Program. Council support 

of the Hay Solar FIT Application does not mean that this Council approves the design and 

structural integrity ofthe Farm Building or the location of the building on the identified 

property. Assuming receipt of a FIT Contract from the Ontario Power Authority, Hay Solar and 

the Landowner will seek all the required municipal permits and approvals necessary to locate 

and construct the Farm Building project on the identified property. Thus, Council can be 

assured that the Farm Building project will be constructed in accordance with all municipal 

and provincial requirements. 

348

PRESCRIBED FORM: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SUPPORT RESOLUTION 

Section 6,1( c)( i)- FIT Rules, Version 2.0) 

Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed thereto in the FIT Rules. 

RESOLUTION NO.: DATE: July 2012 

WHEREAS Hay Solar Holdings ULC ( the " Applicant") proposes to construct and operate a 

rooftop solar installation on a farm building to be constructed upon receipt of a FIT Contract 

from the Ontario Power Authority ( the " Project") on the real property owned by Douglas and 

Janet Willsie, located at 9519 Northville Road, Thedford, Ontario NOM 2N0, with a legal 

description of" CON LRE PT LOTS 38 & 39 EXC RP 25R7827 PART 1" ( the " Property") in 

under the Province's FIT Program. 

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores indicate by resolution Council's support for the construction and operation of the Project 

on the Property. 

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the rules governing 

the FIT Program ( the " FIT Rules"), 

Applications whose Projects receive the formal support of Municipalities will be awarded 

priority points, which may result in the Applicant being offered a FIT Contract prior to other 

persons applying for FIT Contracts; 

NOWTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 

Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores supports the construction and operation of the 

Project on the Property. 

This resolution' s sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receive priority points under the FIT 

Program and may not be used for the purpose of any other form of municipal approval in relation 

to the Application or Project or any other purpose. 

Note: signature linesfor councilors or other representatives, as appropriate) 

12285578.7 

FIT reference number: FIT-F4ALFLQ 

Note: Must be inserted by Applicant to complete Application) 

349


BY-LAW NUMBER 106 of 2012 

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, 2012 

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, 2012 

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 th , 2012 

_________________________ 


_________________________ 


350


TR Report No. 51-2012 Wednesday, August 15, 2012 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



July Cheque Listing 


That the Municipal accounts for the month of July, 2012 in 

the amount of $1,228,685.57 be accepted as presented. 

REPORT 

Attached to this report is the July cheque listing in the amount of $1,228,685.57. This 

represents our typical monthly remittances and some of our special annual projects. All 

invoices are reviewed by a Department Head or Area Manager prior to payments being 

made. 

This listing includes the monthly purchases for items such as water, garbage and 

recycling, OMI contract, Policing, and payroll remittances. Items such as the gravel and 

dust control tender purchases are incorporated this month as an annual expense while 

seasonal items such as harbour fuel and supplies are also included. 

If you have any questions or require clarification, myself or the pertinent Department 

Head would be pleased to provide an answer for you. 



Treasurer 

351


July Cheque Register 

2012 

DATE CHQ # VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 

7/3/2012 34728 RECEIVER GENERAL Payroll remittance $644.47 

7/5/2012 34729 VOID 

7/5/2012 34730 ARKONA BLACK HAWKS Refund rental damage deposit $100.00 

7/5/2012 34731 MR. MERV BELL Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/5/2012 34732 CITY TREASURER - LONDON Purchase of water - May $40,200.09 

7/5/2012 34733 MR. AL COOMBS Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/5/2012 34734 JACQUELINE DOLAN PFCC cleaning - June $772.50 

7/5/2012 34735 FOREST CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONFlow through donations $6,035.00 

7/5/2012 34736 KELDERS TRAILER SALES Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/5/2012 34737 MR. ROB MCPHERSON Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/5/2012 34738 THE MEARIE GROUP Regular monthly remittance $676.13 

7/5/2012 34739 MINISTRY OF FINANCE Regular EHT remittance $4,838.88 

7/5/2012 34740 MUNICIPAL IT SERVICES IT,LAN,GIS, equipment $2,845.34 

7/5/2012 34741 SHIRLEY O'HALLORAN Forest compost site supervision - June $677.25 

7/5/2012 34742 OMI CANADA INC. July service agreement & May our of scope $131,456.34 

7/5/2012 34743 PINERIDGE BARBECUE CO LTD. Staff team building $1,067.35 

7/5/2012 34744 SHANNON PROUT Expense report - May/June $201.79 

7/5/2012 34745 RICHMAN GALLERY Painting $1,000.00 

7/5/2012 34746 ROSS FERGUSON MECHANICAL Sprinkler system repair - GB Opt Park $324.75 

7/5/2012 34747 VICKI SHEPPARD GB & Forest office cleaning $260.00 

7/5/2012 34748 JIM STEEPER Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/5/2012 34749 VIC STELLINGWERFF Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/5/2012 34750 GARY STRUYF Refund road cut permit deposit $2,000.00 

7/5/2012 34751 WAYNE STUBBS Wtr mtr reads - June & July read retainer $2,407.20 

7/5/2012 34752 PETER VANENGELEN Refund rental damage deposit $206.00 

7/5/2012 34753 DON WELTEN Bldg inspections & mileage $865.68 

7/5/2012 34754 JULIE MEISTER Economic development meeting remuneration $300.00 

7/12/2012 34755 ACKLANDS GRAINGER INC. Safety supplies - Cs $194.97 

7/12/2012 34756 ACTONS SERVICE CENTRE Equipment repair - CS $261.42 

7/12/2012 34757 MR. LUKE BAEHNISCH Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/12/2012 34758 BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALSEquipment rental - CS $1,636.24 

7/12/2012 34759 FATHER GERARD BEDARD Prayer service - Pioneer Cemetery dedication $100.00 

7/12/2012 34760 BEDELL'S (LONDON) FOOD SERVICEGB beach concession supplies $730.79 

7/12/2012 34761 BENKO SEWER SERVICE Video inspection - Water St. $678.00 

7/12/2012 34762 CINDY BEYEA Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34763 BLUEWATER RECYCLING ASSOC June co-collection,3rd qtr rec,bbox,g cones $130,905.11 

7/12/2012 34764 BOATEREXAM.COM Boater exams $113.00 

7/12/2012 34765 ROBERTA BRANDON Mileage May/June $318.74 

7/12/2012 34766 CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION Supplies - CS $67.78 

7/12/2012 34767 CAN AM PRECAST PRODUCTS LTD Legacy garden supplies $1,050.90 

7/12/2012 34768 CANPAR TRANSPORT L.P. Courier services - all offices $71.76 

7/12/2012 34769 BARRY R CARD Legal fees - June $4,865.22 

7/12/2012 34770 CAUGHY ENTERPRISES Landscaping supplies - CS $1,045.25 

7/12/2012 34771 CELERITY COMMUNICATIONS LTD Communications - NV office & By-Law $2,717.65 

7/12/2012 34772 CIBC Visa - all managers $4,868.36 

7/12/2012 34773 CINTAS, THE UNIFORM PEOPLE Uniforms & supplies $2,953.75 

7/12/2012 34774 COUNTRY MARKET Fuel - GB FD $241.46 

7/12/2012 34775 CRAWFORD SECURITY N. By-Law contract $4,719.62 

7/12/2012 34776 C.U.P.E. Union dues - July $1,046.14 

7/12/2012 34777 DASHWOOD LOCK AND KEY Keys - GB Harbour, bulk water $133.93 

7/12/2012 34778 BILL DAVIES Drain mtce $595.00 

Page 1 of 4 352



2012 


7/12/2012 34779 DAVE MOORE FUELS Fuel - CS & GB Harbour $46,433.19 

7/12/2012 34780 DEN-MAR BRINES LIMITED Dust fighter $44,898.97 

7/12/2012 34781 DEBORAH DON-CARLOS Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/12/2012 34782 PETE DONALD Refund damage deposit $100.00 

7/12/2012 34783 EUSI FARMS LTD Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/12/2012 34784 FASTENAL CANADA Shop supplies $413.42 

7/12/2012 34785 FOREST AUTOMOTIVE & SPORTS LTDMaterials & supplies - CS $1,383.25 

7/12/2012 34786 FOREST CURLING & SOCIAL CLUB Flow through donations $2,150.00 

7/12/2012 34787 GLOBAL INDUSTRUAL CANADA INC Cigarette disposal units $1,291.33 

7/12/2012 34788 GRAND BEND SANITATION GB beach house washroom mtce $508.50 

7/12/2012 34789 GRAND BEND AND AREA HORTICULTUSupplies - GB FD $25.00 

7/12/2012 34790 HOME HARDWARE BUILDING CENTREMaterials & supplies - CS $626.66 

7/12/2012 34791 GRAND BEND RONA Materials & supplies - CS $418.95 

7/12/2012 34792 HALFORD PLAYGROUND SOLUTIONSPlayground equipment - GB Opt Park $8,273.96 

7/12/2012 34793 GUYLAINE HARPER Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34794 SUSAN HARTMAN Lease of land - Arkona Ball Park $300.00 

7/12/2012 34795 HAYTER-WALDEN PUBLICATIONS Advertising - June $1,022.22 

7/12/2012 34796 HURON SHORES MARINE LTD Equipment repair - PF Harbour $424.75 

7/12/2012 34797 HYDRO ONE NETWORKS Gill Rd pump stn Hydro (reimbursed) $51.23 

7/12/2012 34798 IDEAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD Lighting supplies $216.25 

7/12/2012 34799 JEFF STRUYF Grass cutting - Thedford (reimbursed) $180.80 

7/12/2012 34800 JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LTD Gravel $122,207.73 

7/12/2012 34801 JOHNSON'S SANITATION SERVICES Portable toilet rentals $870.10 

7/12/2012 34802 VOID 

7/12/2012 34803 KRAFT AUTO PARTS Supplies - CS $144.41 

7/12/2012 34804 LAKE SHORE GOSPEL HALL Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/12/2012 34805 LAMBTON KENT DISTRICT SCH. BD. Security & custodial - GBCC - Apr/May $1,593.69 

7/12/2012 34806 BOB MAGEE PLUMBING Plumbing - Arkona Ball Park $450.58 

7/12/2012 34807 LARRY MARTIN GB plant watering $450.00 

7/12/2012 34808 RUBY MAXFIELD Crossing guard - indication of support $50.00 

7/12/2012 34809 MC DOWALL ASSOCIATES HUMAN RES Market Study $1,450.92 

7/12/2012 34810 BILL MCKELLAR Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34811 M.G. MOLD COMPANY Equipment service - CS $45.20 

7/12/2012 34812 MICROAGE BASICS Office supplies - GB $118.65 

7/12/2012 34813 MINISTER OF FINANCE Tile loan debenture $3,600.50 

7/12/2012 34814 MINISTER OF FINANCE Regulated remittance $370.88 

7/12/2012 34815 M. JO TUCKER Weed cutting - reimbursed $2,373.00 

7/12/2012 34816 M & L SUPPLY Supplies - GB FD $3,093.39 

7/12/2012 34817 NESTLE CANADA INC. GB beach concession supplies $238.66 

7/12/2012 34818 ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY Lagoon treatment $7,000.00 

7/12/2012 34819 OFFICE CENTRAL Office supplies - Forest & NV $1,893.90 

7/12/2012 34820 OMERS Regular monthly remittance $33,480.82 

7/12/2012 34821 ORKIN CANADA Pest control $129.95 

7/12/2012 34822 PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP (CANADA) GB beach concession supplies $1,973.32 

7/12/2012 34823 PETTY CASH/ALDA BONGERS Replenish petty cash - Forest Office $257.09 

7/12/2012 34824 PITNEY WORKS Postage - all offices $5,650.00 

7/12/2012 34825 PODOLINSKY EQUIPMENT LTD. Parts - CS $101.45 

7/12/2012 34826 POLE PRINTING INC Office supplies - CS $118.65 

7/12/2012 34827 PROUTS BUILDING CENTRE Materials & supplies - CS & Forest FD $637.43 

7/12/2012 34828 RAWLINGS AUSABLE BRIDGE INC. Parts - CS $24.41 

7/12/2012 34829 RECEIVER GENERAL Regular monthly remittance $51,993.10 




2012 


7/12/2012 34830 REMAX ADVANTAGE REALTY LTD. Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/12/2012 34831 JUAN ROJAS Reimburse for lifeguard supplies $334.68 

7/12/2012 34832 BOB RONEY GB Harbourmaster contract $1,720.00 

7/12/2012 34833 SCOTT PETRIE LLP Beach O'Pines $679.15 

7/12/2012 34834 SENTRY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICEFire equipment service-Shores, For FD, Legacy $1,152.16 

7/12/2012 34835 RANDY SHAW Training mileage - CS $48.84 

7/12/2012 34836 REVEREND GORDON SIMMONS Prayer service - Pioneer Cemetery dedication $50.00 

7/12/2012 34837 SISLER ELECTRIC INC. Electrical PFCC & PF Harbour $2,997.73 

7/12/2012 34838 MUNICIPALITY OF SOUTH HURON GB STP $824.26 

7/12/2012 34839 SOUTHWEST MARINE SERVICES GB Harbour equipment & supplies $4,967.71 

7/12/2012 34840 SPECTRUM COMMUNICATIONS LTD Pager service - Arkona FD $198.72 

7/12/2012 34841 SPEDQUIP INDUSTRIES LTD Vehicle annual safety - GB FD $967.22 

7/12/2012 34842 STEAM CANADA GB Beach Concession exhaust cleaning $480.25 

7/12/2012 34844 FRAN STONER Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34845 SUNMEDIA Advertising - June $905.74 

7/12/2012 34846 TECHNICAL STANDARDS & SAFETY AElevator licence - Shores $105.00 

7/12/2012 34847 TOWNSHIP OF NORTH HURON Training - GB FD $523.76 

7/12/2012 34848 MARTIN UNDERWOOD Meeting mileage $105.46 

7/12/2012 34849 ANDREA WEIR Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34850 WESTBURNE/RUDDY Supplies - CS $270.64 

7/12/2012 34851 CHANTELLE WIGHT Crossing guard - indication of support $733.58 

7/12/2012 34852 WOODWARD'S SERVICE CENTRE Small equipment parts - CS $663.86 

7/12/2012 34853 YMCA OF SARNIA-LAMBTON Association services - July $4,750.00 

7/12/2012 34854 GRAND BEND CABLE TV LTD Cable - GB Beach House $217.86 

7/12/2012 34855 MEDWAY HOMES INC Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/12/2012 34856 TAMMY ST. LOUIS Crossing guard - indication of support $100.00 

7/12/2012 34857 MUNICIPAL IT SERVICES IT, LAN, equipment $2,048.69 

7/12/2012 34858 SMITH-PEAT ROOFING & SHEET METAL Utter LTD Ball Park roof $11,187.00 

7/19/2012 34859 BEDELL'S (LONDON) FOOD SERVICEGB Beach concession supplies $3,015.01 

7/19/2012 34860 STEVEN BELL Licence renewal $85.00 

7/19/2012 34861 BILL BENTLEY Training - CS $169.50 

7/19/2012 34862 MR. RANDY BRODHAGEN Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/19/2012 34863 CNH CAPITAL Parts - CS $326.62 

7/19/2012 34864 CUBEX LIMITED Flail mower $9,373.35 

7/19/2012 34865 D&S LAWN MAINTENANCE Grass cutting - (reimbursed) $762.75 

7/19/2012 34866 DOUG DISCEPOLO Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/19/2012 34867 DUDMAN LIMITED Fuel - CS, bldg dept & Forest FD $7,444.47 

7/19/2012 34868 GRAND BEND RONA Materials & supplies - CS $223.29 

7/19/2012 34869 MS. HAYLEY HARTFORD Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/19/2012 34870 HELEN HAYTER NV Office cleaning - July $375.00 

7/19/2012 34871 J & L HENDERSON LIMITED Drain mtce $5,045.45 

7/19/2012 34872 DIANE JAMIESON Thedford Village Green garden mtce $384.00 

7/19/2012 34873 LAMBTON GROUP POLICE SERVICESRegular monthly remittance $277,451.92 

7/19/2012 34874 LAMBTON HERITAGE MUSEUM Doors Open Lambton County donation $250.00 

7/19/2012 34875 LAMBTON AREA WATER SUPPLY SYSRegular monthly remittance $10,792.85 

7/19/2012 34876 LAURYA FARMS Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/19/2012 34877 BRITTANY LUCIO Refund damage deposit $100.00 

7/19/2012 34878 LVM INC. Drains $4,068.00 

7/19/2012 34879 DAN MACLACHLAN Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/19/2012 34880 MR. GARRY MAYERS Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/19/2012 34881 MRS. SUE MC ALPINE Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 




2012 


7/19/2012 34882 MR. DEAN MCGREGOR Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/19/2012 34883 M.G. MOLD COMPANY Equipment repair - CS $276.40 

7/19/2012 34884 MIKE & TERRI'S NO FRILLS GB beach concession supplies $292.54 

7/19/2012 34885 CATHERINE MINIELLY CIB judge supplies $168.66 

7/19/2012 34886 PETTY CASH/CARRIE SNELL Replenish petty cash - GB Office $84.43 

7/19/2012 34887 PROUTS BUILDING CENTRE Materials & supplies - CS $854.85 

7/19/2012 34888 VICKI SHEPPARD GB & Forest office cleaning $260.00 

7/19/2012 34889 SOCAN Copyright fees - Legacy $557.66 

7/19/2012 34890 STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. GB WWTP process review $5,598.43 

7/19/2012 34892 THEDFORD GARDEN CLUB Reimburse for native tree planting $300.00 

7/19/2012 34893 JERRY VANBRUAENE Equipment - GB FD $139.60 

7/19/2012 34894 VANDY'S Grass cutting-Ark Cemetery & Deacon (reimb) $1,559.29 

7/19/2012 34895 MR. DERYK WALDEN Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

7/19/2012 34896 DOUG WILCOCKS Vehicle mtce June 2012 $2,464.12 

7/19/2012 34897 ZAVITZ GENERAL STORE Materials & supplies - CS & Thed FD $1,706.50 

7/19/2012 34898 THE TENDER SPOT Supplies - GB FD $219.88 

7/24/2012 34899 BILL GORDON COA Remuneration - Jan - June $100.00 

7/24/2012 34900 MALCOLM GILPIN COA Remuneration - Jan - June $500.00 

7/24/2012 34901 DIANE HALES COA Remuneration - Jan - June $600.00 

7/24/2012 34902 DON BURR COA Remuneration - Jan - June $600.00 

7/24/2012 34903 DON BROOKS COA Remuneration - Jan - June $500.00 

7/24/2012 34904 STEVE ROBINSON COA Remuneration - Jan - June $600.00 

7/24/2012 34905 RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA Fireworks course - Forest FD $1,200.00 

7/26/2012 34906 DON WELTEN Bldg inspections $390.00 

7/26/2012 34907 WELLINGTON BUILDERS INC. Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/26/2012 34908 STEPHEN GUAY Fire inspections $1,600.00 

7/26/2012 34909 RYAN GUAY Fire inspections $1,967.79 

7/26/2012 34910 KAREN CAMERON Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/26/2012 34911 DEREK MILES Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

7/26/2012 34912 MINISTER OF FINANCE Regulated remittance $301.95 

7/26/2012 34913 CRAWFORD SECURITY N.By-Law contract $6,892.93 

7/26/2012 34914 FOREST B.I.A. Balance of BIA levy $13,797.48 

7/26/2012 34915 LARRY MARTIN GB Plant watering $700.00 

7/26/2012 34916 BOB RONEY GB Harbourmaster contract $1,720.00 

7/26/2012 34917 GLENN C BELL S.By-Law contract $5,000.00 

7/26/2012 34918 RECEIVER GENERAL Regular payroll remittance $43,767.64 

7/26/2012 34919 GREEN SHIELD CANADA Employee benefits - August $11,657.91 

7/26/2012 34920 SHIRLEY O'HALLORAN Forest compost site supervision - July $602.00 

7/26/2012 34921 MUNICIPAL IT SERVICES IT, LAN, equipment $2,904.10 

7/31/2012 PAP EASTLINK PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $852.75 

7/31/2012 PAP EXECULINK TELECOM PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,361.26 

7/31/2012 PAP HAY COMMUNICATIONS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,164.31 

7/31/2012 PAP HYDRO ONE NETWORKS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $32,420.36 

7/31/2012 PAP RBC (Paytickets0 PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $153.68 

7/31/2012 PAP RELIANCE PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $439.80 

7/31/2012 PAP ROGERS AT & T PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,573.25 

7/31/2012 PAP SSQ PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $8,245.43 

7/31/2012 PAP UNION GAS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,960.88 

TOTAL $1,228,685.57 


Notice of Motion: September 4, 2012 

Moved by: 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 

WHEREAS Lambton Shores residents have communicated to council a need for disposal of large 

garbage items that cannot be handled by Bluewater Recycling; 

AND WHEREAS Lambton Shores residents are generally environmentally consciousness and 

diligent with recycling; 

AND WHEREAS residents may benefit from the discarded items of other residents; 

NOW THEREFORE I move that Lambton Shores institute an annual “Great Exchange” day for the 

benefit of Lambton Shores residents (and/or tax payers) as well as charitable organizations with 

the following proposed parameters; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One day each year, only Lambton Shores residents may bring large garbage items to a 

central municipal location, namely the Northville service yard; 

Deliveries will only be accepted until 12 pm on this day; 

The municipalities will encourage local service clubs to assist elderly, disabled or people 

without a truck to transport their unneeded large items, as feasible; 

Proof of residency must be proven by photo ID and/or a tax bill combined with photo ID; 

All individuals who are not municipal staff or municipal council members must leave 

over the lunch hour; 

At 1 pm, charitable organizations (such as Blessings Cupboard; NeighbourLink; St. 

Vincent de Paul; Goodwill; Value Village, etc.) that have submitted names of agents on 

letterhead in advance (confirmed by photo ID on the site) will be permitted to take 

whatever items they would like in an orderly fashion; 

At 2 pm, local residents will be permitted to take whatever items they would like in an 

orderly fashion; 

At 3 pm, residents from outside the municipality will be permitted to take any items 

they would like in an orderly fashion; 

All remaining items will be taken to the dump by the municipality; 

The municipality will work with the local police to control the flow of traffic; 

No construction supplies will be accepted; and 

Council will wait until the 2013 budget year to institute this new program and allocate 

funds appropriately for the disposal of the remaining items. 

356

Notices of Motion September 4, 2012 

Moved by: 


1. In keeping with the intent of the Great Lakes Community Fund, that Council ask 

staff to explore the possibility of the Southcott Pines Park Association, as a nonprofit 

community organization, being the applicant for a grant to be used towards 

the remuneration for graduate students from the University of Guelph’s Arkell 

Centre to determine the quality of septic effluent and functional effectiveness in 

targeted areas of Zone 3 which fall within the Southcott Pines community. 

2. That Council request a staff report outlining a design and implementation plan for 

Christmas decorations for the Grand Bend downtown and surrounding business 

area. 

3. That Council direct staff to determine the feasibility and cost of erecting 4 to 6 

beach volleyball courts for public use at a specified location on the main beach in 

Grand Bend during the tourist season. 

357

View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?