View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores


Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.


Regular Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Meeting Number: 02-2013<br />

Date <strong>of</strong> Meeting: Monday, January 14, 2013<br />

Time:<br />

Place <strong>of</strong> Meeting:<br />

06:30 p.m.<br />

Village Complex, <strong>The</strong>dford<br />

AGENDA<br />

Pages<br />

1. Call to Order<br />

2. Declaration <strong>of</strong> Pecuniary or Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest<br />

3. Confidential Business - Open Council will adjourn for the Closed<br />

Session at 6:30 p.m. (Doors will reopen at 6:45 p.m.)<br />

3.1 Closed Session Minutes - December 3, 2012<br />

3.2 Closed Session - December 11, 2012<br />

3.3 Closed Session Minutes - December 17, 2012<br />

3.4 Correspondence from Eugene Burgin - Re: Request to Purchase<br />

Land (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (2) c <strong>of</strong> the Municipal<br />

Act)<br />

4. Consent Agenda<br />

4.1 Correspondence from the Honourable Michael Chan, Minister <strong>of</strong><br />

Citizenship and Immigration - Re: Nominations for the Ontario<br />

Medal for Young Volunteers<br />

4.2 Correspondence from Roger Howard, Rice Development<br />

Corporation - Re: Appreciation for Planner<br />

4.3 2012 Highlights <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trails<br />

Accomplishments<br />

4.4 Highlights - December 13, 2012 <strong>of</strong> the St. Clair Region<br />

Conservation Authority Meeting<br />

4.5 CL Report No. 04-2013 - Re: Applications to be heard by the<br />

Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment on January 24, 2013<br />

1 - 1<br />

2 - 2<br />

3 - 3<br />

4 - 4<br />

5 - 6<br />

5. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> Minutes from Previous Meetings<br />

5.1 Regular Council Meeting - December 11, 2012 7 - 9

5.2 Special Council Meeting - December 14, 2012 10 - 13<br />

5.3 Regular Council Meeting - December 17, 2012 14 - 31<br />

6. Delegations, Public Meetings & Presentations<br />

6.1 7:00 p.m. - Public Meeting on Proposed Water and Wastewater<br />

Rates By-law (See TR Report No. 05-2013)<br />

6.2 7:10 p.m. - Public Meeting for a Zone Amendment Applicaiton ZO-<br />

10/2012 being a General Amendment for Location and Size <strong>of</strong><br />

Accessory Buildings within the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

(See PL Report No. 01-2013)<br />

6.3 7:30 p.m. - Public Meeting for a Zone Amendment Applicaiton ZO-<br />

12/2012 for Bruce Hiscott - 9983 Northville Crescent (See PL<br />

Report No. 03-2013)<br />

6.4 7:40 p.m. - Public Meeting for a Zoning By-law Amendment<br />

Application ZO-12/2012 for Michael and Jenna Beernink - 9 Water<br />

Street, Arkona (See PL Report No. 02-2013)<br />

6.5 7:50 p.m. - Bob Sharen - Re: Public Conduct @ Meetings<br />

6.6 8:00 p.m. - Wayne Edlington - Re: Questions Regarding the<br />

Dismissal <strong>of</strong> John Byrne and the Proposed New Direction <strong>of</strong><br />

Council<br />

6.7 8:10 p.m. - Rob Taggert - Re: Review <strong>of</strong> Grand Bend Harbour<br />

Water Depth and Dredging Requirments and Hazards to Marine<br />

Navigation<br />

6.8 8:20 p.m. - Sharon Weitzel, <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community<br />

Association - Re: Concerns & Updates on Short Term Rental<br />

Committee Issues (See CL Report No. 03-2013)<br />

32 - 33<br />

34 - 35<br />

7. Correspondence & Petitions<br />

Correspondence - Receive and File<br />

7.1 Laura M. McKeen, Lawyer with CohenHighley - Re: Kevin &<br />

Wayne Misselbrook - 11 and 13 Woodward Ave., Grand Bend<br />

(<strong>The</strong> Brookside Cottages)<br />

36 - 42<br />

Correspondence - For Council Direction<br />

7.2 Sara Milne - Re: Cut to Transportation Subsidies by <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

Elderly Outreach<br />

7.3 Susan Mills, Manager <strong>of</strong> the Grand Bend & Area Chamber <strong>of</strong><br />

Commerce - Re: Concerns Regarding Parking, Pedestrian Safety<br />

and Traffic Congestion in Grand Bend<br />

7.4 Dennis Dunkley, 1st Officer - Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers - Re:<br />

Request to the <strong>Municipality</strong> for Sponsorship<br />

43 - 43<br />

44 - 45<br />

46 - 47

8. Consideration <strong>of</strong> Committee Minutes and Staff Reports<br />

Planning<br />

8.1 PL Report No. 01-2013 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment<br />

Application ZO-10/2012 - General Amendment for Location and<br />

Soze <strong>of</strong> Accessory Buildings for the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong><br />

8.2 PL Report No. 02-2013 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment<br />

Application ZO-12/2012 for Michael and Jenna Beernink - 9 Water<br />

Street Arkona<br />

8.3 PL Report No. 03-2013 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment<br />

Application ZO-11/2012 for Bruce Hiscott - 9983 Northville<br />

Crescent<br />

8.4 PL Report No. 04-2013 - Re: Suncor Energy Cedar Point Wind<br />

Power Project & Nextera Energy Canada Jericho Wind Power<br />

Project Municipal Consultation Form & Municipal Consultation<br />

Package<br />

48 - 52<br />

53 - 57<br />

58 - 69<br />

70 - 70<br />

Community Services<br />

8.5 D.C.S. Report No. 01-2013 - Re: Communities in Bloom Update 71 - 91<br />

8.6 D.C.S. Report No. 04-2013 - Re: Former Military Camp Water<br />

Servicing Agreement<br />

8.7 D.C.S. Report No. 05-2013 - Re: Harbour Depth Maintenance<br />

Prgram Review<br />

8.8 D.C.S. Report No. 07-2013 - Re: Project Update: Grand Bend<br />

Sewage Treatment Facility (Status <strong>of</strong> Part II Orders and BCF<br />

Scope Change Application)<br />

92 - 99<br />

100 - 125<br />

126 - 127<br />

Finance & Administration<br />

8.9 TR Report No. 02-2013 - Re: Signing Authority 128 - 129<br />

8.10 TR Report No. 03-2013 - Re: Annual By-laws 130 - 134<br />

8.11 TR Report No. 04-2013 - Re: 2012 Supplemental Tax Billings &<br />

Write Offs<br />

8.12 TR Report No. 05-2013 - Re: Water and Wastewater Rates 2013<br />

and 2014<br />

8.13 TR Report No. 06-2013 - Re: Annual Audit Reporting<br />

Requirements<br />

135 - 137<br />

138 - 141<br />

142 - 145<br />

8.14 TR Report No. 07-2013 - Re: 2013 Wages for Non-Union Staff 146 - 152<br />

8.15 TR Report No. 08-2013 - Re: Interim C.A.O. 153 - 155

8.16 CL Report No. 01-2013 - Re: Accountabilty & Transparency -<br />

Update on the 2012 Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Requests & Reqeust<br />

for Information from the Ombudsman<br />

8.17 CL Report No. 02-2013 - Re: Good Neighbour Award - Wendy<br />

Hoy & Judy Watt<br />

8.18 CL Report No. 03-2013 - Re: Short Term Rental Issue - Grand<br />

Bend<br />

156 - 166<br />

167 - 181<br />

182 - 197<br />

9. By-laws & Resolutions<br />

9.1 By-law 01-2013 - Re: Provide for an Interim Tax Levy & to Provide<br />

for the Payment <strong>of</strong> Taxes & to Provide for Penalty & Interest<br />

Charges (See TR Report No. 03-2013)<br />

9.2 By-law 02-2013 - Re: Authorize the Borrowing <strong>of</strong> Money to Meet<br />

Current Expenditures <strong>of</strong> Council (See TR Report No. 03-2013)<br />

9.3 By-law 03-2013 - Re: Appoint Signing Authorities (See TR Report<br />

No. 02-2013)<br />

9.4 By-law 04-2013 - Re: Authorize Agreement with the Department<br />

<strong>of</strong> National Defence, Canada (See D.C.S. Report no. 04-2013)<br />

9.5 By-law 06-2013 - Re: Establish Water & Wastewater Usage &<br />

Consumption Rates for 2013 & 2014 (See TR Report No. 05-<br />

2013)<br />

9.6 By-law 07-2013 - Zone Amendment - Beernink (See PL Report<br />

No. 02-2013)<br />

9.7 By-law 08-2013 - Re: Zone Amendment for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> (See<br />

PL Report No. 01-2013)<br />

9.8 By-law 09-2013 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 198 - 198<br />

10. Accounts<br />

<strong>The</strong>re were no Municipal accounts for Council to review.<br />

11. Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion<br />

11.1 Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion from Councillor Bonesteel - Re: Charitable<br />

Donation Boxes throughout the <strong>Municipality</strong><br />

199 - 199<br />

12. New Business<br />

An opportunity for an emergent issue to be discussed by Council.<br />

13. Councillor Reports<br />

An opportunity for Members <strong>of</strong> Council to make a report.

14. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification<br />

Please Note: As per By-law 37-2012, Section 15, Subsection 13 -<br />

Questions must pertain to items on the agenda, and be for the<br />

purpose <strong>of</strong> clarification only, and not for the purpose <strong>of</strong> making<br />

statements.<br />

15. Adjourn

From: Roger Howard [mailto:roger@ricedevelopment.ca]<br />

Sent: December-19-12 3:23 PM<br />

To: Patti Richardson<br />

Subject: RE:<br />

Thanks Patti. We just need to sell some houses!! Hoping to start a spec home shortly.<br />

And thank you for all your help over the year. It really does make a difference working with someone who<br />

looks for ways to make things happen rather than ways to say no. I know I speak for Dave as well when I<br />

say we really appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the relationship we have…<br />

Have a great Christmas as well and best wishes for 2013.<br />

Roger<br />

Roger Howard<br />


17 Dean Street<br />

Brampton, Ontario<br />

L6W 1M7<br />

(p) 905-796-3630, ext. 236<br />

(f) 905-796-6360<br />

(c) 416-434-2803<br />

From: Patti Richardson [mailto:prichardson@lambtonshores.ca]<br />

Sent: December-19-12 3:02 PM<br />

To: roger@ricedevelopment.ca<br />

Subject:<br />

HI Roger<br />

Was out in your subdivision looks fantastic Good Work.<br />

Have a great Christmas<br />

Patti<br />


2012 <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trails (LSNT) Accomplishments<br />

- LSNT-Landowner Round-Table Partnership Meeting at the Legacy Centre in <strong>The</strong>dford<br />

- Trail upgrades, mapping, blazing & trailhead sign installations<br />

(‘L’ Lake, Ausable River Cut CA, <strong>Lambton</strong> County Heritage Forest)<br />

- Building Partnerships (ABCA, SCRCA, three local farmers, LS Council, CIB & PFCPC,<br />

Lake Smith Conservationists, Libro, Individual Volunteers & Supporters)<br />

- Preparation <strong>of</strong> LSNT Protocol Guidelines<br />

- Fundraising & Donations (‘Stepping into Spring Fundraiser Dance’, <strong>Municipality</strong> Grant,<br />

Lake Smith Conservationists Donation, Trin’s Fashions <strong>of</strong> Forest Donation, PFCPC Sign<br />

Donation. Libro ‘Share the Future’ Donations & Donations by Private Individuals)<br />

- ‘Hike with the Mayor & Councilors’ on the Ausable Hidden Valley Trail (44 participants)<br />

- LSNT Logo Design & Nature Trail Video by Harald Rosenfeld <strong>of</strong> Port Franks<br />

- Forest Trail System proposal & fact-finding hike <strong>of</strong> Exeter’s McNaughton-Morison Trail<br />

- Construction <strong>of</strong> first log-supported boardwalk in Ipperwash Dunes & Swales Forest<br />

- Public Outreach (LSNT workdays, guided nature trail hikes, CIB support activities<br />

towards Home Hardware Community Involvement Award, ‘Open Doors’ participation,<br />

Forest Fashion Show, attendance at Forest Skatepark & Trail Public Meeting, Alvinston<br />

Trail Planning Meeting, presentation to Forest Probus Club, Forest Home & Garden Show<br />

display, presentation at North <strong>Lambton</strong> Health Clinic Seniors’ Dinner<br />

- Publicity - Newspaper Articles in Lakeshore Advance & Forest Standard<br />

- Promotion <strong>of</strong> LSNT activities in LS Weekly Email Update, in Ausable Port Franks<br />

Optimist Club Newsletter, in Living & Playing in LS Quarterly, on posters<br />

- LSNT became a Community Committee <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

- Launching <strong>of</strong> LSNT website www.lsntblazers,com and LSNT link on <strong>Lambton</strong> County<br />

Regional Trail Committee website<br />

- Dune grass planting in Ausable River Cut CA & purchase <strong>of</strong> two(2) benches for this location<br />

- Publishing <strong>of</strong> 2012 LSNT Pamphlet<br />

- Preparation <strong>of</strong> LSNT Brochure Insert for LS 2013 Leisure Guide<br />

- GPS documentation <strong>of</strong> all ATV & other trails in Ipperwash Dunes & Swales Forest with<br />

expert SCRCA support<br />

- Installation by LS Community Services <strong>of</strong> roadside ‘Nature Trail’ signs at upgraded trails<br />

and two(2) LSNT benches at PF Community Centre trail head before year-end<br />

2013 <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trails (LSNT) Plans<br />

1. Nature trail development in Ipperwash Dunes & Swales Forest and ongoing nature trail<br />

upkeep throughout <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> & Vicinity<br />

2. Wheelchair-accessible 8 x 12 Lookout Platform with 900’ crushed limestone access path<br />

3. Fund Applications (Combined $150,000Trillium Fund for LS Organizations, LS Grant,<br />

Mountain Equipment Co-op Fund. Lake Smith Conservationists Support, Family Donations)<br />

4. LSNT Signature Events (Spring Dance & Fall Hike with Mayor & Councilors)<br />

5. LSNT Brochure<br />

6. Youth Outreach (Public Schools, Church Groups, Hockey & Soccer Clubs, Scouts, …<br />

7. Ongoing promotion/planning <strong>of</strong> Port Franks Mud Creek Pedestrian Bridge – Klondyke<br />

Trail - Forest Railway Track Trail - Port Franks-Pinery Bikeway<br />


St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Meeting<br />

Highlights – December 13, 2012<br />

In our continuing efforts to keep our municipalities informed <strong>of</strong> our progress on the conservation front,<br />

we have compiled a list <strong>of</strong> highlights from the SCRCA board meeting held in December. For details,<br />

please refer to the entire meeting package which can be found at<br />

www.scrca.on.ca/MeetingPackages.htm<br />

Conservation Areas: Renovations and upgrades continued on washroom buildings and visitor centres.<br />

In addition, a large amount <strong>of</strong> trial work was undertaken including the replacement <strong>of</strong> sections <strong>of</strong><br />

boardwalk at the Coldstream CA, construction <strong>of</strong> a pedestrian bridge at Warwick CA (still needs to be<br />

installed), and new signage along trails at Strathroy CA. A number <strong>of</strong> downed trees as a result <strong>of</strong><br />

Hurricane Sandy were removed to clear trials at the <strong>Lambton</strong> County Heritage Forest.<br />

Watershed Conditions: <strong>The</strong> month <strong>of</strong> November has continued the trend <strong>of</strong> lower than average<br />

precipitation with less than 50% <strong>of</strong> the anticipated rainfall reported throughout the watershed. Lake<br />

levels continue to be well below normal. Predictions for Lake Huron indicate we could be heading for<br />

record low levels.<br />

Fish Habitat Review: Based on requests from our member municipalities, the Conservation Authority<br />

provides fish habitat review for drainage works. To date in 2012, we have/are reviewing 276<br />

applications. This is up significantly from last year when a total <strong>of</strong> 184 applications were reviewed. Mr.<br />

Bilton indicated that the inter‐agency Drainage Act & Section 28 Regulations Team (DART) will be<br />

holding a training session on the new Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act Protocol for drain<br />

maintenance and repair activities in Florence on January 14.<br />

Healthy Lake Huron Program: A cover crop workshop was held on November 8. Anne Verhallen,<br />

OMAFRA Soil Management Specialist was the speaker. From the meeting, 3 farmers indicated they were<br />

interested in participating in OMAFRA trial plots next year and one farmer was interested in pursuing a<br />

grant for improvements to a manure storage facility.<br />

Funding Applications: <strong>The</strong> biology department has been very busy seeking grant opportunities to help<br />

support our wide ranging program to create habitat, protect species at risk and to promote sound<br />

conservation practices. Currently, we have 25 active applications. We have applied for $1,230,000 worth<br />

<strong>of</strong> grants. To date we have received $541,000 as a result <strong>of</strong> these applications and there is still $664,000<br />

pending a decision from the funders.<br />

MNR Approval <strong>of</strong> Final CA Regulation Amendments: <strong>The</strong> board approved amendments to the SCRCA<br />

Regulation 171/06 “Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines &<br />

Watercourses”. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the amendments was to streamline the permitting process undertaken<br />

through 36 individual regulations. <strong>The</strong> amendments enabled delegation and extending validity <strong>of</strong><br />

permits.<br />

For more information contact:<br />

Brian McDougall, General Manger<br />

519 245‐3710 ext. 236, bmcdougall@scrca.on.ca<br />



CL Report No. 04-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Carol McKenzie, Clerk<br />

RE: Applications to be heard by the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment on January 24,<br />

2013<br />


For information only.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment will meet on Thursday, January 24, 2013 to hear the<br />

following applications:<br />

David Gilcrest Architect, Agent for Christ Anglican Church<br />

Application A-01/2013<br />

– Minor Variance<br />

<strong>The</strong> Applicant is requesting approval <strong>of</strong> a minor variance from the provisions <strong>of</strong> Zoning<br />

By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 as they relate to lands known as 20 Main St., South, to permit the<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> the existing parking area which will:<br />

a) have a west side yard setback <strong>of</strong> 0 metres whereas the By-law requires 3<br />

metres;<br />

b) have a north side yard setback <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres whereas the By-law requires 3<br />

metres;<br />

c) have an east side yeard setback <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres whereas the By-law requires 3<br />

metres.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Applicant is proposing to construct a wooden fence on the west side and a natural<br />

buffer on the north side.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 3.29.8a) <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong><br />

2003 to allow a parking area to not be bound by curbs, whereas the By-law requires that<br />

a parking area be bound by curbs and be surface treated with concrete or asphalt.<br />

Steve Seddon, Agent for Tanya Krantz – Minor Variance Application A-02/2013<br />

Mr. Seddon, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Applicant, is requesting approval <strong>of</strong> a minor variance from<br />

the provisions <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 as they relate to lands known as 15 Elmwood<br />

Ave., to permit:<br />

a) a front yard setback <strong>of</strong> 2.25 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a<br />

setback <strong>of</strong> 6 metres;<br />

b) side yard setbacks <strong>of</strong> 0.85 metres & 1.43 metres, whereas the By-law requires<br />

1.2 metres and 3 metres.<br />

c) a rear yard setback <strong>of</strong> 1.89 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a<br />


setback <strong>of</strong> 6 metres.<br />

d) An unenclosed deck to be located 0.97 metres from the front lot line whereas the<br />

By-law would allow an unenclosed deck to project to within 4 metres from the<br />

front lot line.<br />

If you have any questions or would like more information on the applications, please<br />

contact Jackie Mason at the Forest Office.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />

Report prepared by Jackie Mason, D/Secretary <strong>of</strong> the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment<br />



Date <strong>of</strong> Meeting: December 11, 2012<br />

Regular Council Meeting<br />

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber<br />

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg<br />

Councillor Doug Bonesteel<br />

Councillor Lorie Scott<br />

Councillor Martin Underwood<br />

Councillor Doug Cook<br />

Councillor John Russell<br />

Staff Present:<br />

Acting C.A.O. / Treasurer Janet Ferguson<br />

Clerk Carol McKenzie<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services Brent Kittmer<br />

Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon<br />

1. CALL TO ORDER<br />

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.<br />


<strong>The</strong> Mayor asked members <strong>of</strong> Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict <strong>of</strong> interest<br />

that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and none were declared.<br />


<strong>The</strong> confidential business was re-scheduled to the end <strong>of</strong> the meeting to accommodate<br />

the delegations.<br />


<strong>The</strong>re were no items listed for the consent agenda.<br />


<strong>The</strong>re were no minutes from previous meetings for Council to review.<br />


6.1 Nancy Vidler & Karen Alexander – Re: Phragmites Management Plan<br />

Nancy Vidler and Karen Alexander appeared before Council on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> Phragmites Community Group to outline details on a Phragmites Management<br />

Plan.<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 11, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

Ms. Vidler provided a progress report to date on the accomplishments <strong>of</strong> the Phragmites<br />

Group such as identifying phragmites in Grand Bend and assisting in coordinating<br />

restoration work, working with the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority in<br />

completing a grant application to the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund and other<br />

grant applications and meeting with local MPPs and MPs to educate and promote<br />

Phragmites management, to name a few.<br />

Ms. Vidler further updated Council on proposed new projects such as ongoing<br />

education and support to communities west <strong>of</strong> Port Franks, creating partnerships with<br />

St. Clair Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources and<br />

developing a “pilot” training workshop for municipal employees with the Ontario<br />

Phragmites Working Group.<br />

Issues such as mapping, communication, illegal and environmentally destructive<br />

activities and legal and ineffective activities were also outlined by Ms. Vidler along with<br />

a proposed solution and recommendation to combat the ongoing phragmites problem in<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

Karen Alexander further provided information to Council on the Lake Huron Centre for<br />

Coastal Conservation and its priorities, those being water quality, coastal processes,<br />

biodiversity and climate change and Council concurred that these groups continue in<br />

the direction they are going and that staff prepare a report as to how to proceed in<br />

assisting with this matter.<br />

12-1211-01 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That staff prepare a report to expedite the elimination <strong>of</strong> phragmites<br />

within <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> and identify partners for this initiative.<br />

Carried<br />


<strong>The</strong>re was no correspondence or petitions for Council to review.<br />


Administration & Finance<br />

8.1 CL Report No. 144-2012 – Re: <strong>The</strong> Economic Development Task Force –<br />

Report Review<br />

On behalf <strong>of</strong> the Economic Development Task Force Councillor Underwood reviewed<br />

the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Economic Task Force recommendations for the establishment <strong>of</strong><br />

an Economic Development Committee.<br />

Councillor Underwood explained that the ETF had put together two different overall<br />

recommendations, the first, to fulfill the primary mandate <strong>of</strong> the EFT, that being to<br />

prepare a preliminary recommendation to Council for inclusion in the Strategic Plan and<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 11, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

the second being, to undertake the exploratory and background work necessary to<br />

establish an Economic Development Committee.<br />

He further reviewed those recommendations in detail and it was recommended that the<br />

term for committee members be amended to read for the term <strong>of</strong> Council.<br />

12-1211-02 Moved by: Councillor Underwood<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That the Economic Development Task Force Report be accepted<br />

as amended.<br />

Carried<br />


<strong>The</strong>re were no by-laws or resolutions for Council approval.<br />

10. ACCOUNTS<br />

<strong>The</strong>re were no municipal accounts presented for Council approval.<br />


<strong>The</strong>re were no notices <strong>of</strong> motion presented.<br />

12. NEW BUSINESS<br />

<strong>The</strong>re were no emergent issues presented for Council to discuss.<br />


Council members had nothing to report.<br />


Jordy Speak asked if the answers to those questions from the survey conducted by the<br />

Economic Development Task Force were available and he was advised that they were<br />

available upon request.<br />

12-1211-03 Moved by: Councillor Underwood<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That Council goes into a “Closed Session” at 3:51 p.m. to<br />

discuss a personal matter under Section 239 (2) b <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Municipal Act.<br />

Carried<br />

Council rose at 4:53 p.m. and there was nothing to report.<br />

12-1211-04 Moved by: Councillor Cook<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the December 11, 2012 Council meeting adjourns at 4:53 p.m.<br />

Carried<br />



Date <strong>of</strong> Meeting: December 14, 2012<br />

Special Council Meeting<br />

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber<br />

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg<br />

Councillor Doug Bonesteel<br />

Councillor Lorie Scott<br />

Councillor Martin Underwood<br />

Councillor John Russell<br />

Staff Present:<br />

A/C.A.O. Treasurer Janet Ferguson<br />

Clerk Carol McKenzie<br />

1. CALL TO ORDER<br />

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.<br />


<strong>The</strong> Mayor asked members <strong>of</strong> Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict <strong>of</strong> interest<br />

that they may have and none were declared.<br />

Mr. Gary Scandlan, Watson & Associates presented the updated Development Charges<br />

report and provided an overview <strong>of</strong> the Development Charges Act, and the<br />

requirements that municipalities are mandated to follow. One <strong>of</strong> the key components <strong>of</strong><br />

the process is for the municipality to identify and anticipate the amount, type and<br />

location <strong>of</strong> future growth, the servicing needs to accommodate the growth, the capital<br />

costs to provide the services, and to consider the funding options to provide the<br />

services for new growth. It was noted that if a municipality does not have a<br />

Development Charges by-law, the cost for providing the services would be on the tax<br />

rate.<br />

Mr. Scandlan reviewed the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ growth forecast, and the services<br />

considered, and the “proposed full calculated charge” for residential and non-residential,<br />

and provided a comparison <strong>of</strong> the proposed charge with the charges from 21 other<br />

municipalities.<br />

During the ensuing discussions, the items that industrial developers consider when<br />

looking to locate in a community were reviewed, as were possible reductions or phase<br />

in options that would help encourage growth. Also considered was the methodology <strong>of</strong><br />

charging large users (commercial and industrial) on a “square metre” basis and the<br />

possibility <strong>of</strong> shifting some <strong>of</strong> the water or waste water capital costs to the<br />

water/wastewater rates was also considered.<br />

Mr. Scandlan advised that the information in the report would remain valid for 1 year,<br />

and during that time period, Council could have another review <strong>of</strong> the information and<br />

decide if there is a preferred methodology 10or<br />

a different combination <strong>of</strong> methods for

charging for growth related services. Council could also take another look at the<br />

population projections and the proposed services and projects.<br />

12-1214-01 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

That Section15.13 <strong>of</strong> the Procedural By-law be waived to allow<br />

public discussion on the development charge. Carried<br />

Martin Schoeley cautioned against charges that were so high that businesses would be<br />

discouraged, and the importance <strong>of</strong> classifying bone fide agricultural operations as<br />

agriculture, thereby exempt, as the large size <strong>of</strong> the operations would make a “per<br />

metre” charge prohibitive.<br />

Adrian Roelands provided information on the large greenhouses he owns in Enniskillen,<br />

and provided information on water usage and benefits for the municipality.<br />

Dick Matzka noted that Wally Kratz and the Ad Hoc Committee had disputed the<br />

population projections, and that if the numbers aren’t accurate, it will result in more<br />

costs for the residents. Also, he advised that greenhouses should be considered our<br />

“industry” and welcomed.<br />

Deryck Walden advised that there is the option in the Development Charges Act to<br />

exempt industrial and reiterated that agriculture is our “industry”. Mr. Scandlan advised<br />

that the policies are set by Council, and it is important for Council to go through the<br />

process to determine what the rates should be and to receive public feedback on the<br />

proposed charges and also to obtain guidance from the advisor on the implications <strong>of</strong><br />

phase ins or reductions.<br />

Paul Pittao advised that when the fee was initiated in 2005, it was phased in over 3<br />

years, which was beneficial to builders and homeowners. He did note that most <strong>of</strong> his<br />

customers come from London or Kitchener etc and are familiar with the need to pay<br />

Development Charges; however, if the fees continue to rise, it may become a deterrent,<br />

especially when the adjacent municipality does not have development charges.<br />

12-1214-02 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the existing rates be frozen for 1 year, and that the numbers<br />

are revisited within the 1 year study lifetime , and that the rate for<br />

commercial and industrial be 33% <strong>of</strong> the charge, and that<br />

agricultural greenhouses are determined to be “bone fide”<br />

agricultural businesses and are exempt from the charges, and that<br />

a review take place within 6 months and full discussions take place<br />

on population, and master plan.<br />


Clarification was sought on Councils wishes direction, and it was confirmed that the<br />

residential development charge would be frozen at that current charge for the term <strong>of</strong><br />

the by-law, as opposed to specifying 1 year only, which would provide some flexibility<br />

for Council. Also, the development charge 11for<br />

all commercial and industrial would be

charged 33% <strong>of</strong> the actual rate, agricultural greenhouses would be exempt as they are<br />

agricultural operations, however, any retail component <strong>of</strong> the greenhouse would be<br />

charged the commercial rates.<br />

12-1214-02 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> development charge be held at the<br />

current rate within the term <strong>of</strong> the by-law, and that;<br />

Council reconsider the development charge by-law prior to<br />

November 16, 2013.<br />

Carried<br />

A discussion was held on changing the Sewage Master Plan to amend its scope, and it<br />

was noted that as this item was not stated as being part <strong>of</strong> the agenda, the discussion<br />

should be deferred, and the Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services asked to provide a report<br />

on how to reconsider the parameters <strong>of</strong> the Sewage Master Plan.<br />

A further discussion ensued on the existing policies that were in place and it was noted<br />

that if a property is in an area that is identified as part <strong>of</strong> the current expansion area, a<br />

sewage development charge would be applicable. <strong>The</strong> new by-law requires this as well.<br />

12-1214-03 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Dagg<br />

That prior to June 30, 2013, staff provide a report on changing the<br />

future service area or sewage expansion area, and include<br />

information on how development charges apply in those areas.<br />

Carried<br />

Water and Wastewater Review<br />

Treasurer Janet Ferguson advised Council that the last water /wastewater rate review<br />

was completed 3 years ago, and adjustments are being proposed to ensure cost<br />

recovery for the water and waste water system. It was suggested that in order to meet<br />

the first billing cycle in 2013, any amendment to the rates should be approved at the first<br />

meeting in January.<br />

Gary Scandlan provided background information on the Provincial legislation pertaining<br />

to water and waste water, reviewed current and forecasted consumption rates and<br />

flows, capital needs, life cycle costs and the necessary reserves, and the operation <strong>of</strong><br />

the systems, and how these factors impact the rates.<br />

Discussions ensued on changes to the Building Code that affect usage rates, the new<br />

regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the responsibilities on members <strong>of</strong><br />

Council, and the legislated regulations the systems operators are required to follow.<br />

Mr. Scandlan had been asked to provide information on cost recover options for the<br />

Grand Bend and Area Sewage Treatment Facility including allocating costs to current<br />

users, and on the tax base. 12

If the costs were recovered from the property taxes, the per household charge would<br />

increase the cost for properties not on the system by $ 160.00 annually, and would<br />

reduce the cost for those properties on the system by $ 278.00 annually. Mr. Scandlan<br />

provided an alternative, which would be to charge a septage charge on properties with<br />

septic tanks for the portion <strong>of</strong> the plant dedicated to treating septage pumpouts, which<br />

would ensure that those who use (or could use) the system pay for the system.<br />

12-1214-04 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That the Water and Wastewater Rates report prepared by Watson<br />

and Associates, dated December 14, 2012 be received, and that<br />

Council supports the recommended increases to the water and<br />

wastewater rates as outlined in the Watson & Associates<br />

presentation and that staff prepare the necessary by-law and<br />

advertise that the rate will be further considered at the January 14,<br />

2013 Council meeting. Carried<br />

4. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification<br />

Mayor Weber advised those in the audience <strong>of</strong> Section 15, Subsection 13 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Procedural by-law that states the purpose <strong>of</strong> this portion <strong>of</strong> the meeting was for the<br />

public to seek clarification on a decision <strong>of</strong> council on items on the agenda.<br />

Cam Ivey noted that if costs for the Sewage treatment plant are charged across the tax<br />

base, commercial operators would pay as well, which would raise the rates and possibly<br />

deter the sector <strong>of</strong> the community Council is trying to attract.<br />

Mayor Weber read a press release pertaining to the Chief Administrative Officer John<br />

Byrne.<br />

Lynda Rapley, Lakeshore Advance asked where the funds would be coming from to pay<br />

the severance costs, and if a new C.A.O. would be hired. Mayor Weber advised<br />

Council would be going through a process to hire a new C.A.O.<br />

Cam Ivey asked if Council would be reviewing its “Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct”, as apparently the<br />

confidential information had been disclosed to the public. Mayor Weber advised that if a<br />

formal complaint was received, it would be processed.<br />

Justin Speake asked if a forensic audit should be undertaken on the current and past<br />

Council term.<br />

5. ADJOURN<br />

12-1214-05 Moved by: Councillor Scott<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That the December 14, 2012 Council meeting adjourn at 1:55 p.m.<br />

Carried<br />



Date <strong>of</strong> Meeting: December 17, 2012<br />

Regular Council Meeting<br />

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber<br />

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg<br />

Councillor Dave Maguire<br />

Councillor Doug Bonesteel<br />

Councillor Lorie Scott<br />

Councillor Martin Underwood<br />

Councillor Doug Cook<br />

Councillor John Russell<br />

Staff Present:<br />

Acting C.A.O. / Treasurer Janet Ferguson<br />

Clerk Carol McKenzie<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services Brent Kittmer<br />

Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon<br />

1. CALL TO ORDER<br />

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked that everyone rise for<br />

a moment <strong>of</strong> quiet reflection and/or prayer for the tragic event that recently occurred in<br />

Connecticut.<br />


That Mayor asked members <strong>of</strong> Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict <strong>of</strong> interest<br />

that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and Councillor Cook<br />

declared a conflict with item #8.5 as he previously owned the house involved with the<br />

vibration issues on Main Street South in Forest and item #8.8 as he signed the grant<br />

application for Christmas lights for Arkona.<br />

Councillor Underwood also declared a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest with item #8.5 regarding the<br />

vibration issue for Main Street South in Forest as he owns property on Main Street.<br />

With the consent <strong>of</strong> Council the order <strong>of</strong> the agenda was amended to accommodate the<br />

delegations, public meetings and presentations portion <strong>of</strong> the meeting.<br />


6.1 Council Appointment to Fill the Position <strong>of</strong> Ward 4 Council Representative<br />

Mayor Weber advised those in attendance that when notified <strong>of</strong> the resignation <strong>of</strong><br />

Councillor Ruth Illman, Council had reviewed the options for filling the seat and opted to<br />

appoint a person to fill the vacant Ward 4 seat. <strong>The</strong> process used previously was<br />

reviewed, approved and included requiring the candidates to prepare and present a<br />

response to the following questions:<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

1. What do you feel are the most pressing issues the <strong>Municipality</strong> is facing?<br />

2. What do you think the top Municipal priorities should be?<br />

3. If you could achieve one goal, what would it be?<br />

<strong>The</strong> process was advertised, and resulted in 4 persons submitting applications.<br />

Mayor Weber further noted for the record that one or more <strong>of</strong> the candidates had been<br />

contacted by a member <strong>of</strong> Council for an interview and a discussion ensued as to<br />

whether or not municipal protocol had been followed and if this situation would “taint”<br />

the process. A discussion ensued on the process approved by Council and whether or<br />

not the process would prohibit speaking to the candidates outside <strong>of</strong> the Council<br />

meeting. <strong>The</strong> decision was made to allow the candidates to proceed with the speeches.<br />

<strong>The</strong> process required the speaking order to be determined by drawing lots, and<br />

Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon drew the names, and the first candidate<br />

chosen was Steve Robinson.<br />

Mr. Robinson announced that he was retracting his application as he had been<br />

contacted by a Council member, and in his opinion, the process was tainted, as the<br />

member had not following the approved process by contacting candidates outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />

process, which he considered inappropriate.<br />

A further discussion ensued on whether the process should be reconsidered, and a<br />

recorded vote was requested:<br />

12-1217-01 Moved by: Councillor Maguire<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That, due to the questions surrounding the process to appoint a<br />

member to the Vacant Ward 4 Seat, Council reconsider the<br />

process.<br />

Carried<br />

Those in support <strong>of</strong> the motion:<br />

Councillor Cook,<br />

Mayor Weber,<br />

Councillor Maguire<br />

Those opposed to the motion:<br />

Councillor Scott,<br />

Councillor Underwood,<br />

Councillor Bonesteel,<br />

Councillor Russell,<br />

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

<strong>The</strong> three remaining candidates Sarah Hornblower, Sandra Dowhan and Ken McRae<br />

presented their responses to the preauthorized questions, and at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

speeches, Mayor Weber thanked the candidates for their interest in serving the<br />

residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> and called for a short break.<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

At the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the break, Mayor Weber called for a motion from the Council.<br />

12-1217-02 Moved by: Councillor Underwood<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That K en McRae be appointed to fill the vacant Ward 4 Council<br />

seat.<br />

Carried<br />

After a brief recess, Ken McRae was sworn in as the Councillor for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> –<br />

Ward 4.<br />


4.1 Correspondence from Dan Mathieson, Chair, MPAC Board <strong>of</strong> Directors –<br />

Re: Update on the Work being Done at the Municipal Property Assessment<br />

Corporation<br />

4.2 Correspondence from Natasha K. Brenders, Director General –<br />

Infrastructure Operations, Federal Economic Development Agency for<br />

Southern Ontario – Re: Applications for Funding<br />

Council reviewed those items listed as part <strong>of</strong> the Consent Agenda.<br />

12-1217-03 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

That the following items on the Consent Agenda be received and<br />

filed.<br />

- 4.1 Correspondence from Dan Mathieson, Chair, MPAC Board<br />

<strong>of</strong> Directors – Re: Update on the Work being Done at the Municipal<br />

Property Assessment Corporation<br />

- 4.2 Correspondence from Natasha K. Brenders, Director<br />

General – Infrastructure Operations, Federal Economic<br />

Development Agency for Southern Ontario – Re: Applications for<br />

Funding.<br />

Carried<br />


5.1 Regular Council Meeting – December 3, 2012<br />

5.2 Special Council Meeting – December 4, 2012<br />

5.3 Special Council Meeting – December 7, 2012<br />

<strong>The</strong> minutes <strong>of</strong> the regular Council meeting held December 3rd, 2012 and the minutes<br />

<strong>of</strong> the special Council meetings held December 4th and 7th, 2012 were reviewed.<br />

12-1217-04 Moved by: Councillor Scott<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

That the minutes <strong>of</strong> the regular Council meeting held the 3rd day <strong>of</strong><br />

December, 2012 and the minutes <strong>of</strong> the special Council meetings<br />

held the 4th and 7th day <strong>of</strong> December, 2012 be accepted as<br />

presented.<br />

Carried<br />


Correspondence – Receive and File<br />

7.1 Edith Wilmot-Quigg, Development Consultant - Sarnia/<strong>Lambton</strong> Economic<br />

Partnership – Re: Community Branding<br />

Council reviewed information from Edith Wilmot-Quigg, Development Consultant with<br />

the Sarnia/<strong>Lambton</strong> Economic Partnership concerning the creation <strong>of</strong> a brand for<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> County.<br />

12-1217-05 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />

That correspondence from Edith Wilmot <strong>of</strong> the Sarnia/<strong>Lambton</strong><br />

Economic partnership on community branding be referred to the<br />

Acting Facilitator <strong>of</strong> Recreation and Leisure for further action.<br />

Carried<br />

7.2 Roy Merkley – Re: Green Energy Act<br />

Correspondence from Roy Merkley noting his appreciation for Council’s recent actions<br />

and direction on wind turbines was reviewed.<br />

12-1217-06 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />

That correspondence from Roy Merkley regarding Council’s recent<br />

actions and direction on wind turbines be received and filed.<br />

Carried<br />

7.3 Jane Muegge, Agricultural & Rural Economic Development Advisor – Re:<br />

Premier’s Award for Agri. Innovation Excellence<br />

Council reviewed information on the Premier’s Award for Agricultural Innovation<br />

Excellence.<br />

12-1217-07 Moved by: Councillor Scott<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That information provided from Jane Muegge, Agricultural & Rural<br />

Economic Development Advisor regarding the Premier’s Award for<br />

Agricultural Innovation and Excellence be received for information.<br />

Carried<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

Correspondence – For Council Direction<br />

7.4 Correspondence from the Mayors’ Coalition for Affordable Sustainable and<br />

Accountable Policing – Re: Newsletter<br />

Council reviewed correspondence from the Mayors’ Coalition for Affordable,<br />

Sustainable and Accountable Policing that requested local municipalities to join the<br />

Mayor’s Coalition to advocate for fair and equitable costs for police services across the<br />

country.<br />

12-1217-08 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> join the Mayor’s Coalition<br />

for Affordable, Sustainable and Accountable Policing. Carried<br />


8.1 Minutes <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fire Board Meeting held November 29, 2012<br />

Council reviewed the minutes <strong>of</strong> the November 29th, 2012 meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong>’ Fire Board.<br />

12-1217-09 Moved by: Councillor Cook<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the minutes <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fire Board meeting held<br />

the 29th day <strong>of</strong> November, 2012 be received and filed.<br />

Carried<br />

Planning<br />

8.2 PL Report No. 41-2012 – Re: Winter Road Maintenance Services Agreement<br />

with Rice Development<br />

In PL Report No. 42-2012 Planner Patti Richardson advises <strong>of</strong> a request from Rice<br />

Development Group for the <strong>Municipality</strong> to provide winter road maintenance services at<br />

their subdivision in Grand Bend, even though the roads within this subdivision have not<br />

been assumed by the <strong>Municipality</strong>. <strong>The</strong> recommended process was for the Developer to<br />

enter into an agreement with the <strong>Municipality</strong> for this service.<br />

12-1217-10 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That Council pass a by-law authorizing the execution <strong>of</strong> a Winter<br />

Road Maintenance Services Agreement between Rice<br />

Development Company Inc. and the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> as it relates to their Grand Bend Subdivision<br />

Phases 1 and 2, Registered Plan 25M-42 and on lands described<br />

as Parts 3, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 14 and the south 59 metres <strong>of</strong> Part 11,<br />

Plan 25R8424 and Part 1 Plan 25R10009.<br />

Carried<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

8.3 PL Report No. 44-2012 – Re: Assumption By-law – Pinery Bluff’s Road<br />

In PL Report No. 44-2012 the Planner reported that the two year maintenance period<br />

had lapsed for the Pinery Bluff Subdivision and Municipal staff was satisfied that the<br />

works required by the agreement have been completed in compliance with the<br />

subdivision agreement the Pinery Bluff Road, therefore, the road can be assumed by<br />

the <strong>Municipality</strong> as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> road system.<br />

12-1217-11 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That PL Report No. 44-2012 respecting the assumption <strong>of</strong> Pinery<br />

Bluff Road be received and filed and that the by-law to assume<br />

Pinery Bluff Road be approved.<br />

Carried<br />

8.4 PL Report No. 45-2012 – re: Assumption By-law – Gill Road Subdivision –<br />

Harbourside Village, Registered Plan 510<br />

It was reported in PL Report No. 45-2012 that the two year maintenance period has also<br />

lapsed for Phases 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> Gill Road (Harbourside Village) Subdivision and as<br />

Municipal staff was satisfied that the works required for Phases 1 and 2 had been<br />

completed in compliance with the subdivision agreement those roads within Phases 1<br />

and 2 be assumed as part <strong>of</strong> the Municipal road system.<br />

12-1217-12 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Maguire<br />

That PL Report No. 45-2012 respecting the assumption <strong>of</strong> Erin<br />

Place in Phases 1 and 2 and Hayter Drive be received and filed<br />

and that the by-law to assume Erin Plan in Phases 1 and 2 and<br />

Hayter Drive be approved.<br />

Carried<br />

Community Services<br />

8.5 D.C.S. Report No. 116-2012 – Re: Forest Main Street, South Vibration<br />

Testing<br />

Information was provided to Council in D.C.S. Report No. 116-2012 on vibration<br />

readings performed on Main Street South in Forest by AMEC Environment &<br />

Infrastructure in response to concerns about vibrations expressed by a resident at 60<br />

Main Street.<br />

It was noted that direction from Council was needed if further action was to be taken by<br />

staff on this issue and Council agreed that no further action be taken.<br />

Council did concur that when reconstruction <strong>of</strong> Main Street South does occur<br />

consideration be made <strong>of</strong> replacing the watermain at that same time to make for a more<br />

efficient use <strong>of</strong> capital dollars.<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

12-1217-13 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That the home owner for 60 Main Street, South in Forest be<br />

advised that the <strong>Municipality</strong> will not take any further action<br />

regarding the vibration issue in her home and that the road and<br />

watermain re-construction <strong>of</strong> Main Street South in Forest be<br />

allocated as needed to the 10 year Capital forecast.<br />

8.6 D.C.S. Report No. 117-2012 – Re: 2013 Volunteer Recognition BBQ<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services noted that when the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

received the Home Hardware Community Involvement Award at the 2012 National<br />

Communities in Bloom Competition, the award included the opportunity to have Mark<br />

Cullen, renowned gardening expert, come to the community for a meet and greet and<br />

speaking engagement. It was suggested that the speaking engagement could be part<br />

<strong>of</strong> the 2013 Volunteer Recognition BBQ as the event recognizes the community’s<br />

involvement.<br />

12-1217-14 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the 2013 Volunteer Recognition BBQ be scheduled in<br />

September 2013 to accommodate the attendance <strong>of</strong> Mr. Mark<br />

Cullen.<br />

Carried<br />

8.7 D.C.S. Report No. 118-2012 – Re: Walker Road – Long Term Approach<br />

Further to issues previously discussed relating to Walker Road and the short term effort<br />

<strong>of</strong> pulverizing and grading the existing asphalt surface in the worst 500 m stretch <strong>of</strong> the<br />

road, Council considered potential alternatives for rehabilitating the road as a long term<br />

basis.<br />

Due to its original construction methodology and the heavy traffic conditions that Walker<br />

Road is subjected to, Council agreed that the most cost effective alternative for<br />

rehabilitating this road would be to return it to a permanent gravel surface on an as<br />

required basis up to Goosemarsh Line. It was noted that this represents the lowest<br />

capital cost to the <strong>Municipality</strong> and allows for a prompt response when deterioration<br />

occurs.<br />

12-1217-15 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />

That the long term approach for Walker Road (from Haig Line to<br />

Goosemarsh Line) be such that the roadway is pulverized and<br />

returned to a permanent gravel surface on an as required basis.<br />

Carried<br />

8.8 D.C.S. Report No. 119-2012 – Re: 2013 Capital Request Form<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

Council reviewed a request from the Arkona Lions and the Arkona Community<br />

Foundation for the purchase <strong>of</strong> additional Christmas lights for Townsend Line and<br />

Arkona Road in downtown Arkona. It was noted that the two groups were willing to<br />

match municipal dollars for this project up to $3,000.00<br />

12-1217-16 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That D.C.S. Report No. 119-2012 be approved and the request for<br />

additional street light for Arkona be added to the 2013 Capital<br />

Budget for consideration.<br />

Carried<br />

8.9 D.C.S. Report No. 120-2012 – Re: Grand Bend Historical Walk Proposal<br />

Information was provided in D.C.S. Report No. 120-2012 on a proposal received from<br />

the Grand Bend Historical Walk Committee for a historical walk signage program in<br />

Grand Bend. <strong>The</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> the program is to install signage to recognize significant<br />

historical locations in the community.<br />

It was noted that the proposed signs would be placed at locations with an interesting<br />

fact or story relating to the history <strong>of</strong> Grand Bend and the people and events that made<br />

it in to the popular community that it is today.<br />

12-1217-17 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Maguire<br />

That the Council supports the proposal for historical walk signage in<br />

Grand Bend and authorizes staff to work with the Grand Bend<br />

Historical Walk Committee to implement the historical walk signage.<br />

Carried<br />

8.10 D.C.S. Report No. 121-2012 – Re: Forest Lagoon Proposal – Bird Watching<br />

Platform and Program Proposal<br />

Information on a proposal submitted by CH2MHill OMI, St. Clair Conservation Authority,<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Communities in Bloom and the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trails<br />

Committee to utilize the Forest lagoons as a way to increase wildlife habitat and make<br />

them accessible to the public was provided in D.C.S. Report No. 121-2012.<br />

12-1217-18 Moved by: Councillor Underwood<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That, with respect to the Forest Lagoon Bird watching platform and<br />

program proposal, Council approves Phase One <strong>of</strong> the proposal<br />

and permits a wheelchair accessible trail and viewing platform to be<br />

constructed at the Forest Lagoons; and further<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

That Council approves Phase Two <strong>of</strong> the proposal contingent upon<br />

funding availability, and permits a trail extension on the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

lagoons to be constructed and to be maintained by the <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> Trail Committee, and that trees and shrubs be planted at<br />

the lagoon property; and further<br />

That Council recognize the former railway property from Rotary<br />

Civic Square to the lagoons on Brush Line as part <strong>of</strong> the Forest<br />

Walkway Trail System; and further<br />

That staff be directed to oversee the project to ensure works<br />

constructed on Municipal property are satisfactory. Carried<br />

8.11 D.C.S Report No. 122-2012 – Re: Update on the “Great Exchange” Program<br />

Proposal<br />

A brief status update respecting the proposal for “<strong>The</strong> Great Exchange” program was<br />

provided in D.C.S. Report No. 122-2012. It was noted that the challenge with<br />

developing a proper report for Council to consider has been the lack <strong>of</strong> available<br />

information with respect to the participation by the community and the quantity <strong>of</strong> waste<br />

that would be dropped <strong>of</strong>f.<br />

12-1217-19 Moved by:<br />

Seconded by:<br />

That D.C.S Report No. 122-2012 regarding an update on the “Great<br />

Exchange” Program be received and filed.<br />

Carried<br />

Administration & Finance<br />

8.12 TR Report No. 86-2012 – Re: 2013 Municipal Insurance Renewal<br />

<strong>The</strong> Treasurer Janet Ferguson provided information on the annual municipal insurance<br />

renewal from Frank Cowan Company Limited. Ms. Ferguson noted that the 2013<br />

renewal reflects a 3.8% premium increase over the 2012 level.<br />

12-1217-20 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the annual Municipal Insurance renewal with Frank Cowan<br />

Company Limited be approved as outlined in Treasurer`s Report<br />

No. 86-2012.<br />

Carried<br />

8.14 TR Report No. 89-2012 – Re: Draft November Year to date Financial<br />

Statements<br />

Information on the Draft Operating and Capital Financial Statements as <strong>of</strong> November<br />

30, 2012 was provided in TR Report No. 89-2012.<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

12-1217-21 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the Draft Year to Date Operating and Capital Statements for<br />

the period ending November 30, 2012 be accepted as presented.<br />

Carried<br />

8.15 TR Report No. 90-2012 – Re: Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative<br />

and Asset Management<br />

As part <strong>of</strong> the Provincial program for Municipal Infrastructure Strategy the Province has<br />

introduced a funding program for infrastructure related to roads, bridges, water and<br />

wastewater. This program has a maximum funding <strong>of</strong> 90% <strong>of</strong> the project or $2,000,000.<br />

and projects must be completed by December 2014 and the Treasurer noted that in<br />

order to submit an expression <strong>of</strong> interest in the pre-screening step for this grant program<br />

a motion <strong>of</strong> Council is needed.<br />

12-1217-22 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That staff be authorized to submit an expression <strong>of</strong> interest for the<br />

grant program under the Municipal Infrastructure Investment<br />

Initiative Capital Program and that the following resolution is<br />

passed:<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is committed to developing a<br />

comprehensive asset management plan that includes all <strong>of</strong> the<br />

information and analysis as described in Building Together: Guide<br />

for Municipal Asset Management Plans by December 31, 2013.<br />

Carried<br />

8.16 CL Report No. 145-2012 – Re: Council Appointments to Committees and<br />

Boards<br />

CL Report No. 145-2012 provided information on the current appointments to internal<br />

and external Boards and Committees, and noted that these appointments will expire at<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> December, 2012. Members reviewed and discussed the appointments and<br />

made changes to those appointments.<br />

12-1217-23 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That the Council appointments to Committees remain the same<br />

with the exception that Councillor Ken McRae be appointed as<br />

Council representative to the Forest B.I.A., <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fire<br />

Board and as alternate to the Bi-Municipal and further that Deputy<br />

Mayor Davis Dagg is appointed as a representative on the Bi-<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

Municipal Committee, and Councillor Bonesteel be appointed as<br />

Council representative to the Official Plan Committee, and the<br />

Kettle & Stony Point First Nation Committee. Carried<br />

6.2 Patty Hayman, Director <strong>of</strong> Planning, St. Clair Region Conservation<br />

Authority – Re: Request for Funding towards a Dynamic Beach Area Study<br />

Patty Hayman, Director <strong>of</strong> Planning with the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority<br />

appeared before Council to present the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Draft<br />

2013 Budget for consideration and direction to the Council representative for voting<br />

purposes as well.<br />

In addition to presenting this draft budget, Ms. Hayman provided details on a request for<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> to assist in funding a Dynamic Beach Area study. She noted that this<br />

is a shared project with the City <strong>of</strong> Sarnia and the request to <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is for<br />

$28,500.00 in addition to the regular conservation programs.<br />

12-1217-24 Moved by: Councillor Scott<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />

That Council agrees in principle to participating in the Dynamic<br />

Beach Area study proposed by the St. Clair Conservation Authority<br />

and that funding request for this study be referred to the 2013<br />

budget discussions.<br />

Carried<br />

8.13 TR Report No. 88-2012 – Re: St. Clair Region Conservation Authority<br />

TR Report No. 88-2012 regarding the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority was<br />

discussed during the delegation portion <strong>of</strong> the meeting and details provided on<br />

proposed projects for the Conservation Authority.<br />

12-1217-25 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That Council supports the Draft 2013 budget for the St. Clair<br />

Conservation Authority.<br />

Carried<br />

8.17 CL Report No. 146-2012 – Re: Proposed County Smoke Free Outdoor<br />

Spaces By-law<br />

As directed by Council, information on the proposed County <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> Smoke-Free<br />

Outdoor Spaces by-law was advertised in the “Living in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>” and posted on<br />

the Municipal website and Facebook. <strong>The</strong> comments received were provide to Council,<br />

and the matter was considered.<br />

12-1217-26 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

That Council for the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> does not<br />

support the proposed County <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> Smoke Free Outdoor<br />

Spaces by-law.<br />

Carried<br />

8.18 CL Report No. 147-2012 – Re: Requests for Municipal Resolution for<br />

Agricultural Buildings with Solar Installations<br />

Clerk Carol McKenzie provided information on the advice received from the Municipal<br />

Solicitor and comments from the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fire Chiefs dealing with ro<strong>of</strong>top solar<br />

panels. Included in Report 147-2012 for Council review was a proposed policy<br />

respecting solar installations on agricultural buildings to deal with safety issues.<br />

It was noted that 3 separate applications for ro<strong>of</strong>top solar panels had been received,<br />

and a Council resolution <strong>of</strong> support would assist the residents with FIT Program<br />

application, and that the approval does not indicate support for the design and integrity<br />

<strong>of</strong> the structure, but for the “construction and operation <strong>of</strong> each project”.<br />

12-1217-27 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That the policy outlined in CL Report No. 147-2012 for the policy<br />

respecting solar installations on agricultural buildings and safety<br />

issues be adopted as presented.<br />

Carried<br />

12-1217-28 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

WHEREAS Doug and Janet Willsie propose to construct and<br />

operate a ro<strong>of</strong>top solar facility on 9519 Northville Road, in the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> under the Province’s FIT Program;<br />

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> indicate by resolution Council’s<br />

support for the construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the<br />

property;<br />

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the rules governing the FIT Program<br />

(the “FIT Rules”), Applications whose Projects receive the formal<br />

support <strong>of</strong> local Municipalities will be awarded Priority Points, which<br />

may result in the Applicant being <strong>of</strong>fered a FIT Contract prior to<br />

other persons applying for FIT Contracts;<br />

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> supports the construction and<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the lands.<br />

This resolution’s sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receive<br />

Priority Points under the FIT Program and may not be used for the<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

purpose <strong>of</strong> any other form <strong>of</strong> municipal approval in relation to the<br />

Application or Project or any other purpose. Carried<br />

12-1217-29 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

WHEREAS Karl Elliott proposes to construct and operate a ro<strong>of</strong>top<br />

solar facility on Concession 4, Lot 20, in the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> under the Province’s FIT Program;<br />

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> indicate by resolution Council’s<br />

support for the construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the<br />

property;<br />

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the rules governing the FIT Program<br />

(the “FIT Rules”), Applications whose Projects receive the formal<br />

support <strong>of</strong> local Municipalities will be awarded Priority Points, which<br />

may result in the Applicant being <strong>of</strong>fered a FIT Contract prior to<br />

other persons applying for FIT Contracts;<br />

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> supports the construction and<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the lands.<br />

This resolution’s sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receive<br />

Priority Points under the FIT Program and may not be used for the<br />

purpose <strong>of</strong> any other form <strong>of</strong> municipal approval in relation to the<br />

Application or Project or any other purpose. Carried<br />

12-1217-30 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

WHEREAS Rock Glen Campground proposes to construct and<br />

operate a ro<strong>of</strong>top solar facility on 8685 Rock Glen Road, in the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> under the Province’s FIT Program;<br />

AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested that Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> indicate by resolution Council’s<br />

support for the construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the<br />

property;<br />

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the rules governing the FIT Program<br />

(the “FIT Rules”), Applications whose Projects receive the formal<br />

support <strong>of</strong> local Municipalities will be awarded Priority Points, which<br />

may result in the Applicant being <strong>of</strong>fered a FIT Contract prior to<br />

other persons applying for FIT Contracts;<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> supports the construction and<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the Project on the lands.<br />

This resolution’s sole purpose is to enable the Applicant to receive<br />

Priority Points under the FIT Program and may not be used for the<br />

purpose <strong>of</strong> any other form <strong>of</strong> municipal approval in relation to the<br />

Application or Project or any other purpose. Carried<br />


12-1217-31 Moved by: Councillor Cook<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That the following by-laws are read a first, second and third time,<br />

passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and<br />

Clerk and engrossed in the by-law book:<br />

- By-law 134-2012 – Appointments to Committees <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

- By-law 135-2012 – Re: Assuming a Highway – Pinery Bluff Drive<br />

- By-law 136-2012 – Re: Assuming a Highway – Erin Place, Hayter<br />

Drive<br />

- By-law 137-2012 – Re: Authorizing Winter Road Maintenance<br />

Services with Rice Development<br />

- By-law 139-2012 – Confirming Resolutions to Date. Carried<br />

-<br />

<strong>The</strong> Treasurer provided an update on the Development Charges information session<br />

held on Friday, December 14, 2012 and the amended by-laws were presented.<br />

12-1217-32 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

<strong>The</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> approves the<br />

Development Charge Background Study, dated November 16,<br />

2012, as amended, inclusive <strong>of</strong> the capital forecast therein, in which<br />

certain recommendations were made relating to the establishment<br />

<strong>of</strong> a development charge policy for the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997; and<br />

determines that no additional public meeting will be required to be<br />

held as part <strong>of</strong> the approval process.<br />

Carried<br />

12-1217-33 Moved by: Councillor Scott<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That the Development Charges By-law 139-2012 and Municipal<br />

Connection Charge By-law 140-2012 be passed and become<br />

effective January 1, 2013. C<br />

Carried<br />

10. ACCOUNTS<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

10.1 TR Report 85-2012 – Re: November, 2012 Cheque Listing<br />

Council reviewed the Municipal accounts for the month <strong>of</strong> November, 2012.<br />

12-1217-34 Moved by: Councillor McRae<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />

That the Municipal cheque listing for the month <strong>of</strong> November, 2012<br />

in the amount <strong>of</strong> $1,593,325.43 be accepted as presented.<br />

Carried<br />


11.1 Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg – Re: Debt Reduction<br />

Strategy<br />

A brief discussion occurred on the Municipal debt for capital expenditures and the need<br />

to review possible scenarios to reduce this debt.<br />

12-1217-35 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

WHEREAS other Ontario municipalities are recognizing the threat<br />

<strong>of</strong> a pending “fiscal cliff” and instituting expedited debt reduction<br />

strategies;<br />

AND WHEREAS the Ontario government is cutting back on<br />

municipal payments in order to reduce its significant deficit;<br />

AND WHEREAS principal and interest payments limit our<br />

municipality’s options and opportunities;<br />

AND WHEREAS the 2013 annual principle and interest payment<br />

will be $1,783,288.36<br />

NOW THEREFORE, Council supports a program to expedite a debt<br />

reduction strategy and refers this matter to staff for a report and<br />

initial implementation in the 2013 budget.<br />

Carried<br />

11.2 Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg – Re: Preparing the 2013<br />

Budget in a Comparable Format to <strong>Lambton</strong> County<br />

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg asked Council to consider the following motion:<br />

12-1217-36 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

That Council direct staff to prepare the 2013 budget in a<br />

comparable format to <strong>Lambton</strong> County without Admin Allocations<br />

but with the maintenance <strong>of</strong> our existing business units.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Motion was Later Withdrawn<br />

A discussion occurred on the current format <strong>of</strong> the Municipal budget document and<br />

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg asked for Council to consider a similar format to that <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> County budget however as the budget document has already been prepared<br />

for 2013 Council felt that this was a matter for discussion later in the year prior to the<br />

preparation <strong>of</strong> the 2014 budget document.<br />

11.3 Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg – Re: Reconsideration <strong>of</strong><br />

Resolution # 12-1203-14<br />

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg brought forward the following motion:<br />

12-1217-36 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That Motion # 12-1203-14, noted below be reconsidered:<br />

That D.C.S. Report No. 114-2012 regarding a reference sheet for<br />

the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility be received and made<br />

available to the public on the Municipal website.<br />

Motion Defeated<br />

12. New Business<br />

TR Report No. 91-2012 – Re: C.A.O. / Interim C.A.O<br />

12-1217-36 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Maguire<br />

That TR Report No. 91-2012 regarding the C.A.O. / Interim C.A.O.<br />

be brought forward as an emergent issue.<br />

Carried<br />

Council discussed the need to find a suitable candidate for the position <strong>of</strong> C.A.O. for the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> and the Acting C.A.O Janet Ferguson advised that she has researched<br />

Municipal Associations that have data bases <strong>of</strong> persons available or interested in this<br />

type <strong>of</strong> position on an interim basis. It was noted that this interim person could also<br />

guide the process <strong>of</strong> filling the position <strong>of</strong> C.A.O. on a permanent basis, in accordance<br />

with the Municipal hiring policy.<br />

12-1217-37 Moved by: Councillor Underwood<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Cook<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

That the Acting C.A.O. Janet Ferguson, Mayor Weber, Deputy<br />

Mayor Davis-Dagg and Councillor Underwood be part <strong>of</strong> the hiring<br />

process to fill the position <strong>of</strong> Interim C.A.O. from those requests for<br />

proposals that will be sought.<br />

Carried<br />


Councillor Bonesteel reported that he had met with <strong>The</strong>dford Bog farmers, had attended<br />

a <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trail Committee meeting and thanked committee volunteers<br />

for their input and staff for their assistance in 2012 and wished everyone a Happy<br />

Holiday season.<br />

Councillors Underwood, Russell, Scott and Maguire <strong>of</strong>fered up their appreciation <strong>of</strong> staff<br />

for their assistance over the past year and also <strong>of</strong>fered up seasonal greetings as well.<br />

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg <strong>of</strong>fered up Holiday Wishes and asked that a list <strong>of</strong> Council’s<br />

achievements <strong>of</strong> the past year be put together.<br />

Councillor McRae thanked Council for their support in choosing him as Council<br />

representative for Ward 4.<br />

Mayor Weber reported that in light <strong>of</strong> the rumours going around he would like the<br />

residents <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> to know that he had no intentions <strong>of</strong> resigning as Mayor <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>Municipality</strong> and further advised that he has received questions from the public as to<br />

what Council’s new direction is. He further advised that 2012 had been a very busy year<br />

for Council and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.<br />


Glen Baillie asked for clarification on the Deputy Mayor’s email address.<br />

Wayne Edlington asked what was Council’s new direction, asked for further information<br />

as to why John Byrne had been let go and what the legal costs associated with Mr.<br />

Byrne’s termination totalled.<br />

Bob Sharen asked when the <strong>of</strong>ficial plan would be discussed by Council and why<br />

Council was paying for a generator for the Grand Bend Legion. <strong>The</strong> Mayor noted that<br />

the generator for the Grand Bend Legion was a Municipal expense as the Grand Bend<br />

Legion is one the Municipal emergency centres.<br />

Lew McGregor asked for information on the termination <strong>of</strong> John Byrne.<br />

Andy Page asked if there were funds allocated in the budget for a sound system for the<br />

Village Complex.<br />

Cam Ivey asked who the member <strong>of</strong> Council was that had contacted Mr. Robinson for<br />

an interview.<br />


Minutes <strong>of</strong> the December 17, 2012 Council Meeting<br />

Alvin Stewardson asked for reconsideration <strong>of</strong> the proposed trail to run between King<br />

and Broadway Streets in Forest.<br />

Kimberly Powell-McConaghy asked which member <strong>of</strong> Council had contacted Mr.<br />

Robinson for an interview.<br />

Gerry Rupke asked what the present Council had done in their two years <strong>of</strong> service to<br />

reduce the Municipal debt.<br />

Shirley Andraza also asked what the present Council had done to reduce the Municipal<br />

debt and if Councillors understood the format <strong>of</strong> the current Municipal budget document.<br />


12-1217-38 Moved by: Councillor Maguire<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Russell<br />

That the Council meeting goes into a “Closed Session” at 9:28 p.m.<br />

to discuss Closed Session minutes and a personal matter under<br />

Section 239 (2) b <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act.<br />

Carried<br />

Council rose from the Closed Session at 9:57 p.m. with nothing to report.<br />

15. ADJOURN<br />

12-1217-39 Moved by: Councillor Cook<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Maguire<br />

That the December 17, 2012 Council meeting adjourns at 9:57 p.m.<br />

Carried<br />


<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Mayor and Council,<br />

<strong>The</strong> Grand Bend Cruising Club would like to draw your attention to the ever increasing issue <strong>of</strong> safety in<br />

the local harbor and river.<br />

As you are most likely aware we are currently experiencing historic low levels in the Great Lakes. <strong>The</strong><br />

low water levels combined with the lack <strong>of</strong> dredging in the Grand Bend harbor and river are serious<br />

safety issues for boaters. This past season saw numerous groundings; some resulting in minor damage<br />

and others more severe results.<br />

While other harbors and ports along the Lake Huron shoreline dredge on a yearly basis, no dredging has<br />

taken place in Grand Bend in many years. <strong>The</strong> consensus from the Canadian and United States boating<br />

communities is that Grand Bend is <strong>of</strong>f the list <strong>of</strong> "Ports <strong>of</strong> Call" for fear <strong>of</strong> problems due to the water<br />

depth.<br />

Our harbor is a very diverse and lucrative source <strong>of</strong> revenue generation for private business, and all<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> governments. Local business depends on the tourism revenue generated as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />

proximity to local retailers, restaurants, and marine related services compared to other harbors. We<br />

think council would agree this issue needs to be addressed immediately to prevent any further revenue<br />

loss.<br />

Grand Bend has one <strong>of</strong> the greatest beachfronts in the Great Lakes but we prevent it’s accessibility to<br />

transient and local boaters. <strong>The</strong> transient docks and washroom facilities require refurbishing to<br />

compliment the stunning beach front improvements. <strong>The</strong> current facilities available to transient boaters<br />

do not promote the image that Grand Bend is a desirable place to visit and ultimately, we are turning<br />

away transient marine traffic.<br />

In the interest <strong>of</strong> preventing any more boating communities and tourism from leaving or bypassing<br />

Grand Bend, our organization is interested in knowing if there is a plan to address these issues in the<br />

short term. What is council’s long term commitment to the harbour? Council needs to ensure that a<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> revenues generated from the harbour are reinvested back into the port, and put in place a<br />

sustainment plan and budget for any necessary future actions or requirements.<br />


We had an excellent harbor which is currently in drastic need <strong>of</strong> attention to once again return it to a<br />

"Safe" "Port <strong>of</strong> Call" for the many boaters on the Great Lakes.<br />

Respectfully,<br />

Board <strong>of</strong> Directors<br />

Grand Bend Cruising Club<br />

Cc/<br />

Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources,<br />

Coast Guard,<br />

Bev Shipley MP<br />

Monty McNaughton MPP<br />

Canadian Power and Sail Squadron<br />

Ministry <strong>of</strong> Fisheries and Oceans<br />

Ausable Bayfield Conservation<br />

Harbor Master G.B.<br />


L A M B T O N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I A T I O N<br />

DRAFT<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community Association<br />

P.O. Box 107<br />

Grand Bend, ON<br />

N0M 1T0<br />

August 9,2012<br />

To the Mayor and all members <strong>of</strong> Council:<br />

At our Annual meeting on July, 7, 2012, the Chair <strong>of</strong> the Plan 24<br />

Committee submitted her report. Among other things the Report<br />

details the failure <strong>of</strong> by-law enforcement to follow through on 2<br />

Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment meetings that required compliance by the<br />

owners <strong>of</strong> 11 and 13 Woodward St.<br />

A re-cap <strong>of</strong> activities to date includes:<br />

November 10, 2011- neighbours received the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment<br />

notice <strong>of</strong> the hearing to be held<br />

Thursday, November 24, 2011- At least fourteen letters were sent<br />

objecting to the minor variance application and six <strong>of</strong> those people were<br />

in attendance at the hearing.<br />

November 25, 2011 -<strong>The</strong> report given to Council was that "<strong>The</strong> Committee<br />

deferred this application in order for the Applicant to work with the<br />

neighbours who opposed the application to come up with a solution that<br />

would be suitable to all concerned. <strong>The</strong> Applicant was granted 60 days to<br />

submit a new proposal and should that 60 days lapse, the fence must be<br />

brought into compliance with the requirements <strong>of</strong> Fence By-law 80 <strong>of</strong><br />

2008."<br />

February 10, 2012- a re-notification letter was sent to neighbours,<br />

indicating that another Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment hearing was being held<br />

on Thursday, February 23, 2012.<br />

February 29, 2012 -<strong>The</strong> report submitted to Council by the Committee<br />

stated "<strong>The</strong> Committee refused this application as, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Committee, the variances were not minor in nature, the intent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

fence by-law was not maintained, and the variances were not desirable<br />

for the appropriate development or use <strong>of</strong> the land."<br />

Neighbours were all sent a copy <strong>of</strong> the Decision <strong>of</strong> the Committee <strong>of</strong><br />

Adjustment, restating that an application requesting a variance from the<br />

provisions <strong>of</strong> the Fence By-law to permit:<br />

P . O B O X 107, G R A N D B E N D , O N , N 0 M 1 T 0<br />

• E M A I L L S C o m m u n i t y A s s o c @ g m a i l . c o m<br />


– 2 – January 11, 2013<br />

a) a maximum fence height <strong>of</strong> 3.66 metres in the interior side and rear<br />

yards, whereas the maximum height permitted is 2 meters; and<br />

b) a maximum fence height <strong>of</strong> 2.74 metres in the front yard whereas the<br />

maximum height permitted is 0.91 metres were refused .<br />

<strong>The</strong> reasons were stated and the information regarding appealing the<br />

decision to the Ontario Municipal Board was given with the last date for<br />

an appeal being March 14th, 2012. <strong>The</strong>re was no appeal made to the<br />

O.M.B.<br />

An inquiry elicited the following information: “Carol McKenzie<br />

confirmed that a letter has been sent to the Misselbrook’s requiring<br />

them to bring the fences and gates at 11 and 13 Woodward St. into<br />

compliance with the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment ruling this past winter.<br />

<strong>The</strong>y have been given a timeline to comply that is usually prescribed<br />

by the courts before action is taken (around two weeks) and have been<br />

notified that if the fences and gates are not in compliance by the<br />

demand date then by-law enforcement will charge them.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> letter was sent out about July 9 th.<br />

It has come to our attention that the owners <strong>of</strong> 11 and 13 Woodward St.,<br />

still have not complied with the order. LSCA is deeply concerned that<br />

by-law enforcement is not happening. This is another example <strong>of</strong> the<br />

apparent incompetence or unwillingness <strong>of</strong> current by-law enforcement to<br />

do its job.<br />

If Council fails to ensure that by-laws are NOT being enforced it is our<br />

determination that the <strong>Municipality</strong> may have liability issues.<br />

Certainly, if any resulting fines are not a large enough deterrent<br />

Council needs to rethink its approach to all by-law enforcement issues.<br />

Council may also find itself with more by-law battles if enforcement<br />

does not follow through.<br />

If actions set in motion by the Short Tern Rental Committee and Council<br />

have no follow through, there can be no confidence that Council or Bylaws<br />

have any teeth.<br />

<strong>The</strong> LSCA is asking Council to enforce its by-laws as requested by the<br />

Plan 24 Committee and the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community Association.<br />

I trust we will hear back from the <strong>Municipality</strong> on this matter as soon<br />

as possible.<br />

Sincerely,<br />

Sharon Weitzel per<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community Association<br />


7 th Annual Canadian Motorcycle<br />

Cruisers National Rally<br />

Aug. 2, to Aug. 5, 2013<br />

Forest Fairgrounds<br />




<strong>The</strong> Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers<br />

Sarnia Chapter 016 will be playing<br />

host to members from all across<br />

Canada at our 7th annual CMC<br />

national rally.<br />

This non pr<strong>of</strong>it event is a chance to<br />

showcase what our region, Sarnia<br />

and <strong>Lambton</strong> County has to <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />

Hundreds <strong>of</strong> members will be<br />

visiting our community <strong>of</strong> August 2-<br />

5, 2013. Many <strong>of</strong> the members will<br />

be camping at the Forest<br />

Fairgrounds, however many more<br />

will be looking for<br />

accommodations, places to dine<br />

attractions to visit and <strong>of</strong> course<br />

shopping establishments.<br />

Planned group rides are a<br />

mainstay <strong>of</strong> this event. We will<br />

have groups riding all over Sarnia<br />

and <strong>Lambton</strong> County to show all<br />

the hidden treasures this wonderful<br />

area has to <strong>of</strong>fer, from our beautiful<br />

waterfront and historical sites to<br />

our famous chip trucks.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers<br />

(CMC) is Canada’s first and largest<br />

“ALL CANADIAN” riding club. <strong>The</strong><br />

Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers is a<br />

non pr<strong>of</strong>it club with NO dues,<br />

membership is 100% free.<br />

<strong>The</strong> CMC is currently at 95<br />

chapters with over 5,000 members’<br />

country-wide and growing<br />

everyday!!<br />

We are a family-based social riding<br />

club with chapters hosting a variety<br />

<strong>of</strong> events. Our members come with<br />

years and thousands <strong>of</strong> kilometers<br />

<strong>of</strong> riding experience. We welcome<br />

every kind <strong>of</strong> motorcycle in our<br />

riding club. <strong>The</strong> mandate <strong>of</strong> our<br />

riding club is: It doesn’t matter the<br />

brand, as long as you ride!<br />

We have hosted the National rallies<br />

in communities across Canada and<br />

we look forward to bringing it to<br />

Sarnia and <strong>Lambton</strong> County and<br />

showcasing our community to our<br />

visiting members.<br />

Each member will be receiving a<br />

Welcome package and have the<br />

opportunity to experience our<br />

wonderful hospitality.<br />

We want to showcase as much as<br />

possible and invite you to look over<br />

our sponsorship package to see<br />

how your business or organization<br />

can get involved<br />

For more information, please do<br />

not hesitate to contact me.<br />

Thanking you in advance,<br />

Dennis Dunkley<br />

1st Officer<br />

CMC 016 Sarnia<br />

Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers<br />

519 332 3056 46<br />


Become a Sponsor<br />

7 th Annual Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers<br />

National Rally<br />

Don’t miss this opportunity<br />

Join us in promoting our community/region<br />

Excellent opportunity to promote your organization or<br />

business<br />

Help foster civic pride and let’s help create memories!<br />


$1000 +<br />

Sponsor will receive:<br />

Recognition on all media<br />

correspondence<br />

Recognition on our Ontario<br />

forum<br />

Recognition on our chapter<br />

forum with a link to your<br />

business or organization<br />

Opportunity to place your<br />

banner at the fairgrounds<br />

Recognition on our events<br />

flyer/program<br />

Opportunity to place promotion<br />

material in welcome packages<br />

Other Sponsorship Opportunities are<br />

available and the above packages can<br />

be changed to suit your needs.<br />

For more information, contact;<br />

Dennis Dunkley<br />

1st Officer<br />

CMC 016 Sarnia<br />

Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers<br />

519 332 3056 ddunkley2@cogeco.ca<br />

SILVER SPONSOR $500 +<br />

Recognition on our chapter forum<br />

with a link to your business or<br />

organization<br />

Recognition<br />

on our chapter forum,<br />

Opportunity to place your banner<br />

at the fairgrounds<br />

Opportunity to place promotion<br />

material in welcome packages<br />

BRONZE SPONSOR $250 +<br />

Recognition on our chapter forum<br />

Opportunity to place your banner<br />

at the fairgrounds<br />

CMC have hosted our national Rallies in<br />

communities across Canada – Now it’s<br />

our turn!<br />

2007 MIDLAND<br />

2008 CARDINAL<br />

2009 PORT ROWAN<br />


2011 OTTAWA, ONTARIO<br />


2013 SARNIA, FOREST -<br />


YES I would like to sponsor the 2013 Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers National Rally<br />





TEL:<br />

E-MAIL:<br />

METHOD OF PAYMENT PLEASE CHECK and MAIL BACK; CMC 016 Sarnia C/ODennis Dunkley, 185 Parker St Sarnia On N7T 6G3<br />


CHEQUE Please make cheque payable to- CMC 016 Sarnia Memo: National Rally 2013<br />

47<br />

CREDIT CARD PayPal- ddunkley2@cogeco.ca


PL Report No. 01-2013 Monday, January 7, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Patti Richardson, Senior Planner<br />

Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-10/2012<br />

Location: General Amendment for Location and Size <strong>of</strong><br />

Accessory Buildings<br />

Applicant: <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />


That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-10/2012,<br />

initiated by the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> to amend:<br />

(a) Section 3.3.4 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 to change the<br />

maximum lot coverage allowed for all detached accessory<br />

buildings or structures on a lot in any residential zone to 93m²<br />

or 10% <strong>of</strong> the area <strong>of</strong> the lot, whichever is less subject to the<br />

following restrictions:<br />

i) for buildings and structures <strong>of</strong> 67 m² <strong>of</strong> lot coverage or less<br />

a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres shall be permitted; and<br />

ii) for buildings and structures with lot coverage between 68 m²<br />

to 93 m² a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 6.1 metres shall be permitted.<br />

(b) Section 3.3 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 to permit all<br />

accessory building and structures to be located in the front<br />

yard where a lot abuts a watercourse, provided it is not located<br />

any closer to the front lot line, side lot line or exterior side lot<br />

line than is permitted for a dwelling in the residential zone in<br />

which it is located<br />

be APPROVED and the attached implementing by-law be<br />

enacted.<br />

REPORT<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> the Application<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed zoning By-law Amendment Application proposes to amend:<br />

(a)<br />

Section 3.3.4 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 to change the maximum lot coverage<br />

allowed for all detached accessory buildings or structures on a lot in any residential<br />


zone from 67 m² or 10 % <strong>of</strong> the area <strong>of</strong> the lot whichever is less to 93 m² or 10% <strong>of</strong><br />

the area <strong>of</strong> the lot, whichever is less subject to the following restrictions:<br />

i) for buildings and structures <strong>of</strong> 67 m² <strong>of</strong> lot coverage or less a maximum height<br />

<strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres shall be permitted; and<br />

ii)<br />

for buildings and structures with lot coverage between 68 m² to 93 m² a<br />

maximum height <strong>of</strong> 6.1 metres shall be permitted.<br />

(b) Section 3.3 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 to permit all accessory buildings and<br />

structures to be located in the front yard where a lot abuts a watercourse, provided<br />

the proposed building or structure is not located within the required front yard.<br />

Currently, accessory buildings and structures are only permitted in an interior side<br />

yard and a rear yard.<br />

Correspondence<br />

No correspondence has been received to date.<br />

Discussion<br />

As Council will recall the amendment being proposed originated from recommendations<br />

forwarded to Council from the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment. At their March 22, 2012<br />

meeting the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment passed the following resolution:<br />

Moved by D. Burr<br />

Seconded by M. Gilpin<br />

That the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment recommend to the Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> that Section 3.3.4 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong><br />

2003 be amended to include the following changes:<br />

Total lot coverage <strong>of</strong> all accessory buildings and structures on a lot in any<br />

residential zone shall not exceed 93m² or 10% <strong>of</strong> the lot area, whichever is<br />

less, with the following restrictions:<br />

a) 67 m² and under shall have a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres.<br />

b) 68 m² to 93 m² shall have a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 6.1 metres.<br />

Carried.<br />

Moved by D. Hales<br />

Seconded by B. Gordon<br />

That the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment recommend to the Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> that it authorize an amendment to Section<br />

3.3.3 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 to include the following changes:<br />


a) A detached accessory building or structure may be erected in the<br />

front yard <strong>of</strong> properties that abut a watercourse, provided it is not<br />

constructed within the required front yard setback.<br />

Carried.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee’s recommendations to Council were based on the large number <strong>of</strong><br />

minor variance applications considered by the Committee over the past five years,<br />

relating to the size and height <strong>of</strong> detached accessory buildings and location within the<br />

front yard where al lot abutted a watercourse. <strong>The</strong> reason provided by the applicants in<br />

support <strong>of</strong> the requested variances in size and height included storage <strong>of</strong> larger<br />

recreational vehicles or to accommodate recreational activities such as workshops. <strong>The</strong><br />

reason supporting requests for accessory buildings to be located in the front yard,<br />

where to locate the proposed buildings out <strong>of</strong> a hazardous area, being either a shoreline<br />

or floodplain.<br />

As the current trend does not show signs <strong>of</strong> change the Committee felt an amendment<br />

to the Zoning By-law was warranted.<br />

Planning Staff have reviewed the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Committee and concur with<br />

their recommendations as they represent a reasonable approach to trend in the area for<br />

larger accessory structures. Further, the locating <strong>of</strong> accessory building in front yards on<br />

property which abut a watercourse or Lake Huron results in buildings being located<br />

outside <strong>of</strong> hazardous area association with the Lake Huron shoreline and floodplains<br />

and seems more practical in these situations where access around the dwelling is<br />

usually restricted by the dwelling location, lot width, natural vegetation and topography.<br />

I would suggest however that any dwelling located within a front yard on a lot abutting<br />

the lake or a watercourse be required to not only provide a front yard setback in<br />

compliance with the requirements for dwellings in the zone in which they are located,<br />

but to also provide side yards incompliance with the requirements for dwellings in the<br />

zone in which they are located. This will ensure that adjacent owner will not have<br />

accessory buildings closer to their side lot lines than is currently permitted by the by-law<br />

and maintain a uniform approach to building setbacks in the neighbourhood.<br />

Summary<br />

I can recommend that this application be approved subject to the recommendation<br />

respecting side yards for accessory buildings being incompliance with the requirements<br />

for dwellings in the zone in which they are located, as the Committee suggestions to<br />

Council reflect the current needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> residents and good planning. I<br />

have prepared an implementing by-law which incorporates the by-law changes<br />

contained in the Recommendation section <strong>of</strong> this report. If Council is in favour <strong>of</strong> the<br />

recommended changes, then they can approve the attached by-law.<br />

Respectfully submitted<br />

Patti L. Richardson<br />

Senior Planner<br />



BY-LAW 08 OF 2013<br />

Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003<br />

WHEREAS: the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> passed<br />

a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 on the 4th day <strong>of</strong> February, 2003; and<br />

AND WHEREAS: Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law; and<br />

AND WHEREAS a public meeting was held on January 14, 2013 under Section 34(12) <strong>of</strong><br />

the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990;<br />

NOW THEREFORE, the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

enacts as follows:<br />

1. Section 3.3.3(a) <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 is amended by adding to the end<br />

<strong>of</strong> the section the following:<br />

“, except that a detached accessory building or structure may be permitted in the<br />

front yard <strong>of</strong> a lot that abuts a watercourse including Lake Huron, provided it is<br />

not located any closer to the front lot line, side lot line or exterior side lot line<br />

than is permitted for a dwelling in the residential zone in which it is located.”<br />

2. Section 3.3.4 <strong>of</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 is deleted and replaced with the<br />

following:<br />

“<strong>The</strong> Total Lot Coverage <strong>of</strong> all Accessory Buildings and Structures on a lot in a<br />

Residential Zone shall not exceed 93 square metres or 10% <strong>of</strong> the Lot Area <strong>of</strong><br />

the lot whichever is less. This percentage shall be included as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Maximum Lot Coverage calculation Permitted in the Residential Zone<br />

requirements. <strong>The</strong> Height <strong>of</strong> any Accessory Building or Structure shall be as<br />

follows:<br />

i) for buildings and structures <strong>of</strong> 67 square metres <strong>of</strong> lot coverage or less a<br />

maximum height <strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres shall be permitted; and<br />

ii) for buildings and structures with lot coverage between 68 square metres to 93<br />

square metres a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 6.1 metres shall be permitted.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Height <strong>of</strong> the Building or Structure shall be measured from the finished floor to<br />

the highest point <strong>of</strong> the Building and Structure. Despite the foregoing the<br />


construction <strong>of</strong> fences shall conform to the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

Fencing By-law.<br />

3. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14 th day <strong>of</strong> January, 2013.<br />


___________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

___________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />



PL Report No. 02-2013 Monday, January 8, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Patti Richardson, Senior Planner<br />

Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-12/2012<br />

Location: 9 Water Street, Arkona<br />

Owner: Michael and Jenna Beernink<br />


That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-12/2012,<br />

submitted Michael and Jenna Beernink, requesting<br />

amendments to the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003,<br />

as it relates to that part <strong>of</strong> lands known as 9 Water Street<br />

described as Lot 29, Registered Plan 5 to amend the Zoning<br />

from Residential 3 (R3) to Residential 1 (R1) so that one<br />

single detached dwelling can be constructed on the entire<br />

property be APPROVED and the attached implementing bylaw<br />

be enacted.<br />

REPORT<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> the Application<br />

<strong>The</strong> Applicants, Michael and Jenna Beernink, are requesting an amendment to Zoning Bylaw<br />

1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 as it affect the south half <strong>of</strong> lands known as 9 Water Street in Arkona and<br />

described as Lot 29, Registered Plan 5, from Residential 3 (R3) to Residential 1 (R1), so<br />

that a new single detached dwelling can be constructed on the entire lot comprised <strong>of</strong><br />

Lots 29 and 30, Plan 5. <strong>The</strong> north part <strong>of</strong> the property, being Lot 30, Plan 5 is zoned<br />

Residential 1 (R1).<br />

Location<br />

<strong>The</strong> subject lands are located on the northeast corner <strong>of</strong> Water and Smith Streets in<br />

Arkona. <strong>The</strong> property is currently vacant, but until just recently was occupied by a two<br />

unit dwelling, which has been demolished. Lands to the north, east and west abut<br />

existing single detached dwellings and the lands to the south are occupied by a three<br />

unit townhouse (See ATTACHMENT 1).<br />

Correspondence<br />

No correspondence has been received to date.<br />


Discussion<br />

<strong>The</strong> lands are currently designated “Residential” in the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Official Plan.<br />

<strong>The</strong> designation would allow the lands to be used for single detached residential<br />

dwelling purposes.<br />

Council will recall that at their December 3, 2012 meeting they considered a request from<br />

Mike and Jenna Beernink, to deem the two lots they own, being Lots 29 and 30,<br />

Registered Plan 5 (AK), not to be lots in a Registered Plan, so that they could be joined to<br />

create one lot to accommodate a new single detached dwelling proposed to be<br />

constructed by the Beerninks. At that meeting Council passed the following resolution:<br />

12-1203-08 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

That Council approve a by-law deeming Lots 29 and 30, Registered Plan<br />

5 (AK), <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, not to be lots in a registered plan.<br />

Carried<br />

Council also approved By-law 130 <strong>of</strong> 2012, the deeming by-law.<br />

Summary<br />

I can support the applicants´ request and recommend the application be approved, as<br />

the use intended for the lot complies with the Residential designation on the lands and<br />

is in keeping with the character <strong>of</strong> the area. I have prepared an implementing by-law<br />

which incorporates the by-law changes contained in the Recommendation section <strong>of</strong><br />

this report. If Council is in favour <strong>of</strong> the application, then they can approve the attached<br />

by-law.<br />

Respectfully submitted<br />

Patti L. Richardson<br />

Senior Planner<br />




LOCATION: 9 Water Street, Arkona (Lot 29, Plan 5)<br />

APPLICANT: Michael and Jenna Beernink<br />



BY-LAW 07 OF 2013<br />

Being a By-law to amend By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003<br />

WHEREAS: the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> passed<br />

a comprehensive Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 on the 4th day <strong>of</strong> February, 2003; and<br />

AND WHEREAS: Council deems it desirable to amend the said By-law as it relates to<br />

lands known as 9 Water Street in Arkona and described as Lot 29, Registered Plan 5; and<br />

AND WHEREAS a public meeting was held on January 14, 2013 under Section 34(12) <strong>of</strong><br />

the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990;<br />

NOW THEREFORE, the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

enacts as follows:<br />

1. Schedule ‘A-9’ to Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 is hereby amended by changing the<br />

zone symbol that applies to those lands as indicated on Schedule ‘A’ to this Bylaw<br />

from the:<br />

“RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3)”<br />

to the<br />

“RESIDENTIAL 1 (R1)”<br />

2. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14 th day <strong>of</strong> January, 2013.<br />


___________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

___________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />



PL Report No. 03-2013 Tuesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Patti Richardson, Senior Planner<br />

Zoning By-law Amendment application ZO-11/2012<br />

Location: 9983 Northville Crescent<br />

Owner: Bruce Hiscott<br />


That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-11/2012,<br />

submitted Bruce Hiscott, requesting amendments to the<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Zoning By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003, as it relates to<br />

lands known as 9983 Northville Road be TABLED until the<br />

February 11, 2013 Council Meeting to allow the applicant to<br />

meet with Municipal Staff and the MTO to discuss in more<br />

detail the site setbacks and upgrades required to allow a trailer<br />

sales establishment to be located on the lands in order to<br />

ensure that the zoning provisions approved by Council provide<br />

for the proper development <strong>of</strong> the lands incompliance with<br />

proper site planning and the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transportation<br />

requirements; and<br />

That the public hearing scheduled for January 14 proceed so<br />

that anyone in attendance can convey to Council their support<br />

or concerns respecting the application.<br />

REPORT<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> the Application<br />

<strong>The</strong> Applicant, Bruce Hiscott, is requesting an amendment to the Commercial 4 (C4)<br />

zoning on lands known as 9983 Northville Crescent to add as a permitted use on the<br />

lands a “Travel Trailer Sales Establishment”. <strong>The</strong> Zoning By-law defines a “Travel Trailer<br />

Sales Establishment” as<br />

“means land and/or buildings used for the display for sale <strong>of</strong> travel trailers<br />

and includes the servicing, repair, cleaning, polishing and greasing <strong>of</strong> such<br />

vehicles and the sale <strong>of</strong> accessories and related products and the leasing or<br />

renting <strong>of</strong> such vehicles, but does not include a motor vehicle sales<br />

establishment as defined in this By-law.”<br />


Location<br />

<strong>The</strong> subject lands are located on the northwest corner <strong>of</strong> Highway 21 (Lakeshore Road)<br />

and Northville Crescent in Northville. <strong>The</strong> property has an area <strong>of</strong> approximately 4600<br />

m², a frontage <strong>of</strong> 44 metres on Northville Road and 86 metres on Highway 21. <strong>The</strong><br />

property was vacant until just recently when a trailers sales establishment was<br />

located on the lands in contravention <strong>of</strong> the Zoning By-law and without site plan<br />

approval. Lands to the west are occupied by Oak Grove Trailer Park, which is<br />

comprised predominately <strong>of</strong> park model homes. Lands to the east, across Highway 21,<br />

are occupied by a campground. Lands to the north are owned by the Ausable Bayfield<br />

Conservation Authority and used for conservation purposes and lands to the south are<br />

owned by the Applicant and occupied by a building which houses his business Ultra<br />

Panel Systems (Sunrooms). (See ATTACHMENT 1).<br />

Correspondence<br />

Correspondence has been received from Marvin and Alma Childs, owners <strong>of</strong> Oak Grove<br />

Trailer Park, which is located on lands immediately abutting the subject lands to the<br />

west. Mr and Mrs Child are requesting that any approval <strong>of</strong> the application include a<br />

requirement for a buffer between their property and the subject lands in the form <strong>of</strong> a 3<br />

metre high solid wood fence.<br />

Correspondence has been received from John Morrisey, Corridor Management Planner,<br />

Planning and Design Section, Southwest Region <strong>of</strong> the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transportation. <strong>The</strong><br />

Ministry advises that it has no objection to the zoning, however the applicant should be<br />

aware that Ministry permits are required to establish the use and as a condition <strong>of</strong><br />

Ministry permits, the owner should be made aware <strong>of</strong> the following items:<br />

<strong>The</strong> owner shall submit a site plan, site servicing plan, grading plan and drainage<br />

plan for the proposed development to the Ministry for review and approval. <strong>The</strong><br />

Ministry may also require a Storm Water Management Report upon review <strong>of</strong><br />

these plans;<br />

All new buildings and structures integral to the development (including storm<br />

water management facilities) must be setback a minimum <strong>of</strong> 14 metres from the<br />

highway property limit. Parking shall be setback a minimum <strong>of</strong> 3 metres;<br />

Direct access onto Highway 21 will not be permitted. All access to the property<br />

shall be via Northville Crescent, located towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the property. <strong>The</strong><br />

existing access to Highway 21 (shared with the adjacent neighbour) shall be<br />

modified as per Ministry standard CSAS-31-without taper. Once modified, the<br />

access to Highway 21 will be for the benefit and use <strong>of</strong> the adjacent neighbour<br />

only;<br />

Parking areas <strong>of</strong> sufficient size to accommodate the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles expected<br />

to visit the proposed development must be provided and maintained;<br />

<strong>The</strong> loading and unloading <strong>of</strong> trailers/vehicles/equipment is not permitted on<br />

Highway 21. <strong>The</strong> applicant will need to demonstrate that the property can<br />

accommodate the turning movement <strong>of</strong> delivery vehicles; and<br />


<strong>The</strong> owner shall erect a fence/barrier along the highway property limit including<br />

the daylight triangle, setback a minimum <strong>of</strong> 0.3 m from the highway right <strong>of</strong> way<br />

limit.<br />

Discussion<br />

<strong>The</strong> lands are designated “Northville Policy Area” in the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Official Plan.<br />

Permitted uses in this designation include a range <strong>of</strong> housing accommodations, local<br />

and tourist oriented commercial development including seasonal recreational<br />

campgrounds, institutional and open space uses. Policies in the plan also indicate that<br />

commercial development shall be directed towards the existing commercial nodes at the<br />

intersection <strong>of</strong> Highway 21 and the north entrance <strong>of</strong> Northville Crescent and in the area<br />

adjacent to Highway 21 between Port Franks and the south entrance <strong>of</strong> Northville<br />

Crescent and shall be subject to the commercial polices <strong>of</strong> the plan. Uses permitted by<br />

the commercial policies are those commercial uses intended to serve the day to day<br />

needs <strong>of</strong> the residents <strong>of</strong> the community, and tourists visiting or traveling though the<br />

municipality.<br />

Two <strong>of</strong> the objectives noted in Section 13.2 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Official Plan for the<br />

Northville Policy Area are as follows:<br />

<br />

<br />

To provide a range <strong>of</strong> commercial services to service the needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />

adjacent area and tourists;<br />

To ensure that development occurs in a manner which will enhance the<br />

aesthetics <strong>of</strong> the area and be compatible with the pattern <strong>of</strong> existing<br />

development.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Northville Policy Area policies in the Official Plan also indicate that direct access to<br />

Highway 21 will be discouraged. New development should be required to be accessed<br />

through service roads or Northville Crescent. <strong>The</strong> plan encourages the use <strong>of</strong> shared<br />

driveways, particularly for commercial development. Further, safe and adequate access<br />

shall be provided and access points to roads will be limited and designed to minimize<br />

any danger to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Shared properly designed access shall<br />

be provided, wherever possible. Adequate <strong>of</strong>f-street parking and loading spaces shall<br />

be located behind or beside the commercial establishment, where possible and the site<br />

shall be sufficiently landscaped.<br />

<strong>The</strong> lands are currently zoned Commercial 4 (C4) in the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Zoning By-law<br />

1 <strong>of</strong> 2003. Uses permitted in this zone include motor vehicle repair establishment, motor<br />

vehicle service establishment, bonded warehouse, farmers market, gasoline retail<br />

facility with accessory convenience store, drive in restaurant, truck stop and building<br />

structures and uses, including <strong>of</strong>fices and a dwelling unit, accessory to a permitted use.<br />

<strong>The</strong> zoning on the lands also establishes the following regulations:<br />

a) Minimum Lot Area: 7,000 m²<br />

b) Minimum Lot Frontage 100 metres<br />

c) Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 metres<br />

d) Minimum Exterior Side Yard Setback 60 10 metres

e) Minimum Interior Side Yard 10 metres<br />

f) Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 metres<br />

g) Maximum Building Height 12 metres<br />

i) Minimum Landscaped Open Space 10%<br />

<strong>The</strong> subject lands are located in that area <strong>of</strong> Northville permitted to be developed for<br />

commercial and residential uses by the Official Plan. <strong>The</strong> trailer sales use on the site<br />

was established on the lands in contravention <strong>of</strong> the Zoning By-law and without<br />

site plan approval. <strong>The</strong> commercial use, being proposed complies with the Official<br />

Plan with respect to use and as such I can support its inclusion in the Zoning.<br />

However there are other issues which need to be addressed which are as follows.<br />

Any zoning proposed for the development <strong>of</strong> the lands should include a provision which<br />

requires that a screen and setback be provided from the trailer park to the west. I would<br />

suggest that any open storage or parking area be located a minimum <strong>of</strong> 3 metres from<br />

the west lot line adjacent to the trailer park and that a 2.4 metre high fence be installed<br />

on the property line. This is similar to the requirements for buffering contained in Zoning<br />

By-law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2003 which requires that a 3 metre planting strip be provided on a<br />

commercial lot where it abuts a residential zone or use and that the planting strip when<br />

planted have a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 1 metre. Staff are suggesting that rather than the<br />

providing a buffer strip containing a vegetative screen that a solid wood fence be<br />

installed. <strong>The</strong> fence provides an instant screen which is far easier to maintain. However,<br />

that applicant could also enhance the area by augmenting the fence with some<br />

landscaping. Planting strips are intended to not only provide a screen from a<br />

commercial use they are also intended to provide a physical separation.<br />

Currently the zoning by-law requires that parking be provided at a rate <strong>of</strong> 1 space per 37<br />

m² <strong>of</strong> gross floor area. <strong>The</strong> applicant indicates that the use does not include any<br />

buildings, only the storage <strong>of</strong> the trailers which are for sale. Staff are not sure how a<br />

business transaction could be conducted on the site without some form <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice unless<br />

one <strong>of</strong> the trailers would be used for such purpose. I would suggest that a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />

2 designated parking spaces be required. Currently, the Zoning By-law requires that<br />

staff and customer parking areas and access driveways be hard surfaced with asphalt,<br />

concrete or paving stones and bound by a curb. Open storage areas which include the<br />

trailer storage area are required to be maintained with a stable surface treated so as to<br />

prevent the raising <strong>of</strong> dust. This is generally considered to be a gravel parking area<br />

which is properly graded and drained. <strong>The</strong> hand drawn site plan submitted with the<br />

application does not indicate what surface treatment is to be used for the trailer storage<br />

area which is considered to be open storage.<br />

New uses proposed to be established on lands are required to submit and have<br />

approved a site plan and to enter into a site plan agreement with the <strong>Municipality</strong> prior<br />

to the site being used for the new business. Unfortunately, the applicant located the<br />

use on the lands prior to getting the appropriate municipal and Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation approvals. <strong>The</strong> applicant has submitted a hand drawn site plan for<br />

purposes <strong>of</strong> this application. <strong>The</strong> plan as submitted does not satisfy municipal<br />

requirements for site plan approval. <strong>The</strong> plan does not have any measurements and as<br />

such it is difficult assess even from a preliminary perspective. It is unclear what<br />

setbacks are being provided to the trailer 61storage<br />

area from the lot lines and from

Northville Crescent and Highway 21. Generally a minimum landscaped strip <strong>of</strong> 6 metres<br />

is required along road allowances. <strong>The</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transportation has submitted<br />

comments respecting the development <strong>of</strong> the lands and is requiring prescribed setback<br />

from Highway 21 <strong>of</strong> 3 metres for parking areas and 14 metres for buildings and<br />

structures. Although, the Ministry indicates that parking areas may be located within 3<br />

metres <strong>of</strong> lot line abutting Highway 21, this has not in the past include open storage<br />

which is required to be located the same distance as buildings and structures from the<br />

highway, which is 14 metres. It should be noted that the Ministry’s setbacks are greater<br />

than setback in the C4 zone affecting the property and as a result other amendments to<br />

the C4 zone maybe required.<br />

In light <strong>of</strong> the concerns respecting site development I would recommend that this<br />

application be tabled to the February 11, 2013 Council meeting in order to allow the<br />

applicant, planning staff and the MTO to meet and discuss in more detail what site<br />

setbacks and site improvements are required.<br />

<strong>The</strong> applicant’s proposal to utilize an underutilized property within an established<br />

settlement area conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement which directs development<br />

and intensification within existing settlement areas.<br />

Summary<br />

Although I can support the applicant’s request to include a travel trailer sales<br />

establishment as a permitted use on the lands, as the use complies with the Official<br />

Plan, insufficient information respecting development <strong>of</strong> the lands has been submitted to<br />

ensure proper site development in compliance with the zoning by-law, municipal site<br />

planning requirements and the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transportation.<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, in order to ensure that the zoning provisions approved by Council provide for<br />

the proper development <strong>of</strong> the lands incompliance with proper site planning and Ministry<br />

<strong>of</strong> Transportation requirements, I recommend the application be TABLED until the<br />

February 11, 2013 Council Meeting, to allow the applicant to meet with Municipal Staff<br />

and the MTO to discuss in more detail the site setback and upgrades. However, the<br />

public hearing scheduled for January 14 should still be held and anyone in attendance<br />

allowed to convey to Council their support or concerns respecting the application.<br />

Respectfully submitted<br />

Patti L. Richardson<br />

Senior Planner<br />



LOCATION: 9983 Northville Crescent<br />

APPLICANT: Bruce Hiscott<br />




PL Report No. 04-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Patti Richardson, Senior Planner<br />

Suncor Energy Cedar Point Wind Power Project and<br />

NextEra Energy Canada Jericho Wind Power Project<br />

Municipal Consultation Form and Municipal Consultation Package<br />


For information.<br />

REPORT<br />

Council will recall that at their November 5, 2012 meeting they authorized Staff to retain<br />

a consultant to review the reports submitted as part <strong>of</strong> the application for a Renewable<br />

Energy Approval for Suncor Energy’s Cedar Point Wind Power Project. Staff have been<br />

unable to retain the services <strong>of</strong> a consultant to review the reports as all large<br />

engineering firms who have the varied pr<strong>of</strong>essional staff necessary to review all the<br />

aspects <strong>of</strong> the reports are retained by wind energy companies and thus have a conflict<br />

and will not be retained by <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

As such staff are reviewing the reports in order to complete for Council review and<br />

submission to the Province, the Municipal Comments solicited by the Province as part<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Application for a Renewable Energy Approval (REA application). Staff has also<br />

reviewed other Municipalities comment forms for consideration and reference. <strong>The</strong><br />

response also builds on Clerks report 138-2012 and will meet the reporting<br />

requirements. It is anticipated that a draft Municipal Comments for the Suncor Energy<br />

Cedar Point Power Project will be presented to Council for review at the January 28,<br />

2013 Council Meeting.<br />

Since November the <strong>Municipality</strong> has also received the reports submitted as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

application for a Renewable Energy Approval for the NextEra Energy Canada Jericho<br />

Wind Power Project. Staff are also reviewing these reports and anticipate that a draft <strong>of</strong><br />

the Municipal Comments for the NextEra Energy Canada Jericho Wind Power Project<br />

will be presented to Council for review at the February 7, 2013 Council Meeting.<br />

Trusting this is satisfactory.<br />

Respectfully submitted<br />

Patti L. Richardson<br />

Senior Planner<br />



D.S.C. Report No. 01-2013 Friday, November 30, 2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM :<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Brent Kittmer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Communities in Bloom - Update<br />


It is recommended that D.C.S. Report No. 01-2012 be<br />

approved and the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Communities in Bloom<br />

Committee continue with their efforts in the program.<br />

REPORT<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> has been a proud competitor in the Communities in Bloom (CIB)<br />

program for the past five years; three at the provincial level, and the past two at the<br />

National level. On October 13, 2012 we received the news that <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> had<br />

won its population category with a 5 Bloom rating and special recognition being given to<br />

the committee’s Native Tree Project. <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> was also recognized for its<br />

outstanding volunteers as the recipient <strong>of</strong> the Home Hardware Community Involvement<br />

Award. We were also a finalist for the Youth Involvement Award. <strong>The</strong> Committee Co-<br />

Chairs, Catherine Minielly and Grace Dekker, presented the awards to Council at the<br />

October 15, 2012 meeting.<br />

<strong>The</strong> success <strong>of</strong> Communities in Bloom would not be possible without a collaborative<br />

effort between the <strong>Municipality</strong>, residents, service clubs, community groups and<br />

businesses. <strong>The</strong>re is a significant amount <strong>of</strong> coordination, planning and communication<br />

required in order to maintain the program, and the Committee should be highly praised<br />

for their efforts with the program over the past five years. <strong>The</strong> charts below summarize<br />

the marks <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> has earned during years <strong>of</strong> competition. As it can be seen,<br />

the marks have gradually improved each year.<br />


Provincial Competition<br />

Category<br />

Top Mark<br />

2008<br />

Actual<br />

2009<br />

Actual<br />

2010<br />

Actual<br />

Tidiness 125 100.5 107 111<br />

Environmental Awareness 125 101 107 108<br />

Community Involvement 125 109 111 112<br />

Natural & Cultural Heritage 125 94 90 95<br />

Tree Urban Forest Management 125 102.5 99 98<br />

Landscaped Areas 125 99.5 105 104<br />

Floral Displays 125 107 110 111<br />

Turf & Ground Covers 125 92 93 97<br />

Total 1000 805.5 822 836<br />

Percent 80.55% 82.20% 83.60%<br />

Blooms 4 Blooms 5 Blooms 5 Blooms<br />

2008- Floral Displays Award; Special Mention- Dedicated to Community Partners<br />

2009- Community Involvement Award; Special Mention- Grand Bend Beach Enhancement<br />

2010-Tidiness Award; Special Mention- Knox Presbyterian Church<br />

National Competition<br />

Category Top Mark 2011 Actual 2012 Actual<br />

Tidiness 150 132.25 134.25<br />

Environmental Action 150 134.5 134.75<br />

Heritage Conservation 150 133.75 132.75<br />

Urban Forestry 175 149 146.25<br />

Landscaping (Turf & Ground Covers) 200 173.75 174<br />

Floral Displays 175 157.5 159.5<br />

Total 1000 880.75 881.5<br />

Percent 88.08% 88.15%<br />

Blooms 5 Blooms 5 Blooms<br />

2011 - Finalist for Environmental Action Award, Special Mention – Grand Bend Beach<br />

Revitalization<br />

2012 - Winner <strong>of</strong> Community Involvement Award; Finalist for the Youth Involvement<br />

Award; Special Mention-Native Tree Project<br />

<strong>The</strong> 2012 Evaluation Form is attached. This document contains the scores achieved<br />

under each category along with the judges’ comments and recommendations for the<br />

coming years. <strong>The</strong> Co-Chairs had a chance to speak with the municipalities in our<br />

category and it appears to have been a tight race, with all five participants receiving the<br />

5 Bloom rating. A copy <strong>of</strong> the evaluation has been distributed to the Area Managers<br />


and the Project & Infrastructure Manager to review and perhaps incorporate some <strong>of</strong> the<br />

recommendations into municipal operations.<br />

As the recipient <strong>of</strong> the Home Hardware Community Involvement Award, <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> not only gains national recognition for its volunteers, but also the chance to have<br />

gardening expert, Mark Cullen, come to our municipality. <strong>The</strong> committee is working out<br />

all the details <strong>of</strong> this exciting event and it is hoped to be a major fundraiser for the<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> program.<br />

Communities in Bloom program participants have continued to benefit from the program<br />

in many ways, including: increased civic pride and community involvement; participation<br />

from all ages and walks <strong>of</strong> life; positive benefits for the tourism, hospitality and retail<br />

industries; and, improved quality <strong>of</strong> life. Specifically in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, Communities in<br />

Bloom has brought people together from opposite ends <strong>of</strong> the recently amalgamated<br />

municipality to work together toward a common goal. <strong>The</strong> program has created<br />

successful partnerships between all garden clubs, the beautification committee,<br />

horticultural society, and has gained support from the BIA and Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce,<br />

as well as many other service clubs, community groups and businesses.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Committee met on Monday, November 26, 2013 to discuss future<br />

plans for the program. <strong>The</strong> committee members that were present at the meeting<br />

unanimously agreed that they would like to continue on with the program at a<br />

competitive level by entering the Class <strong>of</strong> Champions category. This is a competition<br />

amongst past winners. Class <strong>of</strong> Champions is similar to that <strong>of</strong> the National<br />

competition, however we would not be eligible for the Outstanding Achievement<br />

Awards. <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> would be placed in either the large, medium or small<br />

population subcategory, depending on the number <strong>of</strong> entrants. Judges would still tour<br />

and evaluate the community in a similar manner to the national level.<br />

<strong>The</strong> committee has worked hard to get as many people in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> involved in<br />

this program and to not carry on at a competitive level, may result in people losing<br />

interest. <strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> communities that have not carried on after successfully<br />

winning at the national level and it is something that is noticed when you visit these<br />

areas. Having the judges come to evaluate the community gives the residents and staff<br />

that extra push to make the community the best it can be.<br />


<strong>The</strong> committee is requesting Council’s consent to continue on with the program in 2013.<br />

If Council’s consent is received, the committee would like to incorporate the following<br />

items into their 2013 plans. Many <strong>of</strong> the items are a continuation <strong>of</strong> past projects but<br />

have incorporated the recommendations from the judges’ evaluation.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee has identified the theme colours for 2013 as Shades <strong>of</strong> Pink. For<br />

flower suggestions and more information on Communities in Bloom, visit<br />

www.lambtonshores.ca.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee plans to continue the Native Tree Program by stressing the<br />

importance <strong>of</strong> replacing trees that have been or will be destroyed by the Emerald<br />

Ash Borer. <strong>The</strong> Committee would like to work with the municipality on<br />

developing a policy with regards to the replacement <strong>of</strong> trees in public spaces<br />

infected with the EAB. Three new feature trees have been selected – the Red<br />

Oak, the Serviceberry and the Eastern Hemlock. <strong>The</strong> brochure on native trees<br />

distributed by CIB has been updated with the 2013 tree selections.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Heritage Plaque Program that recognizes the historical buildings <strong>of</strong> our<br />

municipality, and the annual Trash Bash events will continue for 2013.<br />

CiB will continue its partnerships with local service clubs, area garden clubs, the<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Nature Trails Committee, the Hillside Green Thumb Gardeners,<br />

Doors Open and the Phragmites Group. It will also seek out new partnerships as<br />

required.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee would like the Adopt-A-Pot/Plot program to take a different<br />

direction this year by planting herbs, vegetables or flowers in the pots throughout<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>. Adopters will water, weed and now harvest the pots.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Committee will build on the success <strong>of</strong> the Community Gardens in Grand<br />

Bend, <strong>The</strong>dford and Arkona and try to establish gardens in Forest and Port<br />

Franks as well<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> “In Bloom” will see new categories introduced in 2013 to open<br />

up the contest to more residents.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Communities in Bloom Committee wishes to extend its thanks to Council for its<br />

support in the Communities in Bloom program in 2012. It is hoped that the value <strong>of</strong> the<br />

program for the community is still apparent and that Council will continue to support it in<br />

the coming years.<br />

Respectfully submitted<br />

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Report Prepared by Shannon Prout – Acting Facilitator <strong>of</strong> Recreation & Leisure<br />

Attachments:<br />

1. 2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Evaluation<br />

2012<br />

Form<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>,<br />

Ontario<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />

Community:<br />

Province:<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

Ontario<br />

Category: 10,001 – 20,000<br />

<strong>The</strong> evaluation is based on 8 criteria, divided into the 6 following sections,<br />

assessing 4 sectors <strong>of</strong> the community:<br />

Tidiness 134.25 / 150.00<br />

Environmental Action 134.75 / 150.00<br />

Heritage Conservation 132.75 / 150.00<br />

Urban Forestry 146.25 / 175.00<br />

Landscape (including Turf & Groundcovers) 174.00 / 200.00<br />

Floral Displays 159.50 / 175.00<br />

* Community Involvement is included in each <strong>of</strong> these sections<br />

Total 881.50 / 1000.00<br />

Percentage : 88.15%<br />

Bloom rating:<br />

5 blooms<br />

Bloom rating:<br />

Up to 55%: 1 bloom. 56% to 63%: 2 blooms. 64% to 72%: 3 blooms<br />

73% to 81%: 4 blooms. >82%: 5 blooms.<br />

Mention :<br />

Native Tree Project<br />

Representative (s) <strong>of</strong> Community<br />

Name: Catherine Minielly Function : CiB Committee Co-chair<br />

Name: Grace Dekker Function : CiB Committee Co-chair<br />

Name: Ruth Illman Function : Municipal Councillor<br />

Judges<br />

Name: Bob Lewis Name: Lucie Gagné<br />

Evaluation date: 29 July – 01 August 2012<br />

2 | P age<br />



Evaluation is adjusted to the climate and environmental conditions <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />

Some aspects <strong>of</strong> the evaluation might not be applicable: scoring will be prorated.<br />

<strong>The</strong> score will vary from the previous year based on the facts that the evaluation form is subject to modifications<br />

each year and that the evaluation is based on the perception <strong>of</strong> the current Judges.<br />


Municipal:<br />

- Municipal properties, parks and green spaces, streets, streetscapes<br />

- Properties owned and run by municipality such as Museums, historical sites<br />

Business and Institutions:<br />

Properties owned and managed by<br />

- Business : commercial sector, shopping centres, commercial streets, industrial parks, manufacturing plants<br />

- Institutions : schools, universities, churches, hospitals, service and community organization buildings (YMCA,<br />

Legion), private museums, Canada Post<br />

- Tourism bureaus, Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce <strong>of</strong>fices<br />

- Farms : in rural communities, farms can be considered in this section<br />

Residential:<br />

- Citizens and Citizen groups acting within their own properties<br />

- Residential property owners, rate payer groups<br />

Community Involvement:<br />

<strong>The</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> community involvement is so fundamental to the program that it deserves to be evaluated in each <strong>of</strong><br />

the sections <strong>of</strong> evaluation. Community Involvement will continue to be a highlight <strong>of</strong> the awards ceremony<br />

- Individuals & Service and citizen groups – all contributing to various aspects <strong>of</strong> community improvement<br />

- Organized clubs such as horticultural societies, garden clubs, community associations<br />

- Social clubs such as Rotary, Lions, Optimist<br />

- Participation (financial and/or in-kind or employee participation) by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and Institutions.<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


On behalf <strong>of</strong> Communities in Bloom, the municipality <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is to be congratulated for participating<br />

in the National Edition.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Communities in Bloom Committee and all associated volunteers, organizations, service groups, business<br />

supporters and the Municipal Council are to be congratulated for the excellent job in implementing a fantastic<br />

Community in Blooms program that has embraced all aspects <strong>of</strong> the program and that appears to have helped<br />

greatly to foster a green environment and to help improve the quality <strong>of</strong> life and the aesthetic appearance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

municipality <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

A special thanks to the Dynamic Trio <strong>of</strong> Catherine Minielly, Grace Dekker, Ruth Illman who have shown great<br />

leadership in coordinating all the efforts <strong>of</strong> the program and for conducting an excellent evaluation tour. <strong>The</strong><br />

Judges would also like to thank the CiB Committee members, volunteers, residents and Municipal staff for their<br />

hospitality, special events and exceptional tour. It was great to see the wonderful support for the CiB Program<br />

demonstrated by Mayor Bill Weber, the Deputy Mayor and all the Councillors – thank you.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Community pr<strong>of</strong>ile document provides a wonderful testimony to the achievements <strong>of</strong> all participants in the<br />

Program. All participants are to be congratulated for the terrific results that they have achieved over the years.<br />

All <strong>of</strong> these items have been included in the evaluation although, due to limited space, only some are actually<br />

referred to in this evaluation report. Our apologies go out to those that we have not acknowledged and to the<br />

four residents that we did not meet.<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is an attractive town, with good first impressions being gained as you approach the various<br />

community entrance signs. <strong>The</strong>se impressions are confirmed as you enter the core areas and the proliferation<br />

<strong>of</strong> floral displays, great landscaping, and tidy well kept neighbourhoods. From the results achieved it appears<br />

that forward looking, well developed Strategic Plans, Official Plan, various Community Development Plans and<br />

many community programs including Communities in Bloom have been very successful in uniting several small<br />

towns into the amalgamated <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> while at the same time recognizing and building on<br />

and maintaining the unique culture, heritage and function/vocation <strong>of</strong> the original towns – well done!!<br />

Much has been achieved over the years that <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> has been participating in the Program. It is<br />

encouraging to note that past recommendations have been acted upon promptly where possible. With that in<br />

mind, there are several new recommendations mentioned in the six areas <strong>of</strong> evaluation for continued<br />

improvement and advancement towards higher levels <strong>of</strong> achievement. <strong>The</strong>re are opportunities for expanding<br />

the “greening” <strong>of</strong> events, added protection <strong>of</strong> the urban forest, increasing commercial participation in the floral<br />

program, expanding heritage tours and increasing recycling and water conservation.<br />

4 | P age<br />



Tidiness includes an overall tidiness effort made by the municipality, businesses, institutions, and residents <strong>of</strong> the<br />

community. Elements for evaluation are green spaces (parks, etc.), medians, boulevards, sidewalks, streets, municipal,<br />

commercial, institutional and residential properties, ditches, road shoulders, vacant lots and buildings and signage, with<br />

regard to weeds, maintenance and repair, litter clean-up (including cigarette butts and gum), graffiti and vandalism.<br />

Max<br />

Actual<br />

Municipal<br />

Tidiness, order, cleanliness and first impressions 15 13.5<br />

Community anti-litter awareness programs 5 4<br />

Effective bylaws & policies and enforcement; for litter control, graffiti prevention including<br />

notices & posters<br />

10 8.5<br />

Cleanliness <strong>of</strong> public green infrastructure: parks, streetscapes (sidewalks, planters, etc.) 15 14<br />

Cleanliness <strong>of</strong> urban signage and furniture such as benches, litter and recycling containers 15 13.75<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Tidiness, order and cleanliness and first impressions. 15 13.5<br />

Condition <strong>of</strong> buildings (exterior maintenance), grounds, sidewalks and parking lots 15 13.5<br />

Condition <strong>of</strong> urban furniture: benches, litter and recycling containers 5 4<br />

Residential<br />

Tidiness, order and cleanliness 20 18<br />

Condition <strong>of</strong> buildings, grounds and yards 15 13.5<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in community, neighbourhood or individual street tidiness, clean-up<br />

programs, activities and annual maintenance (including promotion, organization, innovations<br />

involving youth and seniors, etc.)<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and<br />

Institutions for community clean-up programs<br />

10 9<br />

10 9<br />

Tidiness Total 150.00 134.25<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Observations:<br />

Great first impressions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> – everywhere we went the municipality was clean, neat and very little<br />

or no litter or graffiti. In the rural areas, the ditches were relatively clean and many residents cut the turf along<br />

the road way <strong>of</strong> their primary residence.<br />

A terrific contribution by all segments <strong>of</strong> the community (community groups, service clubs, individuals,<br />

businesses, the municipality, CiB) in keeping the town tidy was very evident.<br />

Kudos to the beach clean-up program – excellent service to the users!!<br />

<strong>The</strong> street furniture in <strong>The</strong>dford was neat, effective and could be an ideal model for all others.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

Strive for consistency in providing garbage and recycling containers in all locations – this should help continue to<br />

ensure a tidy community and continue to promote recycling.<br />

Continue to provide street and park furniture in all locations.<br />

Keep up all the great efforts in community clean-up.<br />

Continue to explore means <strong>of</strong> removing green material in hard surfaces, particularly in high pr<strong>of</strong>ile locations;<br />

these hard surface weeds and grasses diminishes the impact <strong>of</strong> the hard work <strong>of</strong> everyone involved in the<br />

community general clean up projects. Some options include treatment with industrial vinegar, hot water (weed<br />

steamer), pressure washer, flame (Weed Garden Propane Torch) and manual removal.<br />

6 | P age<br />



Environmental action includes efforts and achievement by the municipality, businesses, institutions, and residents <strong>of</strong> the<br />

community, with respect to: policies, by-laws and best practices, 3-R initiatives (reduce/reuse/recycle), waste reduction,<br />

landfill sites, hazardous waste collections, water conservation, naturalization, environmental stewardship activities, and<br />

environmentally friendly transportation, under the guiding principles <strong>of</strong> sustainable development.<br />

Municipal<br />

Sustainable development strategy: policies, guidelines, long-term planning / vision; effective bylaws<br />

/ policies and their enforcement; and public education programs and activities.<br />

Waste management programs such as 3-R (recycling, re-use, reduce), composting and including<br />

activities such as landfill site management, shredding <strong>of</strong> Christmas trees & handling <strong>of</strong> hazardous<br />

waste including e-waste collection<br />

Water conservation and reduction programs: efficient appliance incentives or promotion, efficient<br />

irrigation and use <strong>of</strong> non-potable water, water restriction policies<br />

Energy conservation programs such as alternate forms <strong>of</strong> energy (ex. geothermal, biomass, wind,<br />

solar), efficient street and signal lighting and shielding for night skies issues & promotion <strong>of</strong> energy<br />

audits<br />

Environmental actions such as:<br />

Greening <strong>of</strong> operations fleet for park maintenance: such as conversion to higher efficiency vehicles,<br />

use <strong>of</strong> alternative fuels and air quality programs: monitoring, anti-idling advisory / bylaws, efficient<br />

use <strong>of</strong> vehicle fleet such as use <strong>of</strong> crew cabs, bicycles, any other energy-saving transportation.<br />

Development and expansion <strong>of</strong> bike lanes and recreational pathways.<br />

Initiatives and Innovation, such as: green ro<strong>of</strong>s, green walls; re-use <strong>of</strong> sites; engineered wetlands<br />

and bio-walls.<br />

Brownfield redevelopment, remediation, land reclamation.<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Participation in the environmental effort : such as waste management (recycle, reuse, reduce),<br />

water conservation, energy conservation, brownfield management<br />

Corporate environmental innovation / stewardship, initiatives, activities (Ex. Environmental clean-up<br />

activities)<br />

Residential<br />

Max<br />

Actual<br />

20 18.5<br />

10 8.75<br />

10 8.75<br />

10 8.75<br />

20 18.75<br />

10 8.5<br />

10 8.75<br />

Participation in the 3-R (recycle, reuse, reduce) initiatives and composting 20 18.5<br />

Adoption <strong>of</strong> water conservation practices & policies including rainwater collection. 15 13.5<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in public forums and policy development on environmental issues 5 4.25<br />

Public participation in community, neighbourhood or individual street environmental activities and<br />

programs (including, promotion, organization and evidence <strong>of</strong> taking ownership), etc.)<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and Institutions<br />

in public environmental activities and programs<br />

10 8.75<br />

10 9<br />

Environmental Action Total 150.00 134.75<br />



8 | P age<br />

2012 Evaluation Form<br />

Observations:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Judges were impressed with the multiplicity <strong>of</strong> environmental activities/achievements throughout the<br />

community such as: comprehensive waste management program ; Blue Flag designation at the two Marinas<br />

and the Grand Bend Beach; protection <strong>of</strong> sand dunes; street light conversion; LEED direction for buildings;<br />

S.W.I.M. project; Return the Landscape at Grand Bend Beach; Nature Trails Committee; Phragmites working<br />

group; businesses environment actions (green initiatives); Environmental commitment and environmental<br />

awareness; and Aquafest promoting the environment.<br />

It is also great to see so many different groups, individuals and businesses involved in environmental activities.<br />

It is very encouraging to see the emphasis that all levels <strong>of</strong> the community place on the natural environment<br />

including native trees, protection <strong>of</strong> dunes, organic gardening and oak savannah.<br />

Garbage tags appear to be an effective tool and incentive to promote recycling.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

Expand the Grand Bend Environment Committee and or create similar committees in all community centers to<br />

help execute and advise on the City Environmental Action Plan.<br />

Continue to work with all groups for a concentrated plan <strong>of</strong> action to help eradicate/control Phragmites.<br />

Consider looking towards more user friendly collection and disposal <strong>of</strong> yard waste – convenient drop <strong>of</strong>f<br />

locations or bi-weekly collection <strong>of</strong> brown bags – compost the collection and recycle to city landscapes or to<br />

local residents.<br />

Encourage Bluewater to acquire the equipment to collect and compost kitchen waste.<br />

Consider a rain barrel promotion program with a possible subsidy to promote water recycling and conservation.<br />

Approach the golf courses to undertake the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP).<br />

This is an international program administered by Audubon International designed to help landowners preserve<br />

and enhance the environmental quality <strong>of</strong> their property. This program works solely with golf courses helping<br />

them to create environmentally friendly areas while still having great places to play golf. It focuses on:<br />

Environmental Planning, Wildlife and Habitat Management, Chemical Use Reduction and Safety, Water<br />

Conservation, Water Quality Management and Outreach and Education.<br />

Great initiatives taken with LEED for the <strong>The</strong>dford Legacy Center; consider adopting LEED as a guideline for the<br />

design <strong>of</strong> all new town buildings and encourage any new commercial buildings to do the same.<br />

Consider moving towards making all events on municipal lands “green events”.<br />

Consider the implementation <strong>of</strong> a green procurement policy for all municipal purchases.<br />

Continue to promote environmental initiatives: ex.: place environmental pamphlets in the local water bills<br />

distributed to all residents.<br />

Continue to work on expansion and connection <strong>of</strong> trails linking all regions together thus further strengthening<br />

the new municipality and providing recreation and alternative travel routes.<br />



Heritage Conservation includes efforts made by the municipality, businesses and institutions, and residents to preserve<br />

heritage within their community. Priority in evaluation is given to natural heritage, as well as the integration <strong>of</strong> landscape<br />

and streetscapes as it pertains to the built heritage <strong>of</strong> a community. Also consists <strong>of</strong> preservation <strong>of</strong> cultural heritage<br />

which includes monuments, memorials, artefacts, museums and history, archives, traditions, customs, heritage foods and<br />

the arts and festivals and celebrations. <strong>The</strong> evaluation includes:<br />

-natural heritage management plans: sites, parks, cemeteries, heritage gardens and trees, native plants;<br />

- the relationship <strong>of</strong> the landscape to the built heritage;<br />

-overall preservation <strong>of</strong> traditions and customs through year-round festivals and celebrations, events and parades,<br />

heritage foods and the arts.<br />

As well, the participation <strong>of</strong> groups such as the Historical Society is considered.<br />

Municipal<br />

Max<br />

Actual<br />

Heritage policies, by-laws and their enforcement and effective programs 15 13.5<br />

Natural and cultural heritage management plan and preservation initiatives: including cultural<br />

landscapes, use <strong>of</strong> native plants, heritage gardens, heritage trees, cemeteries, museums,<br />

heritage sites<br />

Management and promotion <strong>of</strong> heritage (through communications, information and support<br />

programs, economic development / tourism) including natural and cultural heritage initiatives<br />

throughout the year, and preservation <strong>of</strong> traditions, and customs<br />

15 14<br />

15 13.5<br />

Interpretative and signage programs, walking tours, festivals/celebrations (year round) 15 13.5<br />

Activities and programs (year-round) for education and use <strong>of</strong> natural heritage sites for and by<br />

the public<br />

15 13.75<br />

New programs and initiatives to promote local heritage 10 8.5<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Conservation, restoration and reuse <strong>of</strong> heritage buildings and grounds 15 13.25<br />

Promotion <strong>of</strong> local heritage, including heritage gardens, native plants, and heritage trees 15 13.25<br />

Residential<br />

Conservation / restoration and reuse <strong>of</strong> sites / buildings 10 8.25<br />

Conservation <strong>of</strong> cultural and heritage elements pertaining to their own private lands and<br />

structures.<br />

5 4<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in community, neighbourhood or individual in cultural and natural<br />

heritage programs including heritage community events/activities, including year round<br />

cultural festivals & celebrations and preservation <strong>of</strong> traditions, customs, food, music, dance<br />

10 8.5<br />

and crafts (including promotion, organization etc.).<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and<br />

Institutions (including Historical Societies) in community initiated, natural and cultural<br />

8.75<br />

10<br />

heritage activities and programs including cultural festivals & celebrations throughout the<br />

year and preservation <strong>of</strong> traditions, customs, food, music, dance and crafts.<br />

Heritage Conservation Total 150.00 132.75<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Observations:<br />

Cultural and natural heritage conservation and promotion is a very strong component <strong>of</strong> the way <strong>of</strong> life in<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>. <strong>The</strong> draft Official Plan recognizes and promotes heritage conservation. <strong>The</strong> community has<br />

many heritage facilities and initiatives including: Forest Museum and travelling road show; several heritage<br />

walking tours; historic streetscape policies and design guidelines; inventory <strong>of</strong> heritage buildings; <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

Heritage Museum, Century Farm program; Forest Kineto theatre (& museum) ; Forest train station and caboose;<br />

and Arkona Lions Museum and Information Centre.<br />

Congratulations on being a strong participant in Doors Open: this is an excellent way to showcase and educate<br />

the public and visitors about local heritage and significant buildings.<br />

All components <strong>of</strong> the community (businesses, community groups, clubs, service groups, individuals, the<br />

municipality) are greatly involved in many activities that highlight the culture and heritage <strong>of</strong> all aspects <strong>of</strong> the<br />

community including: Homemade Jam Festival (music not the kind you eat); Winter Carnivals, <strong>The</strong>dford Funion<br />

Days; Aquafest; Canada Day; Arkona Funtastic Days; Blossom Tour; Forest Fair; and various charity events, etc.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

<strong>The</strong> draft Official Plan recognizes heritage conservation; the completion <strong>of</strong> a comprehensive Heritage Policy and<br />

Action Plan will help ensure the effective management and preservation <strong>of</strong> the cultural and natural heritage <strong>of</strong><br />

the municipality. In the policy, consider initiating a grant scheme (dollar grant or funds matching, reduction in<br />

taxes, and interest free loans, etc.) to provide incentives to ensure the rehabilitation and preservation <strong>of</strong><br />

heritage buildings.<br />

Kettle Point and the Kettle Rocks are a very important aspect <strong>of</strong> the natural heritage <strong>of</strong> the community. Erection<br />

<strong>of</strong> interpretive signage at these locations would contribute to sharing these treasures with visitors and locals.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Kettle Point Veterans Memorial is an important aspect <strong>of</strong> the cultural heritage <strong>of</strong> the local aboriginals and<br />

has very strong symbolism; interpretative signage at this location could facilitate telling this fascinating story to<br />

all visitors to the site.<br />

Complete the significant heritage building inventory and subsequent plaguing and expand and promote<br />

walking/driving tours <strong>of</strong> these treasures in order to share with all. Add heritage trees to the inventory and<br />

tours.<br />

Continue to explore the possibility <strong>of</strong> murals throughout the community – a wonderful way to depict and<br />

promote the history and culture <strong>of</strong> the municipality and to also add diversity to the streetscape and landscape.<br />

10 | P age<br />



Urban Forestry includes the efforts made by the municipality, businesses and institutions, and residents with regards to<br />

written policies, by-laws, standards for tree management (selection, planting, and maintenance), long and short-term<br />

management plans, tree replacement policies, tree inventory, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), heritage, memorial<br />

and commemorative trees.<br />

Municipal<br />

Max<br />

Actual<br />

Overall impact, benefit and first impression <strong>of</strong> the urban forest 10 8.5<br />

Policies, regulations and tree by-laws, tree protection and planting on public and private lands 10 8<br />

Urban forestry planning and design, including integration with overall landscape plan 10 8.25<br />

Measures to preserve, protect, manage and expand overall tree inventory, including woodlots 10 8<br />

Plan <strong>of</strong> action: procurement, species diversity (including native trees), selection <strong>of</strong> hardy species 10 8.5<br />

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) / Plant HealthCare (PHC): plan <strong>of</strong> action for invasive pest<br />

detection and control, information on current infestations and diseases<br />

10 8.25<br />

Public information program on good planting techniques and maintenance programs 10 8.5<br />

Qualified personnel and/or crew training 10 7.75<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Design, species diversity and planting <strong>of</strong> trees in landscapes 15 13<br />

Maintenance programs and best practices: watering, pruning, IPM 10 8<br />

Inclusion <strong>of</strong> diversified (including native), hardy species for planting on properties 10 8<br />

Residential<br />

Design, species diversity and planting <strong>of</strong> trees in landscapes 15 13<br />

Inclusion <strong>of</strong> diversified (including native), hardy species for planting on residential properties 10 8.5<br />

Maintenance best practices 10 8.25<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in tree planting and conservation programs such a Green Streets Canada,<br />

Arbour Day, Maple Leaf Day, and other tree planting and maintenance programs and activities<br />

on public lands (including promotion, organization etc.).<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation or promotion by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses<br />

and Institutions for community tree planting and conservation programs on public lands.<br />

15 13.25<br />

10 8.5<br />

Urban Forestry Total 175.00 146.25<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Observations:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Native Tree Project, a CiB partnership, was created to educate community volunteers on tree planting and<br />

maintenance and to plant native trees. In two short years much has been achieved: a “how to” brochure<br />

produced and distributed, 20% <strong>of</strong>f tree coupons from local nurseries circulated, grandest tree contest<br />

established, TD Friends <strong>of</strong> the Environment grant received with matching funds from Community donations, and<br />

the planting, by volunteers, <strong>of</strong> dozens <strong>of</strong> specimen trees and hundreds <strong>of</strong> seedlings in various public areas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Municipal tree nursery will help ensure a supply <strong>of</strong> tolerant climate adjusted trees for planting.<br />

<strong>The</strong> greatest tree contest is a great step in protecting and celebrating heritage and specimen trees.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a tree inventory that is used for urban forest planning and community development planning. It will<br />

also provide a good planning tool for infill.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

Consider that visiting dignitaries be encouraged to purchase (including acquisition and two years <strong>of</strong><br />

maintenance) a “tree” as a hospitality gift for the <strong>Municipality</strong>, instead <strong>of</strong> all the memorabilia that is usually<br />

presented and hung on walls or stored away. Conversely have the <strong>Municipality</strong> purchase a “tree” as a “gift” to<br />

visiting dignitaries. This will be a great asset for the <strong>Municipality</strong>, will contribute to environmental sustainability<br />

and will also contribute to reducing the tree planting and maintenance budget.<br />

Consider providing irrigation <strong>of</strong> the tree nursery to help ensure survival and a good quality product.<br />

Consider a by-law to protect individual specimen trees on private lands and help preserve the municipal tree<br />

cover. If trees must be removed, consider a requirement for a two for one replacement.<br />

Continue to upgrade and train staff in good tree management and maintenance practices through courses such<br />

as those <strong>of</strong>fered by OPA or others.<br />

Considering the increase <strong>of</strong> tree and plant diseases, it might be prudent to train a permanent employee to<br />

identify plant problems (insect, diseases...) instead <strong>of</strong> relying entirely on a contractor.<br />

12 | P age<br />


LANDSCAPE (Parks & Grounds, Green Spaces, Streetscapes - including Turf & Groundcovers)<br />

This section <strong>of</strong> the evaluation supports all efforts to create an environment showcasing the overall surroundings. <strong>The</strong> overall plan and<br />

design must be suitable for the intended use and location on a year-round basis. Elements for evaluation include: native and<br />

introduced materials; balance <strong>of</strong> plants, materials and constructed elements; appropriate integration <strong>of</strong> hard surfaces and art<br />

elements, use <strong>of</strong> turf and groundcovers. Landscape design should harmonize the interests <strong>of</strong> municipal, commercial and residential<br />

sectors <strong>of</strong> the community. Standards <strong>of</strong> execution and maintenance should demonstrate best practices, including quality <strong>of</strong><br />

naturalization, use <strong>of</strong> groundcovers and wildflowers, turf management and maintenance. <strong>The</strong> evaluation will consider how the spaces<br />

create a sense <strong>of</strong> place within the community, actively utilized year-round.<br />

Max Actual<br />

Municipal<br />

Landscape Plan: integrated and implemented throughout the municipality 10 8.25<br />

Turf management programs, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Plant Health Care (PHC),<br />

alternative solutions to diseases and infestations when appropriate, increased naturalization,<br />

10 8.25<br />

alternate mowing frequency and water management<br />

First impressions <strong>of</strong> the community including gateway / entrance treatments 10 8.5<br />

Landscape maintenance policies, standards, best practices and programs 10 8.25<br />

Sustainable designs (seasonally adjusted year round): energy efficient, use <strong>of</strong> green materials,<br />

naturalization, xeriscaping, suitable plant varieties<br />

10 8.5<br />

Urban and civic design standards for streetscape and public places: flags, banners, public art,<br />

fountains, site furnishings, seasonal design and décor, walkways and paving materials<br />

10 8.75<br />

Landscape maintained to appropriate standards and specifications 10 8.5<br />

Demonstrated year-round opportunities and programs for education and use <strong>of</strong> parks and green<br />

spaces (parks and recreation programs, city festivals and events)<br />

10 8.25<br />

Qualified personnel (including seasonal staff) and/or training 5 3.5<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Sustainable designs (seasonally adjusted year round): energy efficient, use <strong>of</strong> green materials,<br />

naturalization, xeriscaping, alternate groundcovers<br />

Contribution to urban and civic design and public green spaces above requirements: such as public<br />

art, streetscape, site furniture, fountains & innovation in concept & design<br />

Adequate ongoing life cycle management (ongoing maintenance, ground & asset management,<br />

rehabilitation & replacement ) <strong>of</strong> all landscape elements<br />

Residential<br />

10 8.5<br />

10 8.25<br />

10 8.5<br />

Streetscape appeal <strong>of</strong> landscapes (year-round, seasonal, themed) 15 13.5<br />

Maintenance <strong>of</strong> properties: lawn care, tree and shrub maintenance 15 13.5<br />

Selection <strong>of</strong> plant material (native, local, innovative, including edible gardening) 15 13.5<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in community programs such as: "yard <strong>of</strong> the week", volunteer park<br />

maintenance, holiday illumination & decoration (including promotion, organization etc.).<br />

15 14<br />

Recognition (by municipality and/or by volunteer groups) <strong>of</strong> volunteer efforts in all aspects <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Communities in Bloom Program including tidiness, environmental action, urban forestry, landscape, 15 14<br />

floral and natural & Cultural Heritage activities .<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and Institutions<br />

9.5<br />

10<br />

for community landscape programs and activities<br />

Landscape Total 200.00 174.00<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Observations:<br />

Throughout the <strong>Municipality</strong> there is a good variety <strong>of</strong> landscape elements including trees, shrub beds, floral<br />

baskets, floral beds and planters, manicured turf and naturalized areas. <strong>The</strong>re are also a variety <strong>of</strong> hardscapes<br />

elements including entrance signs, fountains, gazebos, benches, monuments, tributes and interpretation panels.<br />

All these elements are uniquely designed and arranged and are integrated throughout the community. All<br />

landscape elements are meticulously maintained by Municipal staff and dozens <strong>of</strong> enthusiastic volunteers. <strong>The</strong><br />

landscaped turf areas are also well maintained with a thorough turf management program. <strong>The</strong> additional small<br />

signs in some <strong>of</strong> the gardens/floral beds indicating who sponsors &/or maintains the garden is an excellent<br />

means <strong>of</strong> recognition and feedback. Including the types <strong>of</strong> flowers in the bed also provides invaluable<br />

information to visitors/residents viewing the beds. Overall, this is a very impressive presentation.<br />

<strong>The</strong> various gateway signs are unique for each community and generally are well landscaped and provide an<br />

attractive entrance to the various communities.<br />

Downtown planters are decorated for the winter season.<br />

Forest is a beautiful landscaped center with the renovated train station (library) and park. Most floral elements<br />

are maintained by volunteers or businesses as an “adopt a bed”.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a keen young staff that is eager to learn, adaptable to cross training and are producing excellent results.<br />

<strong>The</strong> community is to be congratulated for the exceptional community involvement in creating, upgrading and<br />

maintaining parks, such as Children’s Park in Grande Bend, Parkette in Forest, Ball Diamond, Kettle Point<br />

Veterans garden, many school grounds and businesses. Service and Business Clubs such as Lions Club , Kiwanis<br />

Club, Horticultural Society , BIA, Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce, Royal Canadian Legion and Community Grant<br />

Organizations also are very active either fundraising, planning, assisting and/or delivering a variety <strong>of</strong><br />

community green projects and other activities.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

Where there is signage in floral beds, including the types <strong>of</strong> flowers in the bed also provides invaluable<br />

information to visitors/residents viewing the beds.<br />

Continue to expand and create community gardens where there is a demand.<br />

Continue the efforts made to train new staff and expand to include more technical training in horticulture and<br />

arboriculture (check OPA).<br />

Consider involving the children in gardening clubs; they will be tomorrow's "managers" and it is a good way to<br />

get them aware <strong>of</strong> the environment at a young age.<br />

14 | P age<br />



"Floral Displays" evaluates the efforts made by the municipality, businesses and institutions, and residential sectors <strong>of</strong><br />

the community to design, plan, execute, and maintain floral displays <strong>of</strong> high quality standards. Evaluation includes the<br />

design and arrangements <strong>of</strong> flowers and plants (annuals, perennials, bulbs, ornamental grasses) in the context <strong>of</strong><br />

originality, distribution, location, diversity and balance, colour, and harmony. This pertains to flowerbeds, carpet<br />

bedding, containers, baskets and window boxes.<br />

Municipal<br />

Integration into overall landscape plan and distribution through community. Concept and<br />

design including sustainable design<br />

Diversity <strong>of</strong> displays: flowerbeds, raised beds, planters, hanging baskets, window boxes, carpet<br />

bedding, mosaics<br />

Max<br />

Actual<br />

15 14<br />

15 14<br />

Diversity <strong>of</strong> plants: annuals, perennials, bulbs, grasses, woody plants, natural flora 10 9<br />

Quality, maintenance to appropriate specifications and standards, best practices: watering,<br />

19<br />

20<br />

weeding, edging, dead heading, etc.<br />

Qualified personnel (including seasonal staff) and/or training 10 8<br />

Business & Institutions<br />

Concept and design (including arrangement, diversity, colour <strong>of</strong> display and plants) on grounds 15 13.75<br />

Quality <strong>of</strong> planting and maintenance: watering, weeding, edging, dead heading, etc. 10 8.5<br />

Contribution to, and integration with, overall community floral program 10 8.75<br />

Residential<br />

Concept and design (including arrangement, diversity, colour <strong>of</strong> display and plants) on<br />

residential properties<br />

15 13.75<br />

Quality <strong>of</strong> planting and maintenance 15 14<br />

Community Involvement<br />

Public participation in community projects, volunteer initiatives, outreach programs in floral<br />

displays (including promotion, organization, etc.).<br />

10 9.25<br />

Volunteer recognition (by municipality and/or by volunteer groups) <strong>of</strong> volunteer efforts in<br />

floral displays<br />

15 13.5<br />

Support – financial and/or in-kind or participation by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, Businesses and<br />

Institutions in community floral displays activities.<br />

15 14<br />

Floral Displays Total 175.00 159.50<br />


2012 Evaluation Form<br />


Observations:<br />

<strong>The</strong> floral plan is well integrated with the overall landscape plan. <strong>The</strong> municipality has a good variety <strong>of</strong> floral<br />

displays and types <strong>of</strong> plants including an increasing amount <strong>of</strong> perennials. Floral elements include an attractive<br />

variety <strong>of</strong> hanging baskets, floral gardens, pocket gardens, planters and old tires (at Stony Point School). <strong>The</strong><br />

theme color for the floral program is a great idea that helps bring the entire community together.<br />

<strong>The</strong> community participation in the floral program is exceptional; it is truly a community effort. <strong>The</strong> municipality<br />

manages the main display along the main street in Grand Bend and along the Grand Bend Beach. Essentially<br />

most <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> the extensive floral displays throughout the municipality are the initiative <strong>of</strong> various<br />

horticultural groups, the Communities in Bloom committee, institutions, clubs, schools and businesses. In most<br />

cases, the purchase and planting and maintenance is done by the above groups and municipal staff does the<br />

watering. <strong>The</strong>se displays, so well spread throughout all areas <strong>of</strong> the municipality gives the place a very special<br />

feel - a sense <strong>of</strong> happiness and wellbeing.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> in Bloom contest is great and it involves all segments <strong>of</strong> the community – residential,<br />

business, rural, institutions.<br />

Recommendations:<br />

Where there is signage in floral beds, including the types <strong>of</strong> flowers in the bed also provides invaluable<br />

information to visitors/residents viewing the beds.<br />

Consider expanding the garden tours to include the general public – a great fundraiser and an opportunity to<br />

highlight some <strong>of</strong> the spectacular residential gardens throughout the community.<br />

Look for more ways to get the commercial sector actively involved in the floral program such as: expand adopta-bed<br />

and sponsor beds (with signage – small) and BIA & Chamber take lead role in commercial sector Bloom<br />

contest.<br />

16 | P age<br />



“Within the context <strong>of</strong> climate change and environmental<br />

concerns, communities involved in the Communities in Bloom<br />

program can be proud <strong>of</strong> their efforts, which provide real and<br />

meaningful environmental solutions and benefit all <strong>of</strong> society.”<br />


<strong>The</strong> commitment <strong>of</strong> local, provincial and national volunteers<br />

<strong>The</strong> support <strong>of</strong> elected <strong>of</strong>ficials and <strong>of</strong> staff in municipalities<br />

<strong>The</strong> dedication <strong>of</strong> our Judges, staff and organizations<br />

<strong>The</strong> contribution <strong>of</strong> our sponsors and partners<br />



D.C.S. Report No. 04-2013 Friday, January 04, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Brent Kittmer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Former Military Camp Water Servicing Agreement<br />


That D.C.S. Report No. 04-2013 be approved; and further<br />

that the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> enter into an<br />

agreement with the Department <strong>of</strong> National Defence for the<br />

supply <strong>of</strong> water to the Former Military Camp on Army Camp<br />

Rd.; and further<br />

That By-law 04-2013 authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign<br />

the associated contract agreement be approved.<br />

REPORT<br />

<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> National Defence (DND) has requested temporary water servicing<br />

for the Former Military Camp on Army Camp Rd. <strong>The</strong> site has an existing water<br />

treatment and distribution system, however the intake line for the water treatment plant<br />

is no longer functional and the system needs an alternative source <strong>of</strong> water. A formal<br />

request written by the project consultant is attached as Appendix A to this report.<br />

DND is currently going through the process <strong>of</strong> decomisioning the site with the intention<br />

<strong>of</strong> returning the lands to First Nations. As part <strong>of</strong> the decomisioning, all buildings,<br />

structure, roads, water mains, sanitary mains and storm mains will be removed from the<br />

site. It has been suggested that this will take approximately five years, so the supply<br />

would be temporary until such time when the water main infrastructure is removed from<br />

the site.<br />

<strong>The</strong> water system on the army camp site is currently under a permanent boil water<br />

advisory. This boil water advisory will remain in effect until the system is<br />

decommissioned. <strong>The</strong> need for water supply is due to the boilers currently used in the<br />

remaining buildings for heat. <strong>The</strong> water is not and will not be consumed by residents<br />

living on the site. <strong>The</strong>re is a an existing 20mm (3/4”) service line that feeds the control<br />

building on the site where residents <strong>of</strong> the site can retreive potable water for<br />

consumption.<br />

<strong>The</strong> existing 200mm (8”) municipal water main will be live tapped so that service is not<br />

interrupted to residents in Ipperwash. OMI operators will be present for flushing and<br />

sampling <strong>of</strong> the new service line. <strong>The</strong> consultants for DND are proposing a 200mm<br />

service line in order to provide enough pressure to feed the existing on-site water tower.<br />

<strong>The</strong> service line will have an isolation valve installed at property line and will enter a<br />

meter chamber when it crosses onto the Former Military Camp property. This meter<br />

chamber will contain a 150mm (6”) water<br />

92<br />

meter, a pressure reducing valve and a

ackflow preventer. <strong>The</strong> agreement attached to this report as Appendix B requires the<br />

water meter and backflow preventer to be tested annually with results submitted to<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> municipal staff for review.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposal from DND requested a maximum <strong>of</strong> 40m 3 /day. Staff have recently<br />

completed a capacity assessment on the water systems and confirmed that there is<br />

suitable water system capacity at this flow rate and should have no impact on existing<br />

residents. As this agreement has a defined time frame, there is no long term<br />

commitment required from the municipality that may impact future growth or<br />

development. <strong>The</strong> agreement also has cancellation clauses in the event that the<br />

municipality can no longer supply the site with water.<br />

Staff have reviewed this proposal with local MOE Drinking Water Inspectors and found<br />

that there are no regulatory impacts associated with supplying water to the site as the<br />

water will be considered “non-potable” once it enters the DND water system, which is<br />

federally regulated. From a regulatory aspect, the site would essentially be considered a<br />

water customer similar to any other water customer connected to the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

system. Billing for water consumption will be consistent with other water users<br />

connected to the system.<br />

All costs associated with the project will be covered by DND and the road will be<br />

restored to municipal standards after the connection to the water main is complete.<br />

When the agreement expires, DND will be required to remove any infrastructure<br />

installed as part <strong>of</strong> this project back to the isolation valve at property line. This request is<br />

time sensitive as the sites current water supply will freeze in the near future with winter<br />

weather approaching.<br />

Staff recommends that Council enter into the agreement attached in order to supply<br />

water to the Former Military Camp on Army Camp Rd.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Report Prepared by Jeff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager<br />

Attachments:<br />

1. Authorizing By-law #04-2013<br />

2. DND Agreement<br />



BY-LAW 04 OF 2013<br />

Being a By-law to authorize an Agreement between the<br />

Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> and<br />

<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> National Defence, Canada<br />

WHEREAS:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Nation Defence has requested a water<br />

service for the former Military Camp on Army Camp Road;<br />

AND WHEREAS: An agreement has been prepared outlining the terms and<br />

conditions under which the servicing would be provided,<br />

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed appropriate for the Mayor and Clerk to be<br />

authorized to sign the necessary agreement;<br />

NOW THEREFORE the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> enacts as follows:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute an agreement on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />

the Corporation between the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> and <strong>The</strong><br />

Department <strong>of</strong> National Defence, a copy <strong>of</strong> which is annexed to this By-law,<br />

and to affix to the contract the Corporate Seal <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>;<br />

2. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14th day <strong>of</strong> January, 2013.<br />


___________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

___________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />



D.C.S. Report No. 05-2013 Monday, January 7, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Brent Kittmer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Harbour Depth Maintenance Program Review<br />


That the report be received for Council to provide direction to staff.<br />

REPORT<br />

This report presents information to Council respecting the current harbour depth<br />

maintenance program for the Grand Bend and Port Franks harbours; outlines the<br />

various challenges currently faced by the program; and suggests various changes that<br />

can be made to the program for Council’s consideration.<br />

Please note: presently Council is considering two distinct matters that are very much<br />

similar and at times get confused for one another. <strong>The</strong> first is the review <strong>of</strong> the annual<br />

dredging program completed for recreational boating purposes in each harbour. This<br />

report speaks to that matter, and the area <strong>of</strong> consideration is the municipal marina at<br />

each location, downstream to Lake Huron.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second matter presently under consideration is river maintenance work upstream <strong>of</strong><br />

the municipal marina in Port Franks for the purposes <strong>of</strong> ice management. This matter is<br />

not presented in this report for discussion as a separate report will be forthcoming for<br />

consideration <strong>of</strong> the ice management program once AECOM has completed the ice<br />

management cost sharing work.<br />

Background<br />

At the October 15, 2012 Council meeting the following motion was passed:<br />

12-1015-30 Moved by: Councillor Maguire<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That staff be directed to prepare a report on the following: Solutions to better<br />

maintain harbour depths in both Port Franks and Grand Bend, be it through<br />

discussions with the appropriate government agencies to modify our existing<br />

harbours, or to examine erecting break-walls outside the harbours to reduce<br />

wave action and lateral drift <strong>of</strong> sand from northern areas <strong>of</strong> Grand Bend and Port<br />

Franks harbours.<br />

Carried<br />

<strong>The</strong> municipality <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> completes 100 an annual harbour depth maintenance<br />

program for both the Grand Bend and Port Franks harbours. In both locations the

maintenance area <strong>of</strong> the river is Federally owned, and in Grand Bend the marina<br />

building and a portion <strong>of</strong> the riverfront are also Federally owned. <strong>The</strong> harbour depth<br />

maintenance program is a voluntary program that is completed by the municipality to<br />

ensure that the municipal marinas remain operable. <strong>The</strong>re is no legislation that requires<br />

the municipality to complete this work, and if the municipality was to discontinue its<br />

dredging efforts the work would need to be picked up by another river based marina or it<br />

would not be completed.<br />

<strong>The</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> the maintenance areas that is currently maintain are noted below, and<br />

shown in Attachment 1 to this report.<br />

Grand Bend:<br />

Port Franks:<br />

From the west end <strong>of</strong> the small (south) pier, westward to<br />

sufficient lake water depth beyond the sand bars<br />

From the Ausable River/lake edge westward to and past the<br />

first sand bar.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current program is completed by a third-party contract service provider Mitoi Works<br />

using the prop washing method to blow out accumulated sand and silt from the<br />

navigable channels in both locations. <strong>The</strong> contract with Mitoi Works is a five-year<br />

obligation that ends October 31, 2014.<br />

<strong>The</strong> municipality pays a fee for service to Mitoi Works for propwashing, with the average<br />

annual cost <strong>of</strong> the contract $58,360 (including taxes). <strong>The</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> the forthcoming 2013<br />

and 2014 maintenance contract totals $59,890.00 and $61,020.00 (including taxes)<br />

respectively. <strong>The</strong> Grand Bend marina building is Federally owned and leased to the<br />

municipality, and 50% <strong>of</strong> the cost to maintain depths at the Grand Bend harbour are<br />

grant funded. For the remainder <strong>of</strong> the Mitoi Works Contract, the Federal rebate is<br />

forecasted to be $17,660 annually. In the case <strong>of</strong> Port Franks, although the Federal<br />

government owns the area <strong>of</strong> the river that is maintained, no grant dollars are available<br />

and the program costs are funded by the harbour business unit.<br />

In addition to the above, annually the municipality retains a separate excavating<br />

contractor to conduct spot dredging in the Ausable River in Port franks up stream <strong>of</strong> the<br />

propwashing area to the municipal marina to maintain channel depths. Staff complete<br />

soundings <strong>of</strong> the river bed and each year areas with a significant accumulation <strong>of</strong> sand<br />

and silt are excavated. <strong>The</strong> cost for this work in the past five years has been on average<br />

$39,518.90, with the cost breakdown per year shown below. <strong>The</strong>se costs are wholly<br />

funded by the municipality.<br />

2008: $26,562.48 2009: $75,221.48<br />

2010: $2,651.25 2011: $42,058.60<br />

2012: $51,011.03<br />

In total, the harbour channel depth maintenance program has an average annual<br />

expenditure <strong>of</strong> $97,878.90. Once Federal granting is considered the cost to the<br />

municipality is an annual average <strong>of</strong> $80,219. Program costs are further discussed<br />

below.<br />


Throughout the 2012 boating season numerous complaints were received from users <strong>of</strong><br />

both harbours regarding issues with the depth <strong>of</strong> the respective harbour channels. <strong>The</strong><br />

most common complaint was related to the depth <strong>of</strong> the channel at the mouth <strong>of</strong> each<br />

harbour after storm events and heavy wave action (at the pier in Grand Bend, and at the<br />

river mouth in Port Franks). <strong>The</strong>se complaints result from an expectation that the<br />

channel should be maintained immediately after these events, however this is an<br />

expectation that cannot be met. <strong>The</strong>re will always be a lag time after an event to allow<br />

wave heights to subside to the point where it is safe for Mitoi Works to operate. This<br />

causes frustration for boaters as the weather may be sunny and warm, but conditions<br />

are not suitable for prop washing. Overall Mitoi Works has fulfilled the obligations <strong>of</strong><br />

their contract, and has been readily available and willing to complete extra dredging<br />

work on an as requested basis as conditions permit. In 2012 the contractor funded<br />

additional work to complete soundings <strong>of</strong> the Ausable River at no cost to the<br />

municipality.<br />

<strong>The</strong> other main complaint that was received during the 2012 season relates to the fact<br />

that the municipality is no longer using the Northside to maintain the Port Franks<br />

harbour. In 2012 the Northside was removed from service until mid-June for its four year<br />

maintenance and certification. <strong>The</strong> Northside drafts 5 feet, and when it was returned to<br />

the water the river depth was below 5 feet which caused the vessel to be inoperable. At<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> the 2012 boating season water levels in the river were close to 3 feet, and<br />

they are forecasted to remain low for 2013 (discussed below). As a result, the Northside<br />

will not be able to navigate the channel until water levels rise.<br />

When conducting a root cause analysis <strong>of</strong> the challenges that were faced by both<br />

harbours during the 2012 season the cause <strong>of</strong> all complaints was harbour depth. When<br />

reviewing this issue from a root cause perspective the cause is well documented: the<br />

falling Lake Huron Water levels.<br />

Issues Facing the Harbour Depth Maintenance Program<br />

Currently there are two main issues that are affecting this program’s success: the low<br />

water levels in Lake Huron, and the program’s financing model. Each issue is discussed<br />

separately below.<br />

1. Lake Huron Water Levels<br />

<strong>The</strong> falling water level in the Lake Huron-Michigan system is well documented by the<br />

US Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers and local media (several recent articles with pertinent<br />

information are attached to this report). <strong>The</strong> Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers record monthly level<br />

readings, publish monthly reports regarding water levels in the Great Lakes, and create<br />

6-month forecasts <strong>of</strong> expected levels in the lakes.<br />

Attachment 2 to this report is the January 2013 water level summary published by the<br />

Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers. It shows that the baseline (chart datum) water level is measured at<br />

176.0 m (577.5 feet) above sea level, and that December water levels were recorded at<br />

just slightly above 0.4 m below chart datum. This is the record low since lake level data<br />

began to be collected in 1918, and is below the prior record low set in 1964.<br />

<strong>The</strong> US Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers is forecasting that water levels in the Lake Huron-<br />

Michigan system will remain near or below the record low for the next six months until<br />

June when the lake level is forecasted to 102be<br />

slightly higher. Regardless, 2013 lake

levels are forecasted to be well below average and below the 2012 high mark. This will<br />

have a serious impact on the municipality’s efforts to maintain harbour depths in 2013,<br />

and complaints from the boating community are expected to continue.<br />

Presently there are several thoughts to what is causing the low levels, but there is not<br />

full agreement on any one cause. <strong>The</strong> Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation<br />

explains that rising and lowering lake levels is a natural occurrence, but an extended<br />

low period has been in effect since about the year 2000 (see Attachment 3: 1918-2010<br />

lake levels).<br />

<strong>The</strong> International Joint Commission (ICJ) is another <strong>of</strong>ficial body that reviews crossboundary<br />

water issues between Canada and the Unites States. <strong>The</strong> 1909 Boundary<br />

Waters Treaty established the Commission, which has six members. Three are<br />

appointed by the President <strong>of</strong> the United States, with the advice and approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Senate, and three are appointed by the Governor in Council <strong>of</strong> Canada, on the advice <strong>of</strong><br />

the Prime Minister. <strong>The</strong> Commissioners must follow the Treaty as they try to prevent or<br />

resolve disputes. <strong>The</strong>y must act impartially, in reviewing problems and deciding on<br />

issues, rather than representing the views <strong>of</strong> their respective governments.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ICJ is expected to release a report in the very near future reviewing the issue <strong>of</strong> low<br />

lake levels and provide recommendations for moving forward. Recently the ICJ has<br />

suggested that the primary cause <strong>of</strong> this prolonged period <strong>of</strong> low water levels is climate<br />

change and the resulting drop in precipitation that many academics attribute to climate<br />

change. In particular, the 2011-2012 winter season and 2012 summer seasons were<br />

very dry, and it is believed that higher than normal temperatures are causing<br />

evaporation rates in the Great Lakes to occur faster than precipitation recharge rates.<br />

Environmentalists suggest that the low water levels in the Lake Huron-Michigan system<br />

are a result <strong>of</strong> over-dredging in the St. Clair River which is now causing water to flow<br />

faster out <strong>of</strong> the lake system in a drawdown effect. <strong>The</strong>se groups suggest that sills need<br />

to be installed in the St. Clair river bed to slow down the flow leaving the lake system.<br />

Lastly, the Coastal Centre suggests that a possible contributing factor to the low lake<br />

levels is the isostatic rebound <strong>of</strong> areas that were formerly covered and compressed by<br />

glaciers during the last ice age. This rebound effect causes these areas (including the<br />

lake bed) to rise, and water is displaced to downstream areas.<br />

Regardless <strong>of</strong> the cause, the low water level in the lake is the single most contributing<br />

factor to the success <strong>of</strong> the harbour depth maintenance program. <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is<br />

not unique in this predicament as other harbours and marinas are facing the same<br />

challenge. When developing this report staff contacted 31 other publicly owned or<br />

operated marinas that have registered with the Ontario Marina Operators Association.<br />

In several cases marinas that have not had to dredge at any point in their existence are<br />

now considering a dredging program in 2013 due to the low water levels in the great<br />

lakes.<br />

When considering changes to this program Council will need to give consideration to<br />

the level <strong>of</strong> expenditure it is willing to absorb to combat the forces <strong>of</strong> nature. In a worst<br />

case scenario, should the trend <strong>of</strong> decreasing water levels in the lake continue into the<br />

future, there will be a point where neither harbour 103 is operable due to a lack <strong>of</strong> water.

2. Program Funding<br />

<strong>The</strong> second key issue facing this program is the funds available to make changes to the<br />

program. <strong>The</strong> current funding model for the harbour business unit is a mix <strong>of</strong> user fees<br />

and taxation allocation. Fees are collected to partially <strong>of</strong>fset expenses, but funding<br />

shortfalls are made up by the tax levy and no separate reserve is established for the<br />

business unit. Between 2009 – 2011 the harbour business unit has operated at a loss<br />

when considering the average expenses and revenues. <strong>The</strong> breakdown is shown<br />

below:<br />

Port Franks<br />

Grand Bend<br />

2009-2011 Average Revenue $186,978 $366,914<br />

2009-2011 Average Expense $204,197 $356,329<br />

Net Position ($17,219) $10,585<br />

Overall business unit performance: ($6,634)<br />

As previously noted, the harbour depth maintenance program represents an average<br />

annual cost <strong>of</strong> $80,219 split between the two marinas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current funding model for the business unit represents a constraint to implementing<br />

program changes as any costs associated with a change will be funded by the general<br />

tax base as a result <strong>of</strong> the current funding shortage in the business unit. As a result it is<br />

challenging to gather support in the form <strong>of</strong> public opinion for program changes as<br />

residents may view the program as being accessible only to the boating community or<br />

those who own boats, a number <strong>of</strong> whom are not taxpayers within the community.<br />

Few would argue that there is not an economic benefit to the communities where a<br />

municipal marina is located, but the direct benefactors <strong>of</strong> the day to day service<br />

provision <strong>of</strong> the maintenance program is limited to those who are able to participate in<br />

recreational boating. It is with this thought in mind that almost all publicly owned or<br />

operated marinas consider their marinas as a municipal service for which no tax dollars<br />

should be directed to capital or operating expenses, and operate under the fully selffunded<br />

philosophy. As a result, dredging costs are apportioned to the various program<br />

users and benefactors accordingly.<br />

Of the 31 publicly owned or operated marinas and harbours that were contacted 13<br />

provided responses respecting their program. Eleven (11) <strong>of</strong> the 13 indicated that their<br />

operations were fully self-funded, 1 other marina operated in the same fashion as<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> whereby operating expenses were funded by a mix <strong>of</strong> fees and the tax<br />

base, and 1 other marina was fully tax funded.<br />

In the fully self-funded type <strong>of</strong> funding model fees are collected to <strong>of</strong>fset business unit<br />

expenses, and a distinct reserve is developed for the business unit. In year’s when<br />

there is an operating surplus a deposit is made to the reserve, and in years when these<br />

is an operating deficit a draw is made on the reserve to <strong>of</strong>fset the funding shortfall. In<br />

this case, all capital works are financed from the specific reserve when funding levels<br />

allow.<br />

In the case <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ harbour depth maintenance program the municipality is<br />

not the sole benefactor <strong>of</strong> the program, but 104 is the sole funding source for the program.

In both the Grand Bend and Port Franks locations privately operated marinas and clubs<br />

are located on the river and benefit from the municipality’s efforts to maintain the<br />

navigable channel in the harbour. None <strong>of</strong> these users are required to cost share the<br />

program expenditures related to their benefit, and without the municipality’s efforts<br />

these users would be required to maintain the harbour channel on their own.<br />

This type <strong>of</strong> situation is not unique, and 4 <strong>of</strong> the public marinas that responded to the<br />

request for information are in a similar situation. <strong>The</strong>ir program and cost recovery<br />

approach are detailed below:<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong><br />

Whitby<br />

Kingsville<br />

Kincardine<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Bluewater<br />

Current Practice<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> only dredges areas that directly benefit municipal operations.<br />

Private marinas and clubs are responsible to dredge and fund their areas as<br />

needed.<br />

Conducts annual propwashing similar to <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>. Costs <strong>of</strong> the program<br />

are split equally between the municipality, the local yacht club, and private<br />

marinas that benefit.<br />

Conducts periodic spot dredging similar to <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>. Cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />

program is split between the municipality and the local yacht club.<br />

Currently investigating a local benefit charge to further expand the cost<br />

recovery.<br />

Marina operations are leased to the local yacht club.<br />

Club pays all operating expenses, and year end pr<strong>of</strong>its are split 50/50 with the<br />

municipality thereby sharing program expenses.<br />

Marina operations are contracted to a third-party, but the municipality arranges<br />

the dredging program.<br />

Program expenses are split amongst other private marinas and clubs located in<br />

the harbour based on a local benefit charge.<br />

When considering improvements to the harbour depth maintenance program Council<br />

will need to determine if the funding model that is currently in place is still appropriate,<br />

or if a change in the funding philosophy is preferred.<br />

Considerations for Improving the Harbour Depth Maintenance Program<br />

Outlined below are several considerations for program changes that have been<br />

developed by staff. Please note, the various options are not necessarily mutually<br />

exclusive, and should a program change be desired a combination <strong>of</strong> the options is<br />

possible to implement.<br />

Not included below is the option <strong>of</strong> the status quo, or not implementing any program<br />

changes. This is considered the default situation that is available in all <strong>of</strong> Council’s<br />

consideration <strong>of</strong> program changes.<br />

1. Considerations to Improve Harbour Depths<br />

In the motion passed by Council, specific considerations are provided for review<br />

including modification <strong>of</strong> the existing harbours, and erecting break-walls outside the<br />

harbours to reduce wave action and lateral drift <strong>of</strong> sand from northern areas <strong>of</strong> Grand<br />

Bend and Port Franks harbours.<br />


In both locations the area serviced by the current program are under federal jurisdiction,<br />

and the options listed above are considered high capital expenditures that would require<br />

Federal approval. <strong>The</strong> project funding model in each location would vary.<br />

In Grand Bend federal capital funds are available for works that are considered to be<br />

critical structural work on the lands that are Federally owned. However, from past<br />

discussions with DFO these funds are typically only available for capital repairs to<br />

existing structures and not for new capital constructions like extending the existing pier<br />

and break wall. <strong>The</strong> DFO operates on a limited budget and does not actively fund<br />

improvements to their former port locations unless they are doing so for the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />

divesting the property to the local operating municipality. At the time <strong>of</strong> this report a call<br />

to the DFO was not returned inquiring if the agency would consider divestiture to<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

As a result, any work completed to extend the existing pier and break wall is expected<br />

to be wholly funded by the municipality unless other upper level government funding is<br />

available and received through an infrastructure program (other municipal marinas were<br />

successful recipients <strong>of</strong> funding under the BCF program). That said this option is not<br />

expected to produce the “cure all” benefit that justifies the high capital cost. What is<br />

expected to be accomplished if the pier is extended is to push the area <strong>of</strong> maintenance<br />

further westward into the lake, and channel prop washing would still be required as the<br />

littoral drift would continue to wrap sand around the new break wall.<br />

In Port Franks there is not any potential for funding available from the DFO, and the<br />

only expected upper level government funding would be if there is was an open<br />

infrastructure funding program available to be applied for. In addition, constructing a<br />

break wall extending out into the lake from the northern shore <strong>of</strong> the river mouth has<br />

been investigated in the past and was found not to be a favorable option. In this location<br />

constructing a break wall results in the littoral drift <strong>of</strong> sand being further directed to the<br />

south west, thus changing the current coast line to the point where property owners in<br />

areas like Windsor Park no longer have lake front access.<br />

For both locations there has been a suggestion that the harbour channel should be<br />

further excavated to increase the depth, and after review this option is not considered<br />

feasible. In each location the lake bed at the channel inlet presents the limit for the<br />

extent <strong>of</strong> the excavation otherwise a basin would be created in the harbour that would<br />

be subject to infilling and would require regular maintenance. In the case <strong>of</strong> the Grand<br />

Bend harbour the river wall structure is partially held in place by the hydraulic forces <strong>of</strong><br />

the water in the river against the wall. <strong>The</strong> ABCA has noted that any further deepening<br />

<strong>of</strong> the harbour basin may result in the river wall caving in. In Port Franks the river<br />

continually deposits sediments from upstream in the downstream areas near the lake. If<br />

a basin was created it is reasonable to expect that it would be filled in short order, and<br />

the municipality would be required to continually excavate the basin to ensure it<br />

remained at the designed depth.<br />

After review, it does not appear that a large capital project is the best approach to<br />

improve the harbour depth maintenance program at this time, and a better approach<br />

may be to consider changes to how the program is managed. When reviewing possible<br />

changes to any municipal program it is important to keep in mind the environment the<br />

program operates within. <strong>The</strong> program environment 106 for the harbour depth maintenance

activities has changed over the years, and the current environment is such that the low<br />

water level in the lake is the single most contributing factor to the success <strong>of</strong> the<br />

program.<br />

When reviewing changes to this program Council will need to give consideration to the<br />

issue that the program is working against a natural process, and will need to determine<br />

the level <strong>of</strong> expenditure the municipality is willing to absorb to combat the forces <strong>of</strong><br />

nature.<br />

Staff has reviewed the program, and has put forth possible program changes for<br />

consideration below. As noted previously, these options can be implemented<br />

individually or in combination with each other.<br />

a) Implement Seasonal Restrictions and an Advisory re: Vessel Sizes<br />

Applicable Harbour:<br />

Grand Bend, Port Franks<br />

Expected cost <strong>of</strong> program change: $0.<br />

<strong>The</strong> municipality could consider implementing a restriction at the start <strong>of</strong> each<br />

boating season at both <strong>of</strong> its marinas to only permit vessels that are able to safely<br />

navigate the channel based on the expected channel depth for the season.<br />

Following this an advisory system can be put in place to advise seasonal boaters<br />

and transient vessels regarding the water level that exists in each harbour channel<br />

throughout the season so that boaters are aware if it is safe to navigate the<br />

channel.<br />

For example, if channel depths are expected to be 4 feet for the season, only<br />

vessels that draft 4 feet or less would be permitted to berth at the marina. During<br />

the season regular soundings can be taken <strong>of</strong> the channel and depths can be<br />

posted at the respective marina buildings. This advisory system was trialled in Port<br />

Franks in the last month <strong>of</strong> the 2012 boating season and was successful.<br />

b) Increase Sounding Efforts to Guide Spot Dredging<br />

Applicable Harbour:<br />

Expected cost <strong>of</strong> program change:<br />

Grand Bend, Port Franks<br />

$10,000-$20,000 annually<br />

Currently sounding is completed in the Part Franks harbour each spring by<br />

municipal staff to determine the areas required for spot dredging upstream <strong>of</strong> the<br />

river mouth to the marina. This method has been effective in the past, but<br />

municipal capabilities are limited by the type <strong>of</strong> equipment and s<strong>of</strong>tware that we<br />

currently own. As a result harbour pr<strong>of</strong>iles have not been developed each year to<br />

compare problem areas year over year. <strong>The</strong> Grand Bend harbour is not subjected<br />

to sounding each year.<br />

This suggested change involves hiring a third party to pr<strong>of</strong>essionally sound each<br />

harbour to develop a baseline pr<strong>of</strong>ile in Auto CAD to be used in subsequent years.<br />

To limit the cost <strong>of</strong> the program change this can be completed as a one-<strong>of</strong>f with<br />

staff completing the necessary soundings in subsequent years. Alternatively the<br />

third party could continue to be retained 107 at the annual cost identified above. <strong>The</strong>

enefit <strong>of</strong> this change is additional information to determine areas for spot<br />

dredging in Port Franks, and information to determine if there are sediment<br />

deposits in Grand Bend that should be dredged.<br />

As an alternative the baseline sounding can be wholly completed by municipal<br />

staff, however there is a significant time requirement to complete this work and<br />

develop an AutoCAD model <strong>of</strong> each river. Should Council decide to choose this<br />

alternative, staff recommends that a summer engineering co-op student be hired to<br />

assist with developing the baseline model. As a result, annual costs <strong>of</strong> the program<br />

change are expected to be within the range identified above.<br />

c) Increase Spot Dredging Efforts<br />

Applicable Harbour:<br />

Expected cost <strong>of</strong> program change:<br />

Port Franks<br />

Variable<br />

If alternative b) is implemented the municipality will have more information<br />

available to increase spot dredging efforts in Port Franks. At this point in time it is<br />

unknown if spot dredging would be required in Grand Bend. <strong>The</strong> annual cost <strong>of</strong><br />

this change is variable as it is expected dredge volumes would change from year<br />

to year.<br />

If Council chooses to increase the amount <strong>of</strong> spot dredging that is completed each<br />

year, to limit the cost impact Council may wish to consider setting a fixed budget<br />

for the work. As noted previously, expenditures for spot dredging in Port Franks<br />

have averaged an annual total <strong>of</strong> $40,000 approximately, and costs associated<br />

with a change in the program would be over and above this amount.<br />

If Council decides against increasing the amount <strong>of</strong> spot dredging to be completed,<br />

the information collected if b) is implemented can be used to better direct the<br />

annual work program.<br />

d) Contract Amendment with Mitoi Works<br />

Applicable Harbour:<br />

Expected cost <strong>of</strong> program change:<br />

Grand Bend, Port Franks<br />

$60,000 annually through the end<br />

<strong>of</strong> the contract<br />

Mr. Charlie Miller representing Mitoi Works has attended the Council meeting to<br />

assist with any questions that relate to this contract proposal.<br />

In an effort to improve dredging activities for the contracts that they operate, Mitoi<br />

Works has procured a new vessel that dredges using a bottom mounted cutter<br />

head, pumps sediment to a discharge line, and is capable <strong>of</strong> depositing sediments<br />

that are dredged further out in the lake. This is an improvement compared to the<br />

propwashing method that simply displaces sediments to the side <strong>of</strong> the vessel and<br />

eventually fills back into the channel that has been created. A technical<br />

specification sheet for the vessel has been attached to this report as Attachment 7.<br />

<strong>The</strong> vessel drafts only 1.5 feet and is capable <strong>of</strong> working in very shallow water to<br />

open up the channel when it has filled 108 in.

A contract change has been <strong>of</strong>fered to the municipality to change the maintenance<br />

program to this vessel, and Mitoi Works has requested direction from the<br />

municipality if <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> wishes to implement this service improvement to<br />

the current dredging contract. <strong>The</strong> annual contract price increase to implement this<br />

change is $60,000 and the service agreement will need to be amended. If this<br />

change is implemented the costs for the remaining two years <strong>of</strong> the contract will<br />

be:<br />

2013: $119,890.00 2014: $121,020.00<br />

Direction from Council is needed if this contract change is to be implemented. At<br />

this point in time the 2013 draft operating budget does not reflect the cost <strong>of</strong> this<br />

contract change. If Council decides that it does not want to implement this contract<br />

change then channel maintenance will continue to be completed via propwashing.<br />

e) Allow Mitoi Works to Operate the Northside in Port Franks<br />

Applicable Harbour:<br />

Port Franks<br />

Expected cost <strong>of</strong> program change: $0<br />

Presently there are no municipal staff who are fully certified to operate the<br />

Northside, but we are working towards achieving certification. That said, a number<br />

<strong>of</strong> volunteers with the requisite certification have <strong>of</strong>fered to work with staff so that<br />

the vessel can be used to maintain the harbour in Port Franks. However, because<br />

<strong>of</strong> our contractual requirements with Mitoi Works we are obligated to provide the<br />

work to the contractor. Staff have discussed the possibility <strong>of</strong> Mitoi Works using the<br />

Northside to maintain the harbour in Port Franks, and their representative has<br />

agreed subject to the necessary training.<br />

<strong>The</strong> challenge to this alternative is the water level in the river. As discussed<br />

previously, the Northside requires a minimum water depth <strong>of</strong> 5 feet in the river to<br />

be able to navigate its way to the river mouth. At the end <strong>of</strong> the 2013 boating<br />

season the water level in river was below 5 feet and the Northside was not<br />

operable. It is expected that the river level will remain below 5 feet for the 2013<br />

season meaning that the Northiside will not be able to navigate the river. However,<br />

should water levels allow it this alternative will be trailed in 2013.<br />

2. Considerations for Changes to the Program Funding Model<br />

Should any <strong>of</strong> the program changes outline above be implemented there will be<br />

increased program costs that will need to be funded. Under the current funding model<br />

these increased costs will be funded by the tax base because presently fees collected<br />

at the marinas to do not fully <strong>of</strong>fset operating costs.<br />

When considering changes to the financing model the first question to be considered by<br />

Council is what the desired philosophy should be:<br />

a) Should the marina business units continue to be funded with a mix <strong>of</strong> user fees,<br />

and tax revenue to <strong>of</strong>fset the funding shortfall?<br />

OR 109

) Should the marina business units be operated under the fully self-funded<br />

philosophy?<br />

If the answer to a) is yes, then any program changes that are implemented will be<br />

included in the annual operating budget for the business unit and will impact the tax<br />

levy. Accordingly, Council will need to review the budget each year to determine if the<br />

costs <strong>of</strong> the program can be balanced with the desire to maintain acceptable tax rates.<br />

Should Council wish to move towards the fully self-funded philosophy for the business<br />

unit then the costs <strong>of</strong> any program change considered will further increase the current<br />

operating deficit <strong>of</strong> the business unit. To achieve self-funded status revenue for the<br />

business unit will need to be increased to <strong>of</strong>fset operating costs, and the options<br />

detailed below can be considered. As noted previously, these options can be<br />

implemented individually or in conjunction with one another.<br />

i. Increase Marina Fees<br />

This includes:<br />

­ Seasonal and transient dockage fees<br />

­ Fuel charges<br />

­ Launch ramp fees<br />

­ Pump out fees<br />

­ Laundry<br />

<strong>The</strong> challenge with this approach is that the cost <strong>of</strong> the program changes will still<br />

be fully borne by the municipality and its marina users. An increase in fees may<br />

result a loss <strong>of</strong> boaters as they may decide to relocate to a marina with lower<br />

fees.<br />

ii.<br />

Consider a Local Benefit Charge or Cost Sharing <strong>of</strong> Annual Dredging Costs<br />

As noted previously the municipality is not the sole benefactor <strong>of</strong> the program,<br />

but is the sole funding source for the current the harbour depth maintenance<br />

activities. In both the Grand Bend and Port Franks harbours privately operated<br />

marinas and clubs are located on the river and benefit from the municipality’s<br />

efforts to maintain the navigable channel. Presently, none <strong>of</strong> these users are<br />

required to, or have <strong>of</strong>fered to, cost share the program expenditures related to<br />

their benefit.<br />

Examples have been provided <strong>of</strong> other publicly owned marinas that share the<br />

costs <strong>of</strong> their annual dredging program with private marinas and clubs that are<br />

located within the same harbour. <strong>The</strong> nearest municipal example is the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> Bluewater where dredging costs are shared amongst all parties<br />

that occupy the harbour based on their proportionate share <strong>of</strong> the harbour<br />

(divided into 15 th s).<br />

To increase revenue for the harbour business unit in a self-funded philosophy<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> could consider implementing a local benefit charge to all users<br />

<strong>of</strong> the harbour based on the benefit that they receive from the municipality’s<br />

program. This approach is likely to 110 be met with opposition from those users that

have not historically paid for the service provided by the municipality, and as<br />

such staff recommends that a consultation plan be developed to implement this<br />

change should that be Council’s desire.<br />

A final consideration with respect to the funding model for the marina business unit is for<br />

the municipality to no longer fund the business unit, and consider sub-letting marina<br />

operations to a private and specialized marina contractor. In this consideration there is<br />

no financial risk for the municipality as all program financing would be borne by the<br />

third-party. Should Council wish to review this consideration further, staff can develop a<br />

separate report outlining the possible options and considerations for implementing this<br />

program change.<br />

Summary<br />

This report has presented a review <strong>of</strong> the annual harbour depth maintenance program<br />

completed for the Grand Bend and Port Franks marinas, and the challenges that the<br />

program currently faces. Various considerations for changing the program have been<br />

presented, and staff requires direction from Council if any <strong>of</strong> these options are to be<br />

implemented.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Attachments:<br />

1. Extent <strong>of</strong> the Grand Bend and Port Franks Mitoi Works Maintenance Areas<br />

2. US Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers January 2013 Water Level Report<br />

3. 1918-2010 Water Level Data<br />

4. January 4, 2013 London Free Press article “<strong>The</strong> Great (Shrinking)Lakes: Water<br />

levels still falling”<br />

5. November 8, 2012 London Free Press article “Water levels in the Great Lakes<br />

are down, way down”<br />

6. October 11, 2012 Sarnia Observer article “Lake Huron nears record low level”<br />

7. Technical specification sheet for the HP Versi-Dredge vessel proposed by Mitoi<br />

Works<br />


Attachment 1:<br />

Extent <strong>of</strong> the Grand Bend and Port Franks Mitoi Works<br />

Maintenance Areas<br />

Grand Bend<br />

Port Franks<br />


Attachment 2<br />


Attachment 3<br />


Attachment 4<br />

<strong>The</strong> Great (shrinking) Lakes: Water levels still falling 0<br />

By Debora Van Brenk, <strong>The</strong> London Free Press<br />

Friday, January 4, 2013 3:45:28 EST PM<br />

Lake Huron (QMI Agency file photo)<br />

Land around Lake Huron is higher and drier than ever as the water has hit its lowest level since public record-keeping<br />

began almost a century ago.<br />

And with further drops forecast for coming weeks, the International Joint Commission is expected to release a report<br />

and recommendations about what to do about the shrinking Great Lakes.<br />

Meanwhile, ever-expanding shorelines are matched by growing alarm from some observers calling for intervention to<br />

stem the outward flow.<br />

Lakes Huron and Michigan, which hydrologists consider one lake system, dropped to 175.61 metres above sea level<br />

in December — one centimetre lower than the previous record set in 1964, preliminary figures show. Systematic<br />

record-keeping began in 1918.<br />

A dry summer and a dry November led to lower-than-expected water levels in most <strong>of</strong> the Great Lakes, says a<br />

bulletin written by Chuck Southam, <strong>of</strong> Environment Canada’s boundary waters issues unit.<br />

He had forecast a low-water December and is calling for continued drops in coming weeks.<br />


That spells trouble for cottagers, marinas, commercial shippers and the environment, says Bob Duncanson,<br />

executive director <strong>of</strong> the Georgian Bay Association, which has been sounding the alarm about low Huron levels and<br />

resulting economic and ecological impacts.<br />

“People should be worried about it. If they haven’t connected the dots, they should take a close look at where their<br />

water comes from and why it’s threatened,” Duncanson said.<br />

While lake waters rise and fall seasonally — usually lowest in winter and highest in mid-summer — levels have been<br />

steadily dropping through the years and haven’t come close to the high-water marks <strong>of</strong> three decades ago.<br />

Lakes Huron and Michigan are 71 centimetres lower than the long-term average; all the other lakes are down as well,<br />

though less dramatically.<br />

<strong>The</strong> International Joint Commission is expected, within weeks, to release a report and recommendations on Great<br />

Lakes water levels.<br />

An IJC study group drew considerable fire from many Ontarians when it said the biggest factor was climate change,<br />

rather than a change in water flow, and that no remedial measures were necessary.<br />

Critics said the report discounted the impact <strong>of</strong> St. Clair River dredging in 1962 by the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers.<br />

Critics maintain the dredging let water flow more quickly out <strong>of</strong> Superior and Michigan-Huron, like pulling the plug on<br />

a giant bathtub.<br />

To combat this great leak from the Great Lakes, they say, “speed bumps” — flow-impeding sills — should be installed<br />

on the riverbed.<br />

“We have now gone from what was a crisis situation into what is being called a disaster,” said Mary Muter, who heads<br />

the Sierra Club’s Great Lakes section.<br />

She expects the IJC will recommend some action and, on both sides <strong>of</strong> the border, “there are fewer and fewer folks<br />

who think bigger and better beaches is a good idea.”<br />

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley doesn’t think meddling with the St. Clair River is a good answer. “Let nature be nature,”<br />

he said. “Every time man has fooled with nature, the result has not been positive.”<br />

He said low water levels have affected commercial shipping and recreational boating, but human intervention might<br />

have even worse consequences. “It’s playing Russian roulette with the Great Lakes and you don’t want to pull the<br />

trigger on that.”<br />

Duncanson said in Georgian Bay, many cottagers only have water access to their properties and their docks are high<br />

and dry. Marinas face the pricey prospect <strong>of</strong> dredging, blasting or relocating.<br />

In the bigger picture, some shippers are being forced to lighten their loads — fearing running aground because data<br />

charts don’t reflect lower water levels — wetlands are drying up, and water quality is deteriorating for species in and<br />

around the lake.<br />

Duncanson said the IJC study committee was flawed in part because “they didn’t do a full costing <strong>of</strong> the economic<br />

impact <strong>of</strong> doing nothing.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> Georgian Bay Association says it doesn’t have the expertise to recommend a solution that moderates some <strong>of</strong><br />

the highest highs and lowest lows. “Our point is there’s a problem (and) it needs to be addressed,” Duncanson said.<br />

deb.vanbrenk@sunmedia.ca<br />

Twitter.com.DebatLFPress<br />

Lake levels<br />

December Great Lakes-area water levels, in metres above sea level (record low in brackets)<br />


- Superior<br />

183.06 (182.92 in 1925)<br />

- Michigan-Huron<br />

(175.61) (previous record 175.62 in 1964)<br />

- St. Clair<br />

174.54 (174.24 in 1934)<br />

- Erie<br />

173.82 (173.19 in 1934)<br />

- Ontario<br />

74.28 (73.74 in 1934)<br />

Sources: U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada<br />


Attachment 5<br />

Water levels in the Great Lakes are down, way down 15<br />

By Debora Van Brenk, <strong>The</strong> London Free Press<br />

Thursday, November 8, 2012 10:30:48 EST PM<br />

Water levels in the Great Lakes are down, way down — in some cases nearing record lows. And that’s not good<br />

news for marinas, cargo shippers and marine ecology. Deb Van Brenk reports<br />

- - -<br />

Water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan are a finger’s length from trickling down to their lowest recorded levels.<br />

And while some cottagers are pleased to have more beachfront property than ever, the shrinking big pool is causing<br />

issues for marinas, cargo shippers and marine ecology.<br />

Huron-Michigan, which hydrologists consider one big lake system, is expected to drop to record low levels within<br />

weeks and remain there at least for the next four months, experts with the Canadian Hydrographic Service and the<br />

U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers predicted this week.<br />


Levels are literally <strong>of</strong>f the charts already, having sunk below levels identified on navigation maps used by commercial<br />

shippers and pleasure boaters.<br />

For cargo shippers, “Everything is rosy when you are above that (chart level) but when you go below (it), you have to<br />

decrease your load and make more frequent trips,” said Ge<strong>of</strong>f Peach <strong>of</strong> the Goderich-based advocacy group Great<br />

Lakes Centre for Coastal Conservation.<br />

Water levels in Lake Huron are forecast this month to reach their lowest levels since 1964.<br />

Levels were at their highest in 1986, when docks were swamped, shorelines eroded and lakefront properties<br />

jeopardized.<br />

Closer to home, Lake Erie, blessed with more rainfall this year than some <strong>of</strong> its sister lakes, is not near record low<br />

levels but its volume is still lower than recorded averages.<br />

Officials began logging levels in 1918 and waterlines in all the Great Lakes are well below the average.<br />

Bringing levels back up is a slow process, though. Hydrologists say what could help turn the tide this winter would be<br />

a cold season with plenty <strong>of</strong> ice cover; that would stop evaporation and add to spring run-<strong>of</strong>f.<br />

debora.vanbrenk@sunmedia.ca<br />

twitter.com/Debatlfpress<br />

- - -<br />


Why are lake levels lower?<br />

<br />

Rainfall and run-<strong>of</strong>f can increase lake levels. Evaporation can lower levels. In recent years, evaporation<br />

rates have outpaced rainfall and run<strong>of</strong>f; seasons have become warmer and drier, and last winter was one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

driest on record.<br />

<br />

Many say the drop is cyclical and will rebound.<br />

<br />

Some environmentalists pin the decline partly on a faster-flowing St. Clair River and say dredging there has<br />

made the river a sort <strong>of</strong> plug-puller on the upper-lakes basin. “<strong>The</strong>re is a very significant factor that humans<br />

have the ability to control,” says Mary Muter <strong>of</strong> the Ontario Great Lakes section <strong>of</strong> the Sierra Club. Her group<br />

advocates installing an underwater sail to adjust water flows in the St. Clair River.<br />

On recreation/beachfront<br />

<br />

<br />

Areas that once had thin beaches now have broad stretches <strong>of</strong> sand.<br />

Boat slips stand higher above water and docks are sometimes landlocked, far from the water’s edge<br />

On marinas and ports<br />

<br />

<br />

Marinas may find themselves dredging more <strong>of</strong>ten to accommodate their larger boat tenants.<br />

Ports are shallower, sometimes requiring shippers to place lighter loads on vessels.<br />

<br />

Depth is still fine in the channel and harbour at Goderich, the region’s biggest commercial port. Goderich<br />

Mayor Deb Shewfelt says everyone is keeping an eye on levels in the event ships need to lighten their loads.<br />

Even so, “It’s basically full speed ahead” on the new $48-milion port expansion, he said.<br />

On ecology<br />


While there may be less surface erosion than when lakes are high, wave action can erode the lake bed,<br />

which can lead to worse erosion later, says Ge<strong>of</strong>f Peach. “That can be pernicious. It comes to bite us when the<br />

(lake) level returns.”<br />

Coastal wetlands turn into mud flats, reducing the area where fish live and where birds thrive. Water nutrient<br />

levels are more concentrated and algae blooms grow, causing die-<strong>of</strong>fs <strong>of</strong> fish and birds.<br />

Loss <strong>of</strong> wetland ecologies also reduces the area where water is filtered through grasses and other<br />

vegetation. “<strong>The</strong>re are five-foot trees there where there used to be wetland,” says Mary Muter <strong>of</strong> the Sierra Club.<br />

Along Georgian Bay alone, 2,000 hectares <strong>of</strong> wetlands have dried up in recent years, Muter says.<br />

On cargo shipping<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<strong>The</strong> International Joint Commission has lowered the ‘draft limit’ once and is contemplating a second<br />

reduction.<br />

Some large ships may be forced to decrease their speed and lighten their loads, float slightly higher in the<br />

water with less cargo.<br />

So far, the changes haven’t been a huge issue, said Robert Lewis-Manning, head <strong>of</strong> the Canadian<br />

Shipowners Association. “We’ll watch very closely to what the winter will bring.” Meanwhile, new technologies<br />

aid in both cargo-loading limits and navigation. “That’s their bread and butter.”<br />

- - -<br />


Ontario<br />

<br />

<br />

30 centimetres lower than a year ago<br />

Forecast to remain the same throughout the winter<br />

Superior<br />

<br />

74 cm lower than in 1985 (a record high year)<br />

15 cm higher than record low set in 1964<br />

Projected to drop 5 cm within weeks and remain at that level until at least March 2013<br />

St. Clair<br />

<br />

30 cm lower than a year ago<br />

Forecast to fall another 15 cm within weeks and remain at that level until at least March 2013<br />

Erie<br />

<br />

40 cm lower than a year ago<br />

Forecast to fall another 5 cm within weeks and remain at that level until at least March 2013<br />

Huron-Michigan<br />


40 cm lower than at this time in 2011<br />

Two metres lower than its high-water mark set in 1986<br />

Five cm above its low-water mark set in 1964<br />

Forecast to drop at least 5 cm within weeks and remain at that level until at least March 2013<br />


Attachment 6<br />

Lake Huron nears record low level<br />

By Paul Morden, Sarnia Observer<br />

Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:23:59 EDT PM<br />

Water levels in Lake Huron are nearing the historic low mark set in 1964 and are expected decline even further by<br />

spring. This breakwall at Canatara beach in Sarnia on Thursday reveals how far the lake level has fallen this season.<br />


Lake Huron is approaching low water levels not seen in nearly half a century, say <strong>of</strong>ficials.<br />

Environment Canada reported this week water levels in the lake fell 15 cm in September. That’s two and a half times<br />

its average decline <strong>of</strong> six cm, leaving it 27 cm below where it was a year ago.<br />

<strong>The</strong> agency said Lake Huron began October just three cm above record low levels set in 1964.<br />

“I don’t know where the water’s going,” said John McClennan, owner <strong>of</strong> Seven Winds Marina in Port Franks.<br />

“Somebody’s gobbling it up somewhere.”<br />


September’s drop came at the end <strong>of</strong> the boating season, lessening the impact at the marina, McClennan said.<br />

“It disappointed a few people . . . not being able to get in and out <strong>of</strong> the channel, but other than that it hasn’t really<br />

affected too much.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers is predicting November and December water levels in Lake Huron and Lake<br />

Michigan will match 1964’s record low, and set new record lows in early 2013.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re has been a cycle <strong>of</strong> high and low water levels since record keeping began in 1918, said Karen Alexander, with<br />

the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation.<br />

“Right now, we’re in a very extended low period,” she said. “<strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> time the lake has remained low has never<br />

happened before.”<br />

Potential reasons include climate change leading to lower rainfall, as well as ongoing evaporation in winter because<br />

<strong>of</strong> less ice cover, Alexander said.<br />

Another factor - particularly for the Canadian side <strong>of</strong> the lake - is isostatic rebound from the retreat <strong>of</strong> glaciers several<br />

thousand years ago, she said.<br />

<strong>The</strong> land mass is rebounding from the impact <strong>of</strong> the weight <strong>of</strong> glaciers that covered the region during the last ice age.<br />

“That is happening at a faster rate on this side <strong>of</strong> the lake than on the other side,” Alexander said.<br />

<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> low water levels includes extended lakeshore property as water recedes, the build up <strong>of</strong> sand dunes<br />

and migration <strong>of</strong> vegetation and coastal wetlands, she said.<br />

“It’s actually very healthy for the coast to go through these changes.”<br />

What’s not known, Alexander said, is the long-term impact climate change will have on the water level cycle.<br />

It’s possible the range <strong>of</strong> high and low water levels could change, she said, “but the cycle will continue.”<br />

Water levels also fell in each <strong>of</strong> the other Great Lakes, and Lake St. Clair, during September, according to<br />

Environment Canada.<br />

A message on the website <strong>of</strong> the Bluewater Ferry that runs between Sombra and Marine City, Michigan on the St.<br />

Clair River says that due to low water it’s not currently able to take vehicles weighing more than 80,000 pounds,<br />

including large coach buses.<br />

Low water levels can cause constraints on the size <strong>of</strong> cargos carried by ships on the lake, according to Robert Lewis-<br />

Manning, president <strong>of</strong> the Canadian Shipowners Association.<br />

He added many shipping companies are used to managing cargo loads through the year as water levels change.<br />

“What’s unusual is how early in the year we’ve seen it,” he said.<br />

“We were seeing water levels in July we might expect in October.”<br />

But, it’s not having “a drastic impact on the bottom line” <strong>of</strong> the shipping companies, he said.<br />

paul.morden@sunmedia.ca<br />





D.C.S. Report No. 07-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Brent Kittmer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />

Project Update: Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility<br />

(Status <strong>of</strong> Part II Orders and BCF Scope Change Application)<br />


That the report be received for Council’s information.<br />

REPORT<br />

This report provides a brief update respecting the status Part II orders received as a<br />

result <strong>of</strong> the ESR addendum undertaken for the Grand Bend sewage treatment facility<br />

project, and the status <strong>of</strong> the BCF funding scope change application.<br />

Part II Orders<br />

<strong>The</strong> public consultation period for the ESR addendum ended on November 26, 2012.<br />

<strong>The</strong> MOE has confirmed that two letters were sent to the MOE in support <strong>of</strong> the<br />

proposed design and implementation changes recommended for the project, and 16<br />

Part II order requests were submitted. Fifteen <strong>of</strong> the Part II orders are applicable to<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, and one has been withdrawn leaving 14 open. South Huron and<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> have decided to deal with the Part II orders that deal with each<br />

municipality separately so that resident’s personal information is protected.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Part II order process is administered by the MOE, and the municipality participates<br />

by providing information to defend itself against the submitted requests. <strong>The</strong> process for<br />

following up with these requests is typically that the MOE will ask that the proponents<br />

meet with the individual requestors to determine if their concerns can be satisfied before<br />

formal MOE intervention is required, and if not then provide additional information to the<br />

MOE technical staff so that they can formally evaluate the validity <strong>of</strong> the requests.<br />

Stantec and Municipal staff met with the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> requestors on December 3 rd<br />

and 4 th in an attempt to provide additional information on the project, and have the Part<br />

II orders withdrawn. At this point in time none <strong>of</strong> the requests have been rescinded.<br />

As a result, the MOE has provided <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> the following direction:<br />

“At this point in time, if the requests are not rescinded then the formal review is<br />

undertaken by the ministry. <strong>The</strong> municipalities, as well as the requesters will be<br />

notified once the minister makes his decision. Having said that, the project<br />

cannot be undertaken until a decision 126 is rendered by the minister. It is<br />

encouraged that ongoing meetings/consultation between the municipalities and

the requesters continue to take place to resolve any outstanding issues while the<br />

minister’s review is taking place.”<br />

- Mr. David Naccarato, Ministry <strong>of</strong> the Environment (12/18/2012)<br />

As above, the Part II order process has moved to the formal review stage by the MOE.<br />

As a part <strong>of</strong> this process the <strong>Municipality</strong> is required to submit additional project<br />

information to the MOE for technical review using the MOE’s standardized reporting<br />

format for the process. Each <strong>of</strong> the partner municipality’s is responsible for submitting<br />

the information necessary as they apply to the Part II orders submitted by their<br />

residents. <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ staff is in the process <strong>of</strong> drafting the necessary<br />

documentation, and it is anticipated that a submission will be made by January 18,<br />

2013. <strong>The</strong> MOE has not provided a timeline for the completion <strong>of</strong> their review. At this<br />

point in time there is no further action required <strong>of</strong> municipal Council.<br />

BCF Funding Scope Change Application<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> submitted the BCF funding scope change application on October 4,<br />

2012 on behalf <strong>of</strong> the partner municipalities and the Joint Board <strong>of</strong> management. At this<br />

point in time there is very little to report regarding the status <strong>of</strong> the application. <strong>The</strong> BCF<br />

project analyst has followed up with staff to clarify questions related to our submission,<br />

but there has been no indication <strong>of</strong> when a decision will be made.<br />

Staff has inquired numerous times to agency staff regarding a timeline for a decision,<br />

and the following responses have been provided:<br />

“<strong>The</strong> scope change request is presently under review through the program<br />

committee structure. We will formally notify the <strong>Municipality</strong> once a final decision<br />

has been made. Thank you.”<br />

- Mr. Matthew Wilson, Federal Economic Development Agency<br />

(12/6/2012)<br />

“I just wanted to confirm for you that the <strong>Municipality</strong>’s scope change request is<br />

moving through our committee process.”<br />

- Mr. Garth Robinson, Federal Economic Development Agency<br />

(12/18/2012)<br />

At this point in time there is no further action required <strong>of</strong> municipal Council, and staff will<br />

continue to make regular inquiries to the status <strong>of</strong> the application until a decision is<br />

provided.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.<br />

Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services<br />



TR Report No. 02-2013 Tuesday, January 8, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

Signing Authority<br />


That the position <strong>of</strong> Clerk be added to our cheque signing<br />

authority as outlined in Treasurer’s Report No. 02-2013.<br />

REPORT<br />

When <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> was established we established banking policies for the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> which included signing authorities for the financial transactions. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

authorities are identified by position and the pertinent person’s information provided to<br />

the financial institution as required. For example, when there is a change at election<br />

time, we must provide them with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s information if it<br />

changes from the previous term.<br />

Our by-law has the following for signing authority:<br />

-For cheques <strong>of</strong> $25,000.00 or more you must have one <strong>of</strong> the Mayor or Deputy Mayor<br />

and one <strong>of</strong> C.A.O., Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer<br />

-For cheques under $25,000.00 you must have any two <strong>of</strong> the C.A.O., Treasurer or<br />

Deputy Treasurer<br />

In light <strong>of</strong> the current staffing situation we have an overlap <strong>of</strong> positions as well as a<br />

proposed interim staff member in the near future. To allow for flexibility with staff<br />

vacations and locations, I would like to add the position <strong>of</strong> Clerk to the signing authority.<br />

By-law 3 <strong>of</strong> 2013 has been updated for Council’s consideration. If approved, this<br />

information and pertinent forms will be filed with the CIBC. <strong>The</strong> C.A.O. information is<br />

currently blank and will remain that way until the position has been filled on a permanent<br />

basis.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />



BY-LAW 03 OF 2013<br />

Being a By-law to Appoint Signing Authorities for the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

WHEREAS:<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ assigns financial signing<br />

authority to signing <strong>of</strong>ficers as required, to balance the needs <strong>of</strong><br />

operating efficiency and effective control;<br />

AND WHEREAS: Financial signing authority is assigned based on the monetary<br />

value <strong>of</strong> the cheque;<br />

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed appropriate for the <strong>Municipality</strong> to confirm this<br />

policy by by-law;<br />

NOW THEREFORE the Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> enacts as follows:<br />

1. For cheques with a value in excess <strong>of</strong> $ 25,000.00, the signing<br />

authorities are:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Mayor or Deputy Mayor;<br />

AND<br />

<strong>The</strong> Chief Administrative Officer or Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer or<br />

Clerk<br />

2. For cheques with a value <strong>of</strong> less than $ 25,000.00, the signing<br />

authorities are:<br />

Any two <strong>of</strong>: <strong>The</strong> Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer or Deputy<br />

Treasurer or Clerk<br />

3. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14 th day <strong>of</strong> January, 2013.<br />


___________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

129<br />

___________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie


TR Report No. 03-2013 Tuesday, January 8, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

Annual By-laws<br />


That Council passes the pertinent by-laws for the Interim Tax<br />

Billing and the Annual Borrowing for Current Expenditures as<br />

outlined in Treasurers report TR-03-2013.<br />

REPORT<br />

At the beginning <strong>of</strong> every year we pass two pertinent by-laws, one that establishes our<br />

interim tax billing and one that establishes our operating line <strong>of</strong> credit for current<br />

expenditures.<br />

Each year the <strong>Municipality</strong> issues two property tax billings, the interim at the end <strong>of</strong><br />

January and the final at the end <strong>of</strong> July. As per section 317 <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act a bylaw<br />

is required to establish an interim billing amount, due dates and penalties.<br />

<strong>The</strong> interim billing is 50% <strong>of</strong> the previous year’s total taxes and split into two<br />

installments. <strong>The</strong> historical due dates for the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> interim tax bill are the<br />

last business day <strong>of</strong> February and May which for 2013 the dates will be February 28 th<br />

and May 31 st . Sec 345 <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act establishes the penalty for taxes in default<br />

at 1.25 percent per month. <strong>The</strong>se items have been prepared in By-Law 1 <strong>of</strong> 2013 for<br />

your approval.<br />

We establish a borrowing by-law to meet current expenditures on an annual basis. This<br />

borrowing is basically a line <strong>of</strong> credit established with our financial institution, the CIBC,<br />

to cover any shortfall in funds for the day to day operations throughout the year that we<br />

may experience when the expenditures don’t coincide with the flow <strong>of</strong> taxation or other<br />

revenue dollars. <strong>The</strong> value established is $2,000,000.00 and has been consistent for<br />

the past several years. <strong>The</strong> rate as per our credit agreement is prime minus 0.15%.<br />

By-law 2 <strong>of</strong> 2013 has been prepared for your approval.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />



BY-LAW 01 <strong>of</strong> 2013<br />

Being a By-law to Provide for an Interim Tax Levy and to Provide for the Payment<br />

<strong>of</strong> Taxes and to Provide for Penalty and Interest Charges<br />

WHEREAS:<br />


Section 317(1) <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act, 2001, provides that a local<br />

municipality, before the adoption <strong>of</strong> the estimates for the year, may<br />

pass a by-law levying amounts on the assessment <strong>of</strong> property in<br />

the local municipality rateable for local municipal purposes.<br />

Section 317(3) <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act, 2001, states that the amounts<br />

to be levied are subject to the following rules:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> amount levied on a property shall not exceed the prescribed percentage, or<br />

50 per cent if no percentage is prescribed, <strong>of</strong> the total amount <strong>of</strong> taxes for<br />

municipal and school purposes levied on the property for the previous year.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> percentage under paragraph 1 may be different for different property classes<br />

but shall be the same for all properties in a property class.<br />

3. For the purposes <strong>of</strong> calculating the total amount <strong>of</strong> taxes for the previous year<br />

under paragraph 1, if any taxes for municipal and school purposes were levied<br />

on a property for only part <strong>of</strong> the previous year because assessment was added<br />

to the tax roll during the year, an amount shall be added equal to the additional<br />

taxes that would have been levied on the property if the taxes for municipal and<br />

school purposes had been levied for the entire year.<br />



<strong>The</strong> <strong>Municipality</strong> deems it expedient to collect a portion <strong>of</strong> the local<br />

improvements and additional charges on the interim bill:<br />



1. <strong>The</strong> said interim tax levy shall become due and payable in two (2) installments as<br />

follows:<br />

Fifty percent (50%) <strong>of</strong> the interim levy shall become due and payable on the 28 th<br />

day <strong>of</strong> February 2013 and the balance <strong>of</strong> the interim levy shall become due and<br />

payable on the 31 st day <strong>of</strong> May, 2013 and nonpayment <strong>of</strong> the amount on the<br />

dates stated in accordance with this section shall constitute default.<br />

2. On all taxes <strong>of</strong> the interim levy which are in default, a penalty <strong>of</strong> 1.25 percent<br />

shall be added and thereafter a penalty <strong>of</strong> 1.25 percent per month will be added<br />


on the first day <strong>of</strong> each and every month the default continues until December<br />

31 st , 2013.<br />

3. On all other taxes in default on January 1 st , 2013, interest shall be added at the<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> 1.25 percent per month or fraction there<strong>of</strong>, and all by-laws and parts <strong>of</strong> bylaws<br />

inconsistent with this policy are hereby rescinded.<br />

4. Penalties and interest added on all taxes <strong>of</strong> the interim tax levy in default shall<br />

become due and payable and shall be collected forthwith as if the same had<br />

originally been imposed and formed part <strong>of</strong> such unpaid interim tax levy.<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> collector may mail or cause the same to be mailed to the residence or place<br />

<strong>of</strong> business <strong>of</strong> such person indicated on the last revised assessment roll, a<br />

written or printed notice specifying the amount <strong>of</strong> taxes payable.<br />

6. That taxes are payable at any <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Municipal Offices, or by<br />

such other arrangements as approved by the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14 th day <strong>of</strong> January, 2013<br />


_____________________________<br />

MAYOR –Bill Weber<br />

_____________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />



BY-LAW 02 OF 2013<br />

A By-law authorizing the borrowing <strong>of</strong> money to meet current expenditures <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

A. In accordance with subsection 407(1) <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act (the “Act”), the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> considers it necessary to borrow the amount <strong>of</strong> $2,000,000.00 to meet,<br />

until taxes are collected and other revenue received, the current expenditures <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> for the year 2013.<br />

B. Pursuant to subsection 407(2) <strong>of</strong> the Act, the total amount borrowed pursuant to this<br />

by-law together with the total <strong>of</strong> any similar borrowing is not to exceed the limits set<br />

forth in that subsection, or other relevant sections <strong>of</strong> the Act and if so required under<br />

subsection 407(2) the <strong>Municipality</strong> shall have obtained the approval <strong>of</strong> the Ontario<br />

Municipal Board.<br />

THEREFORE, the Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> enacts as follows:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> Head and the Treasurer are authorized on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> to borrow<br />

from time to time by way <strong>of</strong> promissory note or bankers’ acceptance from<br />


exceeding in the aggregate $2,000,000.00 to meet, until taxes are collected, the<br />

current expenditures <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> for the year (including the amounts required<br />

for the purposes mentioned in subsection 407(1) <strong>of</strong> the Act) and to give to CIBC<br />

promissory notes or bankers’ acceptances, as the case may be, sealed with the<br />

corporate seal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> and signed by the Head and Treasurer for the<br />

sums borrowed plus interest at a rate to be agreed upon from time to time with<br />

CIBC.<br />

2. All sums borrowed pursuant to this by-law, as well as all other sums borrowed<br />

pursuant to the Act in this year and in previous years from CIBC for any purpose<br />

will, with interest thereon, be a charge upon the whole <strong>of</strong> the revenues <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> for the current year and for all preceding years as and when this<br />

revenue is received.<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> Treasurer is authorized and directed to apply in payment <strong>of</strong> all sums borrowed<br />

plus interest, all <strong>of</strong> the moneys collected or received on account in respect <strong>of</strong> taxes<br />

levied for the current year and preceding years or from any other source which may<br />

lawfully be applied for this purpose.<br />


4. <strong>The</strong> Treasurer is authorized to furnish to CIBC a statement showing the nature and<br />

amount <strong>of</strong> the estimated revenues <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> not yet collected and also<br />

showing the total <strong>of</strong> any amounts borrowed that have not been repaid.<br />


JANUARY, 2013<br />

______________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

______________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />

I hereby certify that the forgoing is a true and complete copy <strong>of</strong> the By-law numbered<br />

above <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> in the Province <strong>of</strong> Ontario,<br />

duly passed at a meeting <strong>of</strong> the Council and that this By-law is in full force and effect.<br />

Dated this<br />

day <strong>of</strong><br />

____________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />



TR Report No. 04-2013 Tuesday, January 8, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

2012 Supplemental Tax Billings and Write Offs<br />


That Council approves the Supplemental Tax Billings and<br />

Write-<strong>of</strong>f’s process in 2012 as outlined in Treasurer’s Report<br />

No. 04-2013.<br />

REPORT<br />

This report is to advise Council <strong>of</strong> the assessment changes received throughout the<br />

year and receive approval for the net taxation effect on <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

Property Tax Supplemental Tax Billings<br />

Throughout the year, the Assessment Act allows a <strong>Municipality</strong> to issue a<br />

supplementary tax bill for properties that have additional assessment not included in the<br />

annual assessment roll. <strong>The</strong>se supplemental tax billings deal with omissions and<br />

additions to the roll.<br />

Throughout the year Municipal Staff advise the Municipal Property Assessment<br />

Corporation (MPAC) <strong>of</strong> any changes affecting assessment through the Planning or<br />

Building Department such as zoning, building permits, final inspections/occupancy<br />

permits, and construction or expansion <strong>of</strong> existing premises. MPAC then prepares any<br />

assessment value changes and produces a Supplementary and Omitted Assessment<br />

roll, which translates into additional tax dollars for the <strong>Municipality</strong>.<br />

Depending on the situation for the change, Section 33 or Section 34 <strong>of</strong> the Assessment<br />

Act would apply. Section 33 <strong>of</strong> the Assessment Act allows for the taxation <strong>of</strong> real<br />

property that has been omitted from the roll. <strong>The</strong> provision allows for taxation in the<br />

current year, plus a maximum <strong>of</strong> the two (2) preceding years. For example, if a new<br />

residence was built and completed in the previous year and the Municipal Property<br />

Assessment did not have them entered on the returned roll for 2012, a supplemental tax<br />

billing would be issued as an “Omitted Assessment”. Section 34 <strong>of</strong> the Assessment Act<br />

allows for taxation <strong>of</strong> assessment that has increased in value or has been added after<br />

the return <strong>of</strong> the last revised roll. <strong>The</strong>se taxes apply to the current year only.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following chart shows the dollar value <strong>of</strong> supplemental or omitted tax billings that<br />

the <strong>Municipality</strong> issued in 2012 along with the explanation for the change.<br />





17,427.39 15,488.57 11,224.75 44,140.71 Tax Class Change / Assessment Reallocation<br />

129.59 117.58 59.50 306.67 Gross Manifest Error / Factual<br />

14,114.95 12,553.09 6,247.38 32,915.42 Severances/Consolidations/Zoning Changes/Misc.<br />

46,510.82 41,578.15 22,794.64 110,883.61 Previously Omitted Assessments /ARB Decisions/Min <strong>of</strong> Settlement<br />

26,361.87 23,281.80 14,975.67 64,619.34 New Residential Bldgs/New Farm Bldgs/Improvements<br />

104,544.62 93,019.19 55,301.94 252,865.75<br />

Adjustment to Taxes (Write<strong>of</strong>fs)<br />

Various sections <strong>of</strong> the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act allow adjustment to<br />

taxes, which result in a write-<strong>of</strong>f to the taxes originally levied to a tax account.<br />

Section 39.1 <strong>of</strong> the Assessment Act allows the owner <strong>of</strong> a property to request the<br />

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to reconsider the assessment <strong>of</strong> their<br />

property. Section 40 <strong>of</strong> the Assessment Act allows an appeal <strong>of</strong> the property<br />

assessment to the Assessment Review Board.<br />

Section 357 <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act allows for the cancellation, reduction, refund <strong>of</strong> taxes<br />

for properties for various reasons. Several examples are: buildings were destroyed by<br />

fire; demolition <strong>of</strong> buildings; mobile unit removed from property, a tax class change,<br />

property owner was overcharged due to a gross or manifest error (assessment as<br />

assigned by MPAC was incorrect).<br />

Section 364.1 <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act allows for a property tax rebate for vacant<br />

commercial and industrial buildings. <strong>The</strong> property owner or their authorized<br />

representative must make an application for the portion <strong>of</strong> property taxes for the vacant<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> property. If the property meets the eligibility criteria, an industrial property is<br />

entitled to receive a rebate equal to 35% <strong>of</strong> the taxes applicable; and a commercial<br />

property is entitled to receive a rebate equal to 30% <strong>of</strong> the taxes applicable.<br />

Section 361.1 <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act allows for a tax rebate program for the purposes <strong>of</strong><br />

providing relief from taxes on property owned and occupied by eligible charities. This<br />

program is legislated by the Municipal Act and requires the upper tier and single tier<br />

Municipalities to pass a by-law. This rebate program is administered by the lower tier.<br />

<strong>The</strong> County <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> passed the necessary bylaw and also chose to extend this<br />

program to include “similar organizations”, for property owners such as Health Services<br />

and Foundations. <strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> the rebate is 40% <strong>of</strong> the annualized taxes, plus 40%<br />

<strong>of</strong> any B.I.A. charges which are applicable to the property.<br />


Attached is a chart showing the dollar value <strong>of</strong> write-<strong>of</strong>fs for the year 2012 along with<br />

the explanation for the change.<br />




1,868.18 1,652.68 1,711.14 5,232.00 Demolition/Removal <strong>of</strong> Bldgs/Bldgs destroyed by Fire<br />

8,540.35 7,561.69 3,787.26 19,889.30 Assessment reduced-Request for Reconsideration/ARB<br />

18,845.32 16,830.90 18,869.26 54,545.48 Tax Class Change / Reallocation<br />

793.52 724.49 368.39 1,886.40 Gross Manifest Error / Factual Error<br />

41,126.37 12,553.95 6,247.79 59,928.11 Severances/Consolidations/Zoning Changes/Misc.<br />

18,613.62 20,027.84 32,521.18 71,162.64 Municipal Act rebates/40% Charitable Rebates/Legions<br />

5,041.08 4,597.04 9,383.02 19,021.14 Vacancy Rebates (Commercial & Industrial properties)<br />

94,828.44 63,948.59 72,888.04 231,665.07<br />

As advised, in TR Report 04-2012, properties owned by the <strong>Municipality</strong>, such as<br />

sewage treatment plants, parking lots, sewage lagoon properties, pumping stations,<br />

bulk water stations and easements are now being allocated within the pertinent<br />

business unit instead <strong>of</strong> being wrote-<strong>of</strong>f as a general taxation decrease, as in previous<br />

years.<br />

<strong>The</strong> additional taxation amount is slightly higher than the 2012 budgeted amount <strong>of</strong><br />

$102,000.00 while the write <strong>of</strong>f amount is lower than the write <strong>of</strong>f budgeted amount <strong>of</strong><br />

$104,040.00.<br />

<strong>The</strong> net tax increase for 2012 was $9,716.18 and will be reflected in the 2012 year to<br />

date financial statements.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />

Report prepared by Wendy Jennison, Tax Collector<br />



TR Report No. 05-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

RE: Water and Wastewater Rates 2013 and 2014<br />


That the 2013 and 2014 water and wastewater rates be<br />

adopted as outlined in Treasurer’s report TR-5-2013 and that<br />

by-law 6 <strong>of</strong> 2013 be passed.<br />

REPORT<br />

At the December 14 th , 2012 special Council meeting, Gary Scandlan <strong>of</strong> Watson and<br />

Associates presented the proposed water and wastewater rate projections for <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong>. At that meeting the following resolution was passed:<br />

12-1214-04 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel<br />

That the Water and Wastewater Rates report prepared by Watson<br />

and Associates, dated December 14, 2012 be received, and that<br />

Council supports the recommended increases to the water and<br />

wastewater rates as outlined in the Watson & Associates<br />

presentation and that staff prepare the necessary by-law and<br />

advertise that the rate will be further considered at the January 14,<br />

2013 Council meeting.<br />

By-law 6 <strong>of</strong> 2013 has been prepared to adopt the rates for 2013 and 2014; however, if<br />

there are any significant changes that would impact the rates, we can revisit them at<br />

any time. <strong>The</strong> following are the proposed rates for 2013 and 2014:<br />

Monthly Base Charge<br />

Water<br />

Sewer<br />

2013 2014 2013 2014<br />

3/4" $ 11.95 $ 12.19 $ 12.14 $ 12.58<br />

1" $ 22.59 $ 23.04 $ 39.36 $ 40.77<br />

1 1/2" $ 40.96 $ 41.78 $ 71.31 $ 73.87<br />

2" $ 66.97 $ 68.31 $ 116.59 $ 120.79<br />

2 1/2" $ 77.06 $ 78.60 $ 134.13 $ 138.96<br />

3" $ 128.71 $ 131.29 $ 224.09 $ 232.15<br />

4" $ 212.29 $ 216.54 $ 369.56 $ 382.87<br />

6" $ 408.00 $ 416.16 $ 725.20 $ 751.31<br />

Consumption Charge<br />

Per Cubic Meter $ 2.30 $ 1382.34<br />

$ 1.81 $ 1.99

As discussed at the Council workshop the impacts to an average home with both<br />

services are as follows:<br />

Year Water Wastewater Combined Combined Change<br />

Annual Change Annual Change Total Annual Quarterly<br />

2012 $511.89 $412.89 $924.78<br />

2013 $522.90 $11.01 $444.33 $31.44 $967.23 $42.45 $10.61<br />

2014 $532.38 $9.48 $479.31 $34.98 $1,011.69 $44.46 $11.12<br />

As you can see there is a small increase on the water component while the wastewater<br />

has increased more substantially. <strong>The</strong> increase is as a result <strong>of</strong> the infrastructure<br />

requirements and the changes to our operating and capital program since the last study<br />

in 2009.<br />

A full report has been provided by Watson and Associates and due to the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

document it is available upon request.<br />

<strong>The</strong> rates will be implemented immediately for the first billing in 2013 and prorated for<br />

the period that the billing applies to. For example the next billing will be for 2 months <strong>of</strong><br />

2012 and 1 for 2013; therefore, the rate will be prorated based on a 2/3 2012 rate and<br />

1/3 2013 rate. This ensures consistency and fairness for the billings.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />



BY-LAW 06 OF 2013<br />

Being a By-law to Establish Water and Wastewater<br />

Usage and Consumption Rates for 2013 and 2014<br />

WHEREAS:<br />

WHEREAS:<br />

WHEREAS:<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> operates municipal water and<br />

wastewater systems; and<br />

<strong>The</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is required to establish<br />

water and wastewater rates in order to provide a safe supply <strong>of</strong> water, and<br />

to finance full cost recovery as legislated by the Province <strong>of</strong> Ontario, and<br />

Council considered a report on the 14 th day <strong>of</strong> December, 2012 at which<br />

time, the proposed 2013 and 2014 water and wastewater usage and<br />

consumption rates were presented and discussed;<br />


<strong>The</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> enacts as follows:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> rates listed in Schedule “A” attached are approved as the rates for water<br />

and wastewater usage and consumption in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, and the said<br />

Schedule “A” is hereby declared to form part <strong>of</strong> this By-law<br />

2. This By-law shall come into force and effect on January 1, 2013.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 14 th day <strong>of</strong> January 2013.<br />


________________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

________________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />


Schedule “A” to By-law 6 <strong>of</strong> 2013<br />

2013 and 2014 Water and Wastewater Usage and Consumption Rates<br />

Monthly Base Charge<br />

Water<br />

Sewer<br />

2013 2014 2013 2014<br />

3/4" $ 11.95 $ 12.19 $ 12.14 $ 12.58<br />

1" $ 22.59 $ 23.04 $ 39.36 $ 40.77<br />

1 1/2" $ 40.96 $ 41.78 $ 71.31 $ 73.87<br />

2" $ 66.97 $ 68.31 $ 116.59 $ 120.79<br />

2 1/2" $ 77.06 $ 78.60 $ 134.13 $ 138.96<br />

3" $ 128.71 $ 131.29 $ 224.09 $ 232.15<br />

4" $ 212.29 $ 216.54 $ 369.56 $ 382.87<br />

6" $ 408.00 $ 416.16 $ 725.20 $ 751.31<br />

Consumption Charge<br />

Per Cubic Meter $ 2.30 $ 2.34 $ 1.81 $ 1.99<br />



TR Report No. 06-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

Annual Audit Reporting Requirements<br />


That the Council acting as the Committee <strong>of</strong> the Whole<br />

provides the required responses to the Annual Audit<br />

Questionnaire.<br />

REPORT<br />

As Council is aware Municipalities are required to have a public audit conducted<br />

annually.<br />

We have already begun the process for the 2012 year end and are now in receipt <strong>of</strong> one<br />

<strong>of</strong> the annual reporting requirements. Attached to this report is a letter <strong>of</strong> request from<br />

our Auditors; BDO Canada LLP.<br />

As noted in previous years the letter is addressed to the Audit Committee. In <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> we have not adopted an Audit Committee approach; alternatively, Council has<br />

assigned the role to the Committee <strong>of</strong> the Whole.<br />

This letter is the same that Council has review and answered for the last several years.<br />

I have provided a copy <strong>of</strong> the responses provided for the 2011 review for your<br />

reference.<br />

Please provide direction or answers to the questions which in turn will be provided to<br />

the auditors in writing as required.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />






TR Report No. 07-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

2013 Wages for Non-Union Staff<br />


For Council review and direction.<br />

REPORT<br />

As the 2013 Budget process moves forward Council needs to provide direction on how<br />

to proceed with the non-union staff wages.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re have been two reports provided to Council; however, no decision has been<br />

made. CAO report 69-2012 outlined the Market Review Study that was completed by<br />

McDowall Associates and CAO report 74-2012 which was seeking Council direction on<br />

the preparing the 2013 budget.<br />

CAO report 69-2012 is attached for your perusal.<br />

CAO report 74-2012 excerpt that pertains to wages:<br />

Staff Salaries & Wages: <strong>The</strong> past practice when it came to the cost <strong>of</strong> living<br />

adjustment to staff wages and salaries was to follow the adjustments<br />

negotiated in the Collective Agreement with our unionized staff, the Collective<br />

Agreement calls for a 1% adjustment effective January 1 st , 1.5% effective July<br />

1 st and 0.25% effective December 1 st . I am wondering as well as to whether<br />

or not there will be a “county wide” approach to this issue.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following resolutions were passed:<br />

12-1015-12 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Scott<br />

That C.A.O. Report No. 69-2012 regarding a market review <strong>of</strong><br />

salaries and pay equity and the impact <strong>of</strong> implementing any<br />

adjustments be referred to the 2013 budget discussion.<br />

Carried<br />

12-1105-15 Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood<br />

That the 2013 DRAFT budget be prepared with a 2% increase over<br />

the 2012 dollar amount.<br />

Carried<br />


Without clear direction, the first draft <strong>of</strong> the 2013 Operating Budget was prepared with<br />

an increase to non-union wages similar to that <strong>of</strong> union wages as well as factored in a<br />

merit or grid step increase. This was done to keep consistent with the 2012 process.<br />

Since this time I have received some information on what others are doing and it<br />

appears that there is a cost <strong>of</strong> living adjustment (COLA) <strong>of</strong> 1.75% to 2.75%.<br />

In addition to the practice <strong>of</strong> a COLA consideration we do annual performance reviews<br />

to determine if a merit or grid step increase is warranted. As mentioned above the<br />

current draft <strong>of</strong> the 2013 budget allows for this.<br />

Council direction on the next steps; if any, would be appreciated.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />



C.A.O. Report No. 69-2012 Wednesday, October 3, 2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM :<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

John Byrne, Chief Administrative Officer<br />

Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries and Pay Equity – Impact <strong>of</strong><br />

Implementation<br />


For Council review and direction.<br />

REPORT<br />

Council at its September 4 th meeting passed the following resolution relative to the<br />

recently completed Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries conducted by McDowall Associates:<br />

Moved by: Councillor Russell<br />

Seconded by: Councillor Illman<br />

That the Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries be received and that staff be<br />

directed to report back to Council on the implications <strong>of</strong><br />

implementing the Market Review and in conducting a Pay Equity<br />

Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries and Wages in accordance with the Pay Equity Act.<br />

Carried<br />

This report provides an overview <strong>of</strong> the recently completed Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries<br />

carried out by McDowall Associates and the impact <strong>of</strong> implementing the<br />

recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries and Pay Equity.<br />

Market Review:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Market Review shows that in general salaries in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> are in line with<br />

the market place. <strong>The</strong> consultant noted however that there were variances at both ends<br />

<strong>of</strong> the scale. <strong>The</strong> salaries at the bottom <strong>of</strong> the grid tended to be ranked a bit higher than<br />

comparators and the salaries at the “Management” level were a bit below the<br />

comparators.<br />

It should be noted that Council is under no obligation to make any adjustments to<br />

salaries <strong>of</strong> any staff, the Market Review was simply a vehicle to gauge the relative<br />

competitiveness <strong>of</strong> salaries in relation to the market. Acceptance <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />


adjustments to the existing grid simply changes the grid it does not convey salary<br />

increases to staff. It simply provides a framework within which Council can make<br />

adjustments when it sees fit. So in essence this is a tool for Council.<br />

Cost <strong>of</strong> Living Adjustments<br />

It has been the practice in the industry to make adjustments to the salary grid to reflect<br />

changes in the cost <strong>of</strong> living year to year. This is done to keep the grid as current and<br />

relevant as possible to changing economic conditions. Again, cost <strong>of</strong> living adjustments<br />

are discretionary and given the current economic climate in Ontario and Canada, there<br />

has been a movement towards not permitting adjustments this year and possibly next.<br />

That said the past practice has been to take a comprehensive approach whereby all <strong>of</strong><br />

the municipalities within <strong>Lambton</strong> County (including the County itself) adopt the same<br />

approach, whatever that might be. Cost <strong>of</strong> Living adjustments are usually brought<br />

forward to Council for consideration early in the new year when economic data for the<br />

prior year has been determined.<br />

Grid Adjustments<br />

Band B – Management Team<br />

<strong>The</strong> Consultant is proposing the creation <strong>of</strong> a “new” band between the current Band A<br />

and B to bring this Band more in line with the marketplace. Approving this adjustment<br />

does not translate into an automatic salary increase to anyone, it merely adjusts the grid<br />

to bring the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> grid more in line with the marketplace.<br />

No adjustments are made to staff salaries in the grid until their annual performance<br />

reviews take place, which in our case will likely take place in early March <strong>of</strong> 2013.<br />

Usually provision is made in the budget to accommodate this change in the grid and the<br />

potential that there may be increases recommended.<br />

Band C – Chief Building Official<br />

One <strong>of</strong> the objectives <strong>of</strong> the Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries was to assess the compensation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Chief Building Official. Some background history may be helpful here. At the time<br />

<strong>of</strong> amalgamation an effort was made to rationalize what services the <strong>Municipality</strong> would<br />

provide and what services would the County provide. Initially it was decided to allow the<br />

County <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> to provide building inspection services in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>; however<br />

service delivery and the quality <strong>of</strong> that service delivery continued to be problematic. In<br />

simple terms the County was not able to deliver the service to our satisfaction.<br />

Consequently Council decided to hire our own Chief Building Official.<br />

At the time we established a salary range for the Building Inspector it fell within the<br />

existing grid, Band B (with the Department Head group) So the consultant was asked to<br />

pay some attention to this issue in the Market Review. As a result, the consultant is<br />

recommending that the Chief Building Official remain in Band C (formerly Band B) so<br />


the position is separate and apart from the Department Heads in the new Band B). <strong>The</strong><br />

problem with the CBO being in the same Band as the Department Heads was that it<br />

meant that the Chief Building Official was in the same grid as his manager.<br />

Placing the Chief Building Official in Band C does not translate into actual payroll<br />

adjustments, like Bands A & B, the only thing taking place is that this position is placed<br />

in the appropriate place on the grid.<br />

Like other staff in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> the Chief Building Official in 2012<br />

will be reviewed in early March and depending on that performance an adjustment may<br />

be recommended at that time.<br />

Summary:<br />

Adjusting the <strong>Municipality</strong>’s Salary Grid is done from time to time in order to keep it in<br />

pace with the marketplace. Adjusting the grid does not translate into salary adjustments<br />

for staff. Salary adjustments are as they always have been subject to annual<br />

performance reviews.<br />

If the adoption <strong>of</strong> the new grid is approved, staff would be repositioned on that new grid<br />

at their current salary levels – see schedule A attached.<br />

Pay Equity:<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Municipality</strong> completed a “pay equity” review in 2002, and since that time<br />

periodically reviews compensation between men and women to try and identify gender<br />

related inequality. <strong>The</strong><br />

Part I: Requirement for ALL employers to<br />

Maintain pay equity<br />

Once pay equity is achieved, all employers subject to the Act are required to<br />

maintain pay equity for the employees in female dominated job classes. However, the<br />

Act does not stipulate specific procedures or schedules to follow for maintaining pay<br />

equity. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> maintaining pay equity is to ensure that pay equity gaps that<br />

were closed are not re-opened or widened as a result <strong>of</strong> changes to job values and job<br />

rates and that new gaps are not created.<br />

Maintaining pay equity is an ongoing process whereby employers must review job<br />

classes for changes in job rate, job value, duties and responsibilities as positions are<br />

added or eliminated. In a unionized environment, employers and unions are<br />

prohibited from agreeing to terms that, if implemented, would mean that the<br />

minimum requirements <strong>of</strong> the Act are not met.<br />


<strong>The</strong> legislation applies to all employees, unionized or not.<br />

<strong>The</strong> legislation only addresses systemic discrimination against<br />

women. It does not apply to complaints by men.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Act is enforced by spot checks, audits and complaints.<br />

As noted there is no time specific requirement to review pay equity and checks <strong>of</strong> pay<br />

equity compliance are rare and random, as noted above. Council has yet to deal with or<br />

implement the consultant’s recommendations relative to the Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries;<br />

it would not make sense to undertake a pay equity review at this time.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Market Review <strong>of</strong> Salaries carried out by McDowall Associates shows that the<br />

female component <strong>of</strong> the workforce is fairly compensated when compared to male<br />

counterparts.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

John Byrne<br />

Chief Administrative Officer<br />


Schedule A<br />

2012 <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Salary Grid<br />

(Effective Jan. 1, 2012 with cost <strong>of</strong> living adjustments included)<br />

Position Band BASE 1 2 3<br />

JOB<br />

RATE<br />

Chief Administrative Officer A 108,926.95 111,457.93 113,988.92 116,519.90 119,050.89 150,215.11<br />

Treasurer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Service, Clerk,<br />

Chief Building Official<br />

B 74,530.40 78,168.81 81,807.23 85,445.67 89,084.11<br />

Empty C 66,414.87 70,057.53 73,700.21 77,342.88 80,985.55<br />

Area Managers, Infrastructure Manager,<br />

Recreation & Leisure Services Facilitator<br />

D 55,490.10 58,489.56 61,489.03 64,488.50 67,487.96<br />

Drainage Systems & Development Inspector,<br />

Financial Assistants - Tax Collector, Utilities<br />

E 52,790.58 55,790.04 58,789.51 61,788.98 64,788.44<br />

Admin. Assistants - CAO, Communications,<br />

Coporate Services, Planning, Infrastructure<br />

Services, Community Services, Financial<br />

Assistants - AP/AR, Customer Services, Treasury<br />

F 41,992.51 44,991.96 47,991.43 50,990.91 53,990.36 55,610.07<br />

Financial Assistant - Customer Services (2) G 31,194.43 34,193.90 37,193.35 40,192.82 43,192.30<br />

Operators 42,707.81 46,823.71 47,714.78<br />

Modified 2012 Salary Grid for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> (New Band for Sr. Leaders)<br />

New Band Added between current Band A and Current Band B 80% 100%<br />

Positions Band BASE 1 2 3 JOB RATE<br />

Chief Administrative Officer A 95,241.00 101,077.00 106,913.00 112,749.00 119,051.00<br />

Treasurer, Director <strong>of</strong> Community Services, Clerk B 76,133.00 80,798.00 85,463.00 90,128.00 95,166.00<br />

Chief Building Official C 71,267.00 75,634.00 80,001.00 84,368.00 89,084.00<br />

Empty D 64,789.00 68,759.00 72,729.00 76,699.00 80,986.00<br />

Infrastructure Manager, Recreation & Leisure Services<br />

Facilitator, Area Managers<br />

E 53,990.00 57,298.00 60,606.00 63,914.00 67,488.00<br />

Drainage Systems & Development Inspector, Finanaical<br />

Assistants - Tax Collector, Utilities<br />

F 51,830.00 55,006.00 58,182.00 61,358.00 64,788.00<br />

Admin Assistants - CAO, Communications, Corporate<br />

Services, Planning, Infrastructure Services, Community<br />

Services, Financial Assistants - AP/AR, Customer Service,<br />

Treasury<br />

G 43,192.00 45,839.00 48,486.00 51,133.00 53,990.00<br />

Financial Assisant - Customer Service (2) H 34,554.00 36,671.00 38,788.00 40,905.00 43,192.00<br />



TR Report No. 08-2013 Friday, January 11, 2013<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Janet Ferguson, Treasurer<br />

Interim CAO<br />


For Council consideration and concise direction.<br />

REPORT<br />

At the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> budget meeting held January 11, 2013, the issue <strong>of</strong> the Interim<br />

CAO was discussed. <strong>The</strong>re appeared to be some confusion on how filling the interim<br />

position would be handled.<br />

Based on the resolution passed at the December 17 th meeting, I proceeded to contact<br />

the Municipal Administrators Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Association to obtain names from their<br />

database <strong>of</strong> persons that may be interested in an interim CAO position. I issued an<br />

email to those persons requesting that they submit a proposal if they are interested in<br />

coming to <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>. From the email request I did receive a couple referrals and<br />

also provided them with the same information request. I did have one person contact<br />

me directly and similarly suggested they submit a proposal. Since the meeting on<br />

January 11 th , I have received one more direct submission.<br />

At the January 11 th meeting Council discussed their intent to broaden the search by<br />

having the interim position posted on various websites and advertising outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />

local area. Finally a resolution was passed directing staff to post the interim position on<br />

the AMO and <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> website and for staff to work out a schedule for<br />

implementation.<br />

I am submitting this report to Council to seek further clarification on the intent and<br />

process. Detailed direction would eliminate the misinterpretation <strong>of</strong> Council’s decision.<br />

After some careful consideration on the next steps for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, this report will<br />

include options for Council to consider. This has been a rushed process and I think<br />

Council needs to take some time to fully deliberate and communicate their intentions for<br />

moving this issue forward to a positive resolution.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first (1) option is an Interim CAO.<br />

a) Council could continue down the path that I started and review the 6<br />

submissions. If there were no qualified persons, then you could reach further for<br />

submissions.<br />

b) Council could widen the search with the posting as per the resolution <strong>of</strong> January<br />

11, 2013.<br />


If option a) is chosen the hiring committee could review the submissions the week <strong>of</strong><br />

January 14 th and short list the candidates for Council review and interview the week <strong>of</strong><br />

January 28 th . <strong>The</strong> position could possibly be filled as early as the first week <strong>of</strong><br />

February.<br />

If option b) is chosen the position will be posted for two weeks with submissions being<br />

completed by January 25 th . <strong>The</strong> hiring committee could review the submissions the<br />

week <strong>of</strong> January 28 th and short list the candidates for Council review and interview the<br />

week <strong>of</strong> February 11 th . <strong>The</strong> position could possibly be filled as early as the week <strong>of</strong><br />

February 25 th .<br />

<strong>The</strong> above options include very tight time frames and may need to be extended.<br />

Council should also consider the time commitment that they want from an interim<br />

person and communicate that up front during the interview process.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second (2) option is moving right to filling the CAO position on a permanent basis.<br />

a) Council could choose to move right to filling the CAO position on a<br />

permanent basis with the assistance <strong>of</strong> internal staff to post and collect the<br />

information then provide it to the hiring committee for review and short list a<br />

recommendation to Council for interviewing.<br />

b) Council could choose to move right to filling the CAO position on a permanent<br />

basis with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a consultant.<br />

c) Council could choose to move right to filling the CAO position on a permanent<br />

basis using both options a) and b).<br />

If any <strong>of</strong> option 2 is selected we would follow the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Hiring policy and best<br />

practices <strong>of</strong> posting the position internally before posting externally.<br />

If it is Council’s intent to maintain the current job description for the CAO position (2a),<br />

staff could do the posting internally for a week and if there are submissions the hiring<br />

committee would review and make a recommendation to council. If there were no<br />

candidates, the position would then be posted externally through several avenues:<br />

websites, pr<strong>of</strong>essional associations, and print. This could be handled by staff as could<br />

the collection <strong>of</strong> the information to provide to the hiring committee for their review and<br />

short list and recommendation to council.<br />

If Council chose option 2b, the consultant would be brought in right away for<br />

discussions with Council and implementation <strong>of</strong> any changes you would like.<br />

Option 2c as a combination <strong>of</strong> 2 a and b would enlist the assistance <strong>of</strong> a consultant<br />

once the submissions have been received.<br />

<strong>The</strong> timing <strong>of</strong> option 2 would vary and be dependent upon the length <strong>of</strong> time the position<br />

was posted and the time required to review and shortlist the candidates. This could<br />

range between two and three months if everything moves along smoothly. <strong>The</strong>n<br />

consideration would have to be given to the person’s availability and when they would<br />

be able to start, thus extending the timeframe.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are pro’s and con’s to both approaches and Council has a difficult decision to<br />

make. A full discussion would assist Council 154 in determining the most suitable method<br />

for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> to move forward. Again, clear direction to staff would also ensure

that we are not complicating or delaying the process any further. This can be<br />

accomplished by writing out a resolution ahead <strong>of</strong> time for consideration at the meeting.<br />

If Council feels there is not sufficient time to fully discuss this matter, I would<br />

recommend that a special meeting be called in the next two days.<br />

When this process began, I communicated verbally that I would commit to the Interim<br />

CAO position for a short period <strong>of</strong> time; however, long enough to have someone else fill<br />

the position. I made it clear that I was not interested in the position and will reaffirm my<br />

decision on that.<br />

As you are aware my appointment expires on January 15 th , 2013. Subject to Council’s<br />

wish, I am willing to extend my term to accommodate either the interim position or the<br />

permanent solution. That being said, Council must understand that I am not a Human<br />

Resource expert and am limited to my Department Head and Finance management<br />

skills. My commitment, in conjunction with the other Department Head’s support will<br />

keep the day to day activities moving along until the position has been filled on an<br />

interim or permanent basis.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Janet Ferguson,<br />

Treasurer<br />



CL Report No. 01-2013 Wednesday, January 2, 2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Carol McKenzie, Clerk<br />

RE: Accountability and Transparency - Update on the 2012<br />

Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Requests and Requests for<br />

Information from the Ombudsman<br />


For information only.<br />

REPORT<br />


One <strong>of</strong> the pieces <strong>of</strong> Provincial legislation that municipalities are to comply with is the<br />

“Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information and the Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990”. <strong>The</strong> purposes<br />

<strong>of</strong> this Act are,<br />

(a) to provide a right <strong>of</strong> access to information under the control <strong>of</strong><br />

institutions in accordance with the principles that,<br />

(i) information should be available to the public,<br />

(ii) necessary exemptions from the right <strong>of</strong> access should be<br />

limited and specific, and<br />

(iii) decisions on the disclosure <strong>of</strong> information should be reviewed<br />

independently <strong>of</strong> the institution controlling the information; and<br />

(b) to protect the privacy <strong>of</strong> individuals with respect to personal<br />

information about themselves held by institutions and to provide<br />

individuals with a right <strong>of</strong> access to that information. R.S.O. 1990, c.<br />

M.56, s.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se are two diametrically opposed purposes – on one hand, information is to be<br />

made public, but on the other, the privacy <strong>of</strong> individuals and personal information is to<br />

be protected.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a provincially mandated application form and fee that is to be submitted when<br />

information is requested under the Act. <strong>The</strong>se requests are submitted to the Clerk, who<br />

has the responsibility <strong>of</strong> reviewing the request in accordance with the exceptions in the<br />

Act to determine if the information is “privileged” (ie: unable to be disclosed) or available<br />

to the requester.<br />

If the information is permitted to be released, the Clerk contacts the staff member that<br />

would have the information for an estimate 156 <strong>of</strong> the time required to collect the information

equested, and then calculates the cost to provide the information based on the fees in<br />

the MFIPPA O. Reg. ($ 7.50 per 15 minutes) <strong>The</strong> applicant is advised <strong>of</strong> the costs, and<br />

if he/she chooses to proceed, the information is collected and provided.<br />

Requests can take a significant amount <strong>of</strong> time to process, as it is important to review<br />

the legislation each time to ensure that if the requested information is provided, a<br />

person’s privacy or personal information is not affected. Also, usually the information is<br />

not readily available in the requested format, which takes staff time to compile. A<br />

response is required to be provided within the 30 day deadline mandated in the MFIPP<br />

Act, Section 19, which <strong>of</strong>ten changes staff priorities.<br />

In 2012 to date, 14 applications under the “Municipal Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information and<br />

Protection <strong>of</strong> Privacy Act” have been processed and the requests were for:<br />

1. List <strong>of</strong> all communication equipment (Phones, computers) purchased by<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> from Dec 2006 – Dec 2001, and corresponding list <strong>of</strong> users –<br />

Result: information provided.<br />

2. 236 Ontario Street Grand Bend – Building permit information – Result: available<br />

information provided.<br />

3. Municipal cellular telephone logs: Result: non privileged information <strong>of</strong>fered as<br />

available.<br />

4. Municipal telephone logs: Result: non privileged information <strong>of</strong>fered as available.<br />

5. PVB Settlement – municipal legal fees, and minute <strong>of</strong> settlement – Result: non<br />

privileged information provided.<br />

6. Water billed by <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> for Zone 4, Pinery Park, Zone 3 and area<br />

served by sanitary sewers – Result: Information provided.<br />

7. By-law enforcement issues 13 Woodward Ave – Result: available non privileged<br />

information provided.<br />

8. By-law enforcement issues 11 Woodward Ave - Result: available non privileged<br />

information provided.<br />

9. Agreement between the Pinery Park and <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> for assigned sewage<br />

capacity - Result: Information provided.<br />

10. Sewage Flow Rates for Pinery Park – Result: Available information provided.<br />

11. Contracts between Dillon and <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>/Sewage Board re STP Project<br />

Management since Dec 31, 2011 - Result: Information provided<br />

12. Lake Huron Water Quality (Swim) Monitor – Result: Available<br />

information/response provided.<br />


13. Information pertaining to OMI – Charge for work on Goosemarsh Line Aug 17,<br />

2012, Maintenance Contract, and Scope <strong>of</strong> Work – Result: Information provided on<br />

Maintenance Contract and Scope <strong>of</strong> Work – other information was deemed privileged<br />

as the charge was to the homeowner.<br />

14. 58 King Street, Forest – All site plans, building permits, plans, surveys etc.<br />

Result: Information provided.<br />


Municipalities are required to pass by-laws setting out the procedure for holding<br />

meetings, and the “Municipal Act” requires that all meetings be open to the public<br />

unless they meet the limited exceptions. <strong>The</strong> exceptions are stated in Section 239(2) <strong>of</strong><br />

the Act.<br />

Any person may request an investigation into whether a municipality or local board has<br />

complied with the open meeting requirements or the procedural by-law relating to any<br />

meeting or part <strong>of</strong> a meeting that was closed to the public.<br />

All municipalities were required to appoint a “Closed Meeting Investigator” who would<br />

review inquiries pertaining to violations <strong>of</strong> the open meeting provisions, and the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> appointed the Ontario Ombudsman for this role.<br />

If a complaint is received by the Ombudsman, typically an “Early Resolution Officer” is<br />

appointed, who will contact the Clerk for the background information, which when<br />

provided, is reviewed to determine if a full investigation is necessary. If a formal<br />

investigation is undertaken, the Clerk provides all the requested information, and once a<br />

decision is rendered by the Ombudsman’s <strong>of</strong>fice, the municipality is required to report<br />

the decision in open Council.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se requests take a significant amount <strong>of</strong> time to respond to, and in the past year, the<br />

Clerk has dealt with 8 issues that have been referred to the Ombudsman for<br />

investigation, which were:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> July 6, 2011 preliminary discussion that was held with staff, consultants and<br />

several members <strong>of</strong> Council to ensure that the consultants were prepared to respond to<br />

the issues raised by residents regarding the GBSTP at the next Grand Bend Sewage<br />

Board Meeting. <strong>The</strong> Ombudsman’s <strong>of</strong>fice concluded that the open meeting<br />

requirements <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act were not violated.<br />

2. Grand Bend Sewage Board Meeting November 8, 2011 and <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’<br />

Council meeting November 21, 2011. <strong>The</strong> issue with the November 21, 2011 meeting<br />

was that there was no detailed notice in advance regarding the “in camera” portion <strong>of</strong><br />

the November 21 meeting. <strong>The</strong> response from the Ombudsman stated that it is not<br />

a statutory requirement for the details <strong>of</strong> the “in camera” discussion to be<br />

provided in advance to the public, although it is encouraged. Also, it was<br />

suggested that Section 239(2)(f) <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Act (advice that is subject to<br />

solicitor client privilege) be used as the rationale for closing meetings when<br />

possible litigious matters are discussed, as opposed to 239(2)e) – litigation or<br />

potential litigation 158

3. Notice for the January 30 th meeting, and February 2, 2012 meetings <strong>of</strong> Council. <strong>The</strong><br />

information on the municipal procedures and those used to notify the public <strong>of</strong> these<br />

meetings were provided to the early resolution <strong>of</strong>ficer. <strong>The</strong> decision was that these<br />

were not closed meetings; therefore, it was not within the Ombudsman’s<br />

jurisdiction to investigate<br />

4. PVB Settlement discussion– the rationale for closing the meeting was 239(2)(e) <strong>of</strong><br />

the Municipal Act – litigation or potential litigation. <strong>The</strong> Ombudsman’s <strong>of</strong>fice’s<br />

analysis was that this section accurately reflected the substance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

discussion on the matter.<br />

5. Oversight Committee – A complaint was received that the Oversight Committee may<br />

have held closed meetings. Information was requested on the mandate <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Committee, and details on the meetings. <strong>The</strong> ruling from the Closed Meeting<br />

investigation, dated December 21, 2012, is attached to this report, and notes that<br />

the Oversight Committee failed to follow the open meeting requirements <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Municipal Act and the consultant preparing the minutes from the July 6, 2012<br />

meeting was a breach <strong>of</strong> section 14 <strong>of</strong> the Procedural by-law and the Municipal<br />

Act. (NOTE: As a result <strong>of</strong> the comments in the letter from the Closed Meeting<br />

Investigator, staff will be preparing a report on recommended changes to the Committee<br />

procedures to ensure compliance with the Municipal Act and the Procedural By-law)<br />

6. Community Information Meeting - October 4, 2012 – Information was requested on<br />

the pre-consultation meeting held the 4 th <strong>of</strong> October with the area community groups to<br />

review the material that would be presented at the October 11 PIC meeting. <strong>The</strong> report<br />

from the closed meeting investigator (Ombudsman) on this matter is also part <strong>of</strong><br />

the December 21, 2012 letter, and concludes that the October 4 meeting was not a<br />

“meeting <strong>of</strong> council” and therefore was not subject to the open meeting<br />

requirements.<br />

7. Fire Board Meetings –Information was requested on the Fire Board’s membership<br />

and mandate, and the by-law establishing the Board. <strong>The</strong> Ombudsman’s <strong>of</strong>fice has<br />

advised there will not be a review <strong>of</strong> this issue, as the meeting dates are posted<br />

on the annual calendar on the website, and there was no evidence <strong>of</strong> a closed<br />

meeting <strong>of</strong> the Fire Board.<br />

8. November 13, 2012 – CAO matter discussed in Closed Session. Copies <strong>of</strong> all<br />

minutes from closed and open sessions dealing with this matter were requested. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong>fice is still working on this file and a response has not yet been received.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />

Attachment 1 – Letter from the Office <strong>of</strong> the Ombudsman – December 21, 2012<br />










CL Report No. 02-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Carol McKenzie, Clerk<br />

Good Neighbour Award – Wendy Hoy and Judy Watt<br />


For Council consideration.<br />

REPORT<br />

In August <strong>of</strong> 2011, Council established a “Good Neighbour Recognition Policy” (Copy<br />

attached) to honour outstanding <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ citizens for their efforts and actions<br />

that have enhanced and improved our community.<br />

<strong>The</strong> policy states that “Nominations can be submitted at any time, and require a<br />

completed application form, and details on how the nominee created, developed or<br />

implemented a program or project that improved or enhanced or benefitted the<br />

neighbourhood, without receiving compensation for these actions.”<br />

Attached is an application for Good Neighbour Awards submitted by the “Lakeshore<br />

Coalition” for Wendy Hoy, and Judy Watt for their efforts to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

issues pertaining to the installation <strong>of</strong> cell towers and the possible impacts <strong>of</strong> electro<br />

magnetic radio emission on the citizens and the environmentally sensitive areas <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>.<br />

If Council supports this nomination, a certificate will be prepared for presentation as<br />

requested.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />




Policy # 58<br />

Effective Date: August 8, 2011<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, recognizing that great neighbours make for safe & vibrant<br />

communities and improve the quality <strong>of</strong> life for residents, has implemented a “Good<br />

Neighbour Recognition Program”.<br />

<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the program is to honour outstanding <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ citizens for their<br />

efforts and actions that have enhanced and improved our community.<br />

Nomination for any development or project constructed on municipal property would<br />

need to have been approved by the <strong>Municipality</strong> prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> work<br />

and be in compliance with all pertinent regulations and requirements.<br />

Nominations can be submitted by members <strong>of</strong> the public, and require details to be<br />

provided on how the nominee created, developed or implemented a program or project<br />

that improved or enhanced or benefitted the neighbourhood, without receiving<br />

compensation for these actions.<br />

Application forms are attached as Schedule “A” to this policy.<br />

Administered by: the Clerk’s Department<br />


Schedule “A”<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, recognizing that great neighbours make for safe & vibrant<br />

communities and improve the quality <strong>of</strong> life for residents, has implemented a “Good<br />

Neighbour Recognition Program”. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the program is to honour outstanding<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ citizens for their efforts and actions that have enhanced and improved<br />

our community.<br />

Nominations can be submitted at any time, and require a completed application form,<br />

and details on how the nominee created, developed or implemented a program or<br />

project that improved or enhanced or benefitted the neighbourhood, without receiving<br />

compensation for these actions. Pictures <strong>of</strong> the project would be advantageous.<br />

At least two (2) written testimonials from persons who can attest to the value and impact<br />

<strong>of</strong> the program or project must accompany the application.<br />

NOTE: a nomination for any development or project that was constructed on municipal<br />

property would need to have been approved by the <strong>Municipality</strong> prior to the<br />

commencement <strong>of</strong> work and be in compliance with all pertinent regulations and<br />

requirements.<br />

Please send completed application and supporting document to:<br />

Mayor and Council<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

7883 Amtelecom Parkway<br />

Forest, Ontario NON IJO<br />


<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Good Neighbour Recognition Program<br />

Nomination Form<br />

Please note: <strong>The</strong> personal information provide is necessary for this award, and will only be used for that purpose. It is<br />

collected in compliance with section 38(2) <strong>of</strong> the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Personal Privacy Act,<br />

R.S.O. 1990 F.31.<br />

Please Type or print clearly and complete in full:<br />

Individual being nominated:<br />

First Name<br />

Last name<br />

Address<br />

City<br />

Postal<br />

Telephone number<br />

E-mail<br />

Nomination submitted by:<br />

First Name<br />

Last name<br />

Address<br />

City<br />

Postal<br />

Telephone number<br />

E-mail<br />


Please provide details on the how the nominee created, developed or implemented a<br />

program or project that improved or enhanced or benefitted the neighbourhood: (include<br />

pictures when possible)<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________<br />

o I have enclosed the two written testimonials<br />


<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Good Neighbour Recognition Program<br />

Nomination Form<br />

Please note: <strong>The</strong> personal information provide is necessary for this award, and will only be used for that purpose. It is<br />

collected in compliance with section 38(2) <strong>of</strong> the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information and Protection <strong>of</strong> Personal Privacy Act,<br />

R.S.O. 1990 F.31.<br />

Please Type or print clearly and complete in full:<br />

IndividualS being nominated:<br />

WENDY<br />

First Name<br />

HOY<br />

Last name<br />

7503 DUNE DRIVE<br />

Address<br />


City<br />

Postal<br />

N0M 2L0<br />

519-243-1689 Wendyhoy@golden.net<br />

Telephone number<br />

E-mail<br />

AND<br />

JUDY<br />

First Name<br />

WATT<br />

Last name<br />

10205 SHORELINE DR<br />

Address<br />


City<br />

N0M 1T0<br />

Postal<br />

(519) 238-2832 jrwatt@hay.net<br />

Telephone<br />

Email<br />

Nomination submitted by:<br />


First Name<br />


Last name<br />

c/o 7613 CHESTER TRAIL<br />

Address<br />


City<br />

Postal<br />

N0M 2L0<br />

519-243-2415 TOWERPF@YAHOO.CA<br />

Telephone number<br />

E-mail<br />


Please provide details on the how the nominee created, developed or implemented a<br />

program or project that improved or enhanced or benefitted the neighbourhood: (include<br />

pictures when possible)<br />

Impending Cell Tower construction in Port Franks, Grand Bend and Ipperwash/Kettle and Stony Point<br />

brought together a group <strong>of</strong> concerned individuals who believed that the preservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong><br />

<strong>Shores</strong> residents, sensitive eco-structures and general way <strong>of</strong> life would be negatively impacted by<br />

such construction and their subsequent electro-magnetic radio frequency emissions.<br />

When public outcries, municipal intervention and peaceful demonstrations did not obtain the desired<br />

result - stoppage <strong>of</strong> communications tower plans - one citizen took it upon herself to implement the<br />

use <strong>of</strong> Drastic Measures to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the cause.<br />

Wendy Hoy planned an 800 kms Walk to Ottawa to raise awareness. Wendy took with her a hand-out<br />

(attachment: ImWalkingtoOttawa) outlining the need to reduce involuntary everyday exposures to<br />

radiation; to advocate rights for children, individuals and communities; and to build awareness <strong>of</strong><br />

hyper-electro-sensitivity and it’s symptoms.<br />

th<br />

Ms. Hoy and her canine companion, Dasher, left from Port Franks on September 20 , 2012,<br />

surrounded by friends and well-wishers from across the region. She was joined by Judy Watt, a Grand<br />

Bend resident, who drove alongside Wendy, keeping her safe and provided some much needed<br />

company along less travelled country roads.<br />

Along the walking route, Wendy Hoy was invited to speak at Public Information Sessions, Town Hall<br />

Meetings, Rallies and even a Flash-Mob Dance in Barrie, Oakville, Burlington and Peterborough.<br />

Supporters <strong>of</strong> the campaign to increase awareness <strong>of</strong> electro-sensitivities and cell tower issues were<br />

able to follow her progress on Facebook and sign a down-loadable petition (attached) calling for<br />

changes to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 and the establishment <strong>of</strong> White Zones (safe haven’s) for<br />

persons wishing to control their voluntary exposure to EMRs. Ms. Hoy visited with Municipal<br />

representatives in most communities through which she travelled, increasing awareness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Resolutions passed by <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Municipal Council which called for Industry Canada to support<br />

Municipal Land Use decisions and calling for similar action where possible. Support was also gleaned<br />

from Mps and Mpps in several cities and towns visited over the eight week journey to Ottawa.<br />

Worth mentioning is the fact that this journey was initially self-funded! Once supporters along the<br />

way discovered this fact, donations began to <strong>of</strong>fset the cost <strong>of</strong> fuel and motels when billets were<br />

unavailable. Sponsorship from the National Citizens for Safe Technology organization matched some<br />

<strong>of</strong> the larger donations.<br />

Throughout the entire journey, Wendy and Judy video documented the struggles <strong>of</strong> persons with<br />

electro-sensitivities and those against the construction <strong>of</strong> tele-communications towers within their own<br />

communities. Many <strong>of</strong> these were posted at https://www.facebook.com/WendyWalksforES . <strong>The</strong> local<br />

media coverage <strong>of</strong> her journey and activities along the way was phenomenal! It seems that large<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> every community embraced the concept <strong>of</strong> building awareness <strong>of</strong> the risks associated with<br />

over-exposure to electromagnetic radio frequencies and in particular, telecommunications towers. And<br />


it has all been documented by the press!<br />

Wendy Hoy, her dog Dasher and driver Judy Watt arrived in Ottawa on November 22nd, met by a host<br />

<strong>of</strong> media and supporters from across the province. MPs Bev Shipley and Terrence Young hosted a<br />

meeting with several other MPs and Wendy's supporters immediately following the photo op and press<br />

conference. <strong>The</strong> day culminated in her recognition from the floor <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong> Commons during<br />

the Parliamentary Question Period that afternoon.<br />

This essential educational campaign could not have been so successful without the ongoing support <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Municipal Council and new Coalition partners forged along Wendy's route. That<br />

being said, Wendy's Walk for ES would not have been made possible without the selfless<br />

determination <strong>of</strong> two individuals who gave up their own lives for their communities, Wendy Hoy and<br />

Judy Watt, <strong>of</strong> Port Franks and Grand Bend respectively.<br />

<strong>The</strong> members <strong>of</strong> the Lakeshore Coalition have resolved that Wendy Hoy and Judy Watt be<br />

nominated for the Good Neighbour Award. It would be wonderful if this award could be presented<br />

at a dinner being held in their honour mid January. We appreciate that this nomination be kept<br />

“confidential” until such time as news <strong>of</strong> the award is made public.<br />

Respectfully Submitted<br />

Laureen Maurizio<br />

for<br />

<strong>The</strong> Lakeshore Coalition<br />

See Attachments:<br />

1. Photo Documentation<br />

2. Media Links<br />

3. I’m Walking to Ottawa<br />

4. Wendy Walks for ES Petition<br />


Approximate Walking Route<br />

Mayor Fontana took a moment to greet Wendy and wish<br />

her luck on her journey to Ottawa. — at London City<br />

Hall.<br />

Anne and Wendy. Anne made Wendy's handstitched vest. Thank<br />

you Anne for doing something so special to make Wendy more<br />

safe on the road.<br />

And yes Bell, we do want fibre optics instead <strong>of</strong> wireless!!!!!!!!<br />

(Photo taken at UWO Student Union)<br />

Barrie Town Centre Flash-Mob Dance<br />

Wendy with Frank Clegg, former Micros<strong>of</strong>t CEO and spokesperson for C4ST<br />

Yes that's Dr. Magda Havas in the back left corner.<br />


Protest in Uxbridge against the Region's proposed tower there.<br />

Again, the meeting will be held at the Community Hall, Uxbridge<br />

Arena, 291 Brock St. West on Tuesday October 30th, at 7:00 p.m<br />

Wendy meeting Mayor Bennett <strong>of</strong> Peterborough.<br />

A large group <strong>of</strong> residents from the Community came out to protest the Water<br />

Monitoring tower that their own Region is proposing near their<br />

neighbourhood. An updated system <strong>of</strong> what they are already using <strong>of</strong> sending<br />

the information through a wire could be used that doesn't risk one person's<br />

health in the community.<br />


http://metronews.ca/news/london/385794/wo<br />

man-walking-cell-concerns-to-parliament-hil<br />

l-stops-in-london<br />

October 17:<br />

http://www.mississ<br />

auga.com/news/art<br />

icle/1519648--com<br />

munity-turns-out-f<br />

or-lorne-park-cell-t<br />

ower-meeting<br />

October 18:<br />

http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/1520807--wendy-w<br />

alks-through-oakville<br />

September 26, 2012<br />

Newspaper article<br />

October 19:<br />

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/19/victims-makewaves-in-wireless-world<br />


October 21:<br />

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2012/10/21/barrie-teens-hold-flash<br />

-mob-for-a-cause<br />

Barrie teens hold flash mob for a cause<br />

A group <strong>of</strong> concerned teens held a flash mob Saturday morning at<br />

Barrie City Hall to promote healthy living and an awareness <strong>of</strong><br />

electromagnetic sensitivity.<br />

<strong>The</strong> event was held to support Wendy Hoy, a grandmother who is<br />

walking from Port Franks, north <strong>of</strong> Windsor, to Parliament Hill in<br />

Ottawa in protest. For more information about the cause, visit<br />

www.barriecityhallflashmob.blogspot.ca<br />

Peterborough<br />


22Novemeber 2012:<br />

Sun News : Grandmother gets MPs' attention on wireless<br />

safety<br />


OTTAWA - An Ontario grandmother walked to Parliament Hill on Thursday to complete an 800-<br />

kilometre journey to raise awareness about the potential dangers <strong>of</strong> wireless devices.<br />

Wendy Hoy, 57, spent 62 days walking from London, Ont., to Ottawa to educate Ontarians about<br />

safety concerns linked to radiation emitted by wireless technologies including cell towers, Wi-Fi<br />

and cellphones.<br />

In 2011, the World Health Organization classified the radiation from all wireless devices as "possibly<br />

carcinogenic" but Hoy says many Canadians are still unaware <strong>of</strong> possible risks.<br />

Hoy's mission caught the attention <strong>of</strong> several elected <strong>of</strong>ficials including Conservative MP Terence<br />

Young, NDP MP Carole Hughes and independent MP Bruce Hyer.<br />

Her arrival in Ottawa was also timed to coincide with the national launch <strong>of</strong> Citizens for Safe<br />

Technology - a new organization led by former Micros<strong>of</strong>t Canada president Frank Clegg.<br />

Clegg, who is regarded as a pioneer in the emergence <strong>of</strong> Canada's technology sector, launched the<br />

organization to spread consumer tips and information.<br />

He said most people are unaware, for example, that BlackBerry and Apple device manuals feature fine<br />

print warnings advising users to keep all devices at least 15 mm away from the body during use.<br />

"It is no different than tobacco was 20 or 30 years ago," he said. "It is about education. It is about<br />

awareness."<br />

Clegg also wants the government to take a look at existing industry guidelines which haven't been<br />

updated despite emerging scientific information.<br />

A new Nanos Research poll, which surveyed 1,000 Canadians, found 70% <strong>of</strong> participants were aware<br />

<strong>of</strong> possible health effects linked to wireless technologies and 47% were most concerned about<br />

cellphones.<br />




involuntary everyday exposures to radiation<br />

that are endangering health, my grandchildren, and<br />

ecosystems. Three major sources <strong>of</strong> this exposure are<br />

telecommunication tower antennas, so-called ‘smart’<br />

meters, and WiFi in schools.<br />

I’m walking to advocate rights for children,<br />

individuals, and communities. Much tighter<br />

radiation emission controls and acts <strong>of</strong> social<br />

responsibility from corporations and authorities are<br />

needed — immediately.<br />

More and more Canadians suffer symptoms <strong>of</strong><br />

electro-sensitivity from everyday sources. With the<br />

increasing presence <strong>of</strong> technology, and therefore<br />

electromagnetic radiation in our communities,<br />

electrosensitive people find it difficult to visit the<br />

everyday places - workplaces, c<strong>of</strong>fee shops and even<br />

hospitals - which many <strong>of</strong> us take for granted.<br />



Visit<br />

‘Wendy Walks for ES’ and<br />

‘Lakeshore Coalition’ on Facebook<br />

<strong>The</strong> Lakeshore Coalition is a grass-roots organization building<br />

awareness <strong>of</strong> the potential risks <strong>of</strong> involuntary exposure to the kinds<br />

<strong>of</strong> EMR emissions coming from cell towers and lobbying for<br />

necessary change.<br />

Common Symptoms <strong>of</strong> Electro-sensitivity<br />

•Concentration problems<br />

•Memory lapses, anxiety,<br />

fatigue<br />

•Aches or pressure in head,<br />

throat and chest<br />

•Unsteady balance, dizziness<br />

•Altered heart rate, low or<br />

high blood pressure<br />

•Ringing in the ears<br />

•Excessive fatigue<br />

•Numbness or pain in affected<br />

areas (fibromyalgia)<br />

•Sleep disturbances<br />

•Eye irritation, deteriorating<br />

vision, floaters<br />

•Red skin blotches, eczema,<br />

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity<br />

•Nausea<br />

•Adrenal Fatigue, thyroid<br />

problems<br />

•Altered sugar metabolism<br />

•Immune abnormalities and<br />

asthma<br />

Long Term Symptoms can include:<br />

Cancer, tumours, childhood leukemia, breast cancer, DNA strand<br />

breakage, abnormal cell division, nerve damage, MS, ALS,<br />

Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, melatonin reduction, seizures<br />

PLEASE!!!<br />

1.Get informed about EMR and microwave radiation as it pertains to<br />

cell towers, ‘smart’ meters, Wi-fi and other wireless devices.<br />

2.Write letters, call or email your Municipal Council; MPP and MP<br />

to tell them your concerns about this topic.<br />

3.Join the Lakeshore Coalition and Wendy Walks for ES to help<br />

share the available information so we can all MAKE INFORMED<br />





In light <strong>of</strong> the proliferation <strong>of</strong> Electro-magnetic Radiation (EMR) in our environment (such as those emitted from cell towers, ‘smartmetres’ and wi-fi) which have<br />

not been proven safe, we, the undersigned, do hereby Petition Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister <strong>of</strong> Canada, the Members <strong>of</strong> Parliament; the Federal and<br />

Provincial Minister and Ministry <strong>of</strong> Health, the Minister and Ministry <strong>of</strong> Industry and the Minister and Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources to:<br />

1) Prevent Involuntary Exposure to electro-magnetic radio frequency. IE: smart meters on homes, wi-fi in schools and hospitals, etc<br />

2) Provide White Zones for Persons with ES and Those Not Wishing to be Exposed - Develop a template for the identification <strong>of</strong> White Zones (low RF areas) and<br />

implement the designation <strong>of</strong> such residential areas to the Canadian Land Use Code. IE: Port Franks Ontario and its adjoining lakeside communities’ natural shielding<br />

geography comprised <strong>of</strong> eco-sensitive Carolinian forests makes it a great location for a White Zone. A history making motion brought forward by Councilor John Russell<br />

was passed by the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> shores, requesting staff research and report in consideration <strong>of</strong> creating a 'white zone' in the hamlet <strong>of</strong> Port Franks.<br />

3) Reduce Emission Levels - Adopt, Establish and Enforce regulations limiting the amount <strong>of</strong> electromagnetic radiation emissions from electronic devices and<br />

infrastructure in developed and natural environments.<br />

4) Allow Municipalities to have the Final Say - Legislate Industry Canada to adhere to Municipal protocols and Provincial laws for land use regarding all antenna<br />

siting; no exclusion, no exceptions. Where there are no pre-existing Municipal protocols, the default process shall be based on the most stringent Municipal protocols<br />

registered at the time. Additional protections for natural areas, endangered species/ species at risk and children must be given.<br />

5) Require Transparency and Escape Clauses for Telecommunications Contracts - Contracts must be made open for public scrutiny and protection. Escape clauses<br />

must be built into Telecom/Land Owner Contracts which is concurrent with the same time period as the public consultation response process to protect land owners.<br />


C4ST to keep you<br />

updated<br />

<br />

<br />

Mail to: <strong>The</strong> Lakeshore Coalition, c/o 7613 Chester Trail, Port Franks ON N0M 2L0 OR EMAIL: pftower@yahoo.ca<br />

Citizens for Safe Technology www.C4ST.org<br />

C4ST is a not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it, volunteer-based coalition <strong>of</strong> parents, citizens and experts whose mission is to educate and inform Canadians and their policy makers about the dangers <strong>of</strong> exposure to unsafe<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> radiation from technology, and to work with all levels <strong>of</strong> government to create healthier communities for children and families from coast to coast.<br />



CL Report No. 03-2013 Wednesday, January 9, 2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

RE:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Carol McKenzie, Clerk<br />

Short Term Rental Issue – Grand Bend<br />


For information only.<br />

REPORT<br />

Representatives from the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community Association have requested a<br />

delegation to discuss issues that arose in Grand Bend in 2012 related to Short Term<br />

Rental accommodations. Information received from the Association is included in the<br />

agenda, and also included is the information provided to the Associate that pertains to<br />

this issue.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />


January 3, 2013<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Community Association<br />

c/o Sharon Weitzel<br />

2950 Line 29, R. R. # 2<br />

Tavistock, Ontario N0B 2R0<br />

Dear Mrs. Weitzel:<br />

I am in receipt <strong>of</strong> the delegation request to attend the Council meeting to discuss by-law<br />

issues in Grand Bend, more particularly, the fences at the corner <strong>of</strong> Woodward and<br />

Centre Streets in Grand Bend.<br />

As you are aware, these fences were the subject <strong>of</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment<br />

deliberation last year, and a decision was rendered that the fences were to conform to<br />

the requirement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fence By-Law 80 <strong>of</strong> 2008.<br />

During the course <strong>of</strong> the enforcement <strong>of</strong> the ruling by the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment, the<br />

matter was forwarded to and reviewed by the Municipal solicitor, and it was determined<br />

that there had been a misunderstanding in the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the “yard definitions” in<br />

the Fence By-law 80 <strong>of</strong> 2008 (copy attached)<br />

<strong>The</strong> Definitions in the by-law state:<br />

“Yard” means that part <strong>of</strong> a lot not covered or occupied by any building;<br />

“Yard, exterior side” means a side yard immediately adjoining a street, extending from a<br />

front yard to the rear lot line;<br />

“Yard, front” means a yard that extends across the full width <strong>of</strong> the lot from the front lot<br />

line to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot;<br />

“Yard, rear” means a yard that extends across the full width <strong>of</strong> the lot from the rear lot<br />

line to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot;<br />

“Yard, side” means a yard that extends from the front yard to the rear yard and from the<br />

side line <strong>of</strong> a lot to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot.<br />

<strong>The</strong> drawing on the last page <strong>of</strong> the by-law provides a visual representation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

definitions.<br />


A “yard” is only the area from the structure to the property line. <strong>The</strong> fences at the<br />

properties at the corner <strong>of</strong> Centre and Woodward Street are parallel to and in line with<br />

the buildings and do not extend beyond the structure into the front or exterior side<br />

yards, and therefore are not subject to the additional requirements <strong>of</strong> section 2 (c) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

by-law.<br />

While this may not be visibly pleasing, it is in compliance with the Fence By-Law<br />

regulations. Situations such as this were not likely envisioned when the Fence By-law<br />

was drafted, and even if the by-law was to be modified to address this issue, these<br />

fences would be deemed to be “legal non conforming” as they were in existence prior to<br />

the passing <strong>of</strong> the by-law. ( Section 2 (b) explains this further. )<br />

<strong>The</strong> Building Inspector did review the fences and required several modifications to the<br />

gates to ensure proper and safe egress from the property. <strong>The</strong>se modifications were<br />

completed, and the lattice panels were removed from the interior side fence. At the<br />

conclusion <strong>of</strong> the inspection, the fence was deemed to be in compliance with the Fence<br />

By-law requirements.<br />

I apologize that, while this information was shared with several residents, it was not<br />

conveyed to the Association.<br />

With respect to the other By-law enforcement issues noted in the delegation request,<br />

would it be possible to outline the specific concerns, as based on the feedback we<br />

received during 2012, the enhanced patrols in the problem areas resulted in fewer<br />

infractions, and the residents were pleased with the results.<br />

A brief report on By-law Enforcement Issues was considered by Council earlier (copy<br />

attached) and it does note that there will be a more detailed report on the 2012 season<br />

in the near future. Our goal is to stay focused on the issues that impact our residents<br />

and continue with a program <strong>of</strong> additional patrols. In order to ensure all the issues are<br />

covered in the report, and any additional needs considered, would it be possible to meet<br />

with the Association and discuss any outstanding issues?<br />

If the Association still wishes to be a delegation at Council at the January 14 meeting,<br />

please let me know.<br />

Thank you<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />



BY-LAW 80-2008<br />

A By-law to Prescribe the Height and Type <strong>of</strong> Fences<br />

WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.O., 2001, C. 25, S. 11 a Council may pass a<br />

by-law respecting matters within the spheres <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction regulating structures, including<br />

fences and signs;<br />

AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient and desirable to pass a by-law to regulated the<br />

erection and maintenance <strong>of</strong> fences:<br />

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> enacts as follows:<br />


For the purposes <strong>of</strong> this by-law, the following definitions shall apply:<br />

“Building Inspector” means a Building Inspector <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>;<br />

“By-law Enforcement Officer” shall mean a By-law Enforcement Officer appointed by the<br />

Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>;<br />

“Council” means the Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>;<br />

“Corner Visibility Triangle” means the portion <strong>of</strong> a corner lot within the triangular area<br />

formed by measuring 7.5 metres (25 feet) in each direction from the point where two<br />

property lines intersect at the street lot line corner; (See “ Diagram 1”)<br />

“Driveway” means a vehicle access provided between a street and a parking area/space<br />

or a loading space;<br />

“Driveway Visibility Triangle” means the triangular area formed by measuring 4.5 metres<br />

(15 feet) down the driveway and 4.5 metres (15 feet) down the side lot line abutting a<br />

street, regardless <strong>of</strong> whether or not the DVT is on the subject lot or the adjacent<br />

neighbour’s property. (See “Diagram 1”)<br />

“Electrical Fence” means a fence through which electricity passes;<br />

“Erect” includes alter, construct, plant, grow, place and relocate;<br />

“Fence” includes a railing, wall, line <strong>of</strong> posts, wire, masonry, gate, boards or pickets or<br />

other similar substances, used to enclose or divide in whole or in part a yard or other land,<br />

or to establish a property boundary, and includes a continual hedge, but does not include<br />

a retaining wall;<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 2<br />

“Fence – open type construction” means a fence constructed so that its vertical surface<br />

area is unobstructed, enabling motorists and pedestrians to have a clear view through<br />

such fence (e.g. a fence <strong>of</strong> chain link construction, wrought iron, etc);<br />

“Fence – solid type construction” means a fence constructed so that its vertical surface is<br />

obstructed, preventing motorists and pedestrians from having a clear view through such<br />

fence;<br />

“Height” is measured from the ground where the fence posts are embedded to the top <strong>of</strong><br />

the fence.<br />

“Hydro Massage Pool” includes pools commonly referred to as hot tubs, whirlpools, a<br />

Jacuzzi or a spa;<br />

“Lot” means any parcel <strong>of</strong> land which can be occupied or used or otherwise disposed <strong>of</strong><br />

separately and apart from any abutting lands, whether or not such parcel is described in a<br />

registered deed or shown on a registered plan <strong>of</strong> subdivision;<br />

“Owner” means the person who holds legal title to a piece <strong>of</strong> property or has an equitable<br />

interest in the same;<br />

“Pond” means a confined body <strong>of</strong> water (which may contain fish and/or plants) which is<br />

located in an area zoned to permit residential development but does not include farming<br />

areas or ponds located more than 150 metres (500 feet) from an area zoned to permit<br />

residential development.<br />

“Street” shall mean a public highway which provides the principal means <strong>of</strong> vehicular<br />

access to abutting lots and includes its sidewalks and boulevards;<br />

“Street Line” means the boundary between a street and a lot separating the lot from the<br />

abutting street;<br />

“Swimming Pool” means a privately-owned outdoor swimming pool, constructed or<br />

fabricated and located for swimming, wading, diving, and bathing and which when filled is<br />

capable <strong>of</strong> containing a depth <strong>of</strong> 75 cm (29.5”) or more <strong>of</strong> water, has a surface area <strong>of</strong><br />

more than 1 square metre ( 10.8 sq. feet), but does not include a wading pool which is not<br />

capable <strong>of</strong> containing a depth <strong>of</strong> more than 75 cm (29.5”) <strong>of</strong> water and which may be<br />

emptied on a daily or frequent basis, not does it include a pond or reservoir utilized solely<br />

for farming purposes;<br />

“Swimming Pool Area” means the swimming pool plus any area which lie within the<br />

swimming pool enclosure;<br />

“Swimming pool enclosure” means the fence and gate or gates around a privately-owned<br />

outdoor swimming pool/pond restricting access, and includes the wall <strong>of</strong> a building or<br />

structure;<br />

“Yard” means that part <strong>of</strong> a lot not covered or occupied by any building;<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 3<br />

“Yard, exterior side” means a side yard immediately adjoining a street, extending from a<br />

front yard to the rear lot line;<br />

“Yard, front” means a yard that extends across the full width <strong>of</strong> the lot from the front lot<br />

line to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot;<br />

“Yard, rear” means a yard that extends across the full width <strong>of</strong> the lot from the rear lot line<br />

to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot;<br />

“Yard, side” means a yard that extends from the front yard to the rear yard and from the<br />

side line <strong>of</strong> a lot to the nearest wall <strong>of</strong> the main building on the lot.<br />


<strong>The</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> this by-law apply to all properties within the geographic limits <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, except where specified otherwise. No permit is required<br />

for a fence that complies with the requirements <strong>of</strong> this by-law.<br />

a) Visibility - Obstruction – prohibited<br />

Notwithstanding any <strong>of</strong> the regulations set out in this by-law, no person shall erect,<br />

construct or permit to be erected or constructed a fence that, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

By-Law Enforcement Officer:<br />

(i) obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or<br />

(ii) obscures clear visibility <strong>of</strong> normal approaching pedestrian or<br />

vehicular traffic<br />

b) Erection – Fence- Non-compliance – Prohibited<br />

No person shall construct, erect, or permit to be erected or constructed any fence<br />

within the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> that does not comply with the provisions<br />

<strong>of</strong> this by-law. A fence that was erected prior to the passing <strong>of</strong> this by-law and was<br />

erected in compliance with the predecessor <strong>of</strong> this by-law and is not moved,<br />

replaced, altered or enlarged in any way shall be considered a “legal fence”.<br />

c) Maximum Height – Front Yards and Exterior Yards (See Diagram 1)<br />

No person shall erect, construct or permit to be erected or constructed, a fence in a<br />

front yard or an exterior side yard unless such fence:<br />

(ii) does not exceed a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 0.91metres (3 feet) measured from the<br />

ground level if a solid type construction or a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 2 metres (6.5 feet)<br />

measured from the ground level if <strong>of</strong> open type construction<br />

d) Maximum Height – All Other Yards (See Diagram 1)<br />

No person shall erect, construct, or permit to be erected or constructed a fence in<br />

an interior side yard or rear yard unless such fence:<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 4<br />

(i) does not exceed a height <strong>of</strong> 2 metres (6.5 feet) measured from the ground level;<br />

e) Fence – Condition <strong>of</strong> Development or Redevelopment<br />

Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, a fence, which is required and<br />

approved as a condition <strong>of</strong> a site plan agreement for the development or<br />

redevelopment <strong>of</strong> land, shall be deemed to be in conformity with the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />

this by-law<br />

f) Variances<br />

Any person may apply to the Committee <strong>of</strong> Adjustment for a minor variance from<br />

the requirements <strong>of</strong> this by-law.<br />

i) <strong>The</strong> Committee may grant a minor variance if, in its opinion, the general intent<br />

and purpose <strong>of</strong> the Fence By-law are maintained or if the Committee is satisfied,<br />

after allowing input from the applicant and property owners within 60 metres (200<br />

feet), that the variance is appropriate.<br />

ii) <strong>The</strong> Committee may attach terms and conditions to the minor variance.<br />

iii) A minor variance shall be invalid if the terms and conditions are contravened.<br />



a) No person shall erect or cause to be erected a fence, hedge or shrubs within<br />

a Corner Visibility Triangle or a Driveway Visibility Triangle as shown on<br />

Diagram 1, unless:<br />

i) it is <strong>of</strong> open-type construction and does not obstruct the visibility <strong>of</strong><br />

motorists and pedestrians; or<br />

ii)<br />

it is <strong>of</strong> solid-type construction and does not exceed 0.9 m (30 inches)<br />

in height above effective ground level.<br />


a) No person shall erect or cause to be erected on any land used for residential<br />

or commercial purposes, a fence which either contains, or is constructed <strong>of</strong>,<br />

barbed wire or other barbed or sharp material.<br />

b) Barbed wire or other barbed or sharp material may be used on the top and<br />

to the outside <strong>of</strong> fences that are erected on a lot, which meet all the<br />

following criteria:<br />

i) the lot is zoned Industrial in the Zoning By-law;<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 5<br />

ii) the barbed wire is located not less than 1.52 metres (5 feet) above<br />

ground level;<br />

iii) the outward projection <strong>of</strong> the barbed wire does not project onto a<br />

neighboring property;<br />

c) Barbed wire may be used on fences lawfully used for agricultural purposes<br />

on land zoned Agricultural, as long as such fence does not abut a residential<br />

zone.<br />


a) Except as provided in section (b), no person shall erect or cause to be<br />

erected an electrical fence on any land;<br />

b) An electrical fence using direct current only may be erected on land while it<br />

is being lawfully used for agricultural purposes, provided such fence:<br />

i) is designed and erected solely to contain animals;<br />

ii) does not abut a residential zone.<br />


a) A “Hydro Massage Pools” must be adequately secured by a cover with a<br />

locking device and locked when not in use.<br />

b) <strong>The</strong> owner and/or occupant <strong>of</strong> any lands on which a pool is located shall<br />

erect and maintain a “swimming pool enclosure” that complies with the<br />

provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law, either around the entire yard containing the<br />

pool or the “swimming pool area”.<br />

c) A swimming pool enclosure shall extend from a maximum <strong>of</strong> no more than 5<br />

cm (2 inches) vertically above ground level to a height that is at least 150 cm<br />

(5 feet), above ground level;<br />

d) Fences forming part <strong>of</strong> the prescribed swimming pool enclosure shall not<br />

contain barbed wire, electrical wiring, sharp projections or any other<br />

dangerous characteristics either on the outside or the inside;<br />

e) If an above-ground swimming pool has as an integral part <strong>of</strong> its<br />

construction, a deck that is level with the top <strong>of</strong> the pool and a Fence around<br />

the deck which has an effective combined height <strong>of</strong> 150 cm (5 feet) above<br />

grade, the fence may be considered as being part <strong>of</strong> the required swimming<br />

pool enclosure;<br />

f) <strong>The</strong> walls <strong>of</strong> an above-ground swimming pool may be used as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

fence.<br />


g) Gates which form part <strong>of</strong> the swimming pool enclosure shall be:<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 6<br />

i) <strong>of</strong> such construction as will provide a degree <strong>of</strong> safety and<br />

rigidity equivalent to or greater than that <strong>of</strong> a required fence;<br />

ii)<br />

iii)<br />

supported on substantial hinges; and<br />

self-closing and self-latching with the latching device a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />

1.2 metres (4 feet) from grade and on the inside <strong>of</strong> the Gate;<br />

h) Any gate which forms part <strong>of</strong> the swimming pool enclosure shall be kept<br />

closed and locked at all times when not attended by a responsible, adult<br />

person.<br />


<strong>The</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> the Line Fences Act are to be used for fences on lands<br />

designated “Agricultural” in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.<br />

8. GENERAL<br />

a) In this by-law, unless the context otherwise requires, words imparting the<br />

singular number shall include the plural, and words imparting the feminine<br />

gender shall include the masculine and, further, the converse <strong>of</strong> the<br />

foregoing also applies where the context so requires.<br />

b<br />

Conflicts – other by-laws<br />

In the event <strong>of</strong> any conflict between provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law and any<br />

provisions <strong>of</strong> any other <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> By-laws, relating to<br />

fencing, the provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law shall prevail.<br />


a) In the event that the <strong>Municipality</strong> receives complaints regarding a fence, the Bylaw<br />

Enforcement Officer shall inspect such fence. If, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the Bylaw<br />

Enforcement Officer, the fence does not meet provisions <strong>of</strong> the by-law, the<br />

By-law Enforcement Officer shall require, in writing, the owner, agent or person<br />

responsible for the fence to comply with the provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law. Failure to<br />

comply shall be considered a contravention <strong>of</strong> the by-law which is subject to the<br />

penalty set out in Section 10 <strong>of</strong> this by-law.<br />

Notice in writing is deemed delivered when it has been:<br />

i) personally served;<br />

ii) sent by regular mail to the address <strong>of</strong> the owner, as shown on the last<br />

revised assessment roll, on the seventh day after mailing; and/or<br />

iii) when posted on the <strong>of</strong>fending fence.<br />


By-Law 80-2008 – Fence By-law Page 7<br />

10. PENALTY<br />

Every person who contravenes any provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law is guilty <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence<br />

and subject to the provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong> Provincial Offences Act.<br />


If a court <strong>of</strong> competent jurisdiction declares any Section or Subsection <strong>of</strong> this bylaw<br />

invalid, the remainder <strong>of</strong> this by-law shall continue in force unless the court<br />

makes an order to the contrary.<br />

12. TITLE<br />

<strong>The</strong> short title <strong>of</strong> this by-law is the “<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> Fence By-law”.<br />


By-laws passed by the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> and the former<br />

municipalities including the Village <strong>of</strong> Arkona, the Town <strong>of</strong> Bosanquet, the Village<br />

<strong>of</strong> Grand Bend, the Town <strong>of</strong> Forest and the Village <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong>dford that are<br />

inconsistent with the provisions <strong>of</strong> this by-law are hereby repealed.<br />


This by-law comes into force and effect when finally passed.<br />

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 17 th day <strong>of</strong> November, 2008.<br />


“Gord Minielly”<br />

MAYOR<br />

“Carol McKenzie”<br />

CLERK<br />


By-Law 80-2008<br />

Diagram 1.<br />



CL Report No. 134-2012 Wednesday, November 7,2012<br />

TO:<br />

FROM:<br />

Mayor Weber and Members <strong>of</strong> Council<br />

Carol McKenzie, Clerk<br />

RE: By-law Enforcement Update - 2012<br />


For information only.<br />

REPORT<br />

<strong>The</strong> Municipal by-law <strong>of</strong>ficers enforce a variety <strong>of</strong> by-laws that deal with property<br />

matters – standards <strong>of</strong> maintenance, parking restrictions, fencing, animal control, site<br />

alteration, zoning etc, or the health and safety <strong>of</strong> residents, such as open air burning,<br />

streets by-laws and sewage discharge by-laws.<br />

For By-law Enforcement purposes, <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is divided into two service areas:<br />

<strong>The</strong> North Area includes Grand Bend, and all the subdivisions north <strong>of</strong> Klondyke Road.<br />

Keith Crawford, along with several part time staff, has been looking after Grand Bend<br />

and area for the past 35 years.<br />

<strong>The</strong> South area consists <strong>of</strong> the area south <strong>of</strong> Klondyke Road, including Port Franks,<br />

Ipperwash, Arkona, Forest, <strong>The</strong>dford and all the areas in between. Glenn Bell has been<br />

with <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> since 2001, and prior to that, served the community with the<br />

O.P.P. for 30 years. Glen’s duties are the south area <strong>of</strong> the municipality, and he is also<br />

responsible for the canine control, grease trap inspections, weed inspection and<br />

livestock evaluation for the entire municipality.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following is a brief summary <strong>of</strong> the most common by-laws/issues enforced:<br />

Parking Enforcement<br />

Parking regulations are enforced to ensure that area streets remain clear and<br />

unobstructed for safety reasons and to facilitate winter snow clearing. While the By-law<br />

Enforcement staff patrol the municipal roads and the parking lots (in the summer<br />

months) to ensure compliance with municipal by-laws and regulations.<br />

Property Standards and Tidy Yard By-Laws<br />


<strong>The</strong> Property Standards and Tidy Yard by-laws prescribe the minimum standards for<br />

maintenance and physical condition <strong>of</strong> properties to ensure properties are kept in good<br />

repair, and are safe for inhabitants.<br />

It is important to note that at all stages <strong>of</strong> the enforcement process, the By-Law Officers<br />

works with the property owner to try to resolve the issues, which results in the majority<br />

<strong>of</strong> the properties being brought into compliance without legal action. When dealing with<br />

a person’s home or property, it is important to exhaust all opportunities for compliance<br />

prior to initiating legal action to ensure the person’s rights are protected. This process<br />

tends to take a significant amount <strong>of</strong> time before results are achieved, which can be<br />

frustrating for whoever lodged the complaint.<br />

On occasion, there are owners that refuse to comply with the by-law and legal action is<br />

required.<br />

Animal Control<br />

<strong>The</strong> most common complaints received pertain to animal control – either barking dogs,<br />

or dogs running at large. <strong>The</strong> South Area By-Law Enforcement Officer, Glenn Bell,<br />

undertakes animal control for the entire municipality, and to date, has responded to 42<br />

animal complaints, ranging from barking dogs to animals running at large. 9 dogs found<br />

running at large have been collected and taken to the Sarnia Humane Society, which is<br />

the organization that serves as the municipal “pound”.<br />

<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> animal control issues has been reducing each year, and may be<br />

attributed to the increase in fine amounts for repeat <strong>of</strong>fences.<br />


In 2011, the issues and problems resulting from some properties <strong>of</strong>fering “Short Term<br />

Rental Accommodation” in Plan 24 Grand Bend were studied in depth, with discussions<br />

on the appropriateness <strong>of</strong> municipal by-laws that have been enacted to regulate<br />

community issues such as the Parking, Noise, Streets and Beach usage. <strong>The</strong><br />

enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficers provided information on the situations they are encountering, the<br />

current enforcement practices, and any impediments they have experienced when<br />

enforcing the regulations.<br />

Ways <strong>of</strong> protecting the rights <strong>of</strong> the residents, and ensuring a reasonable measured<br />

response to issues were debated, as well as some <strong>of</strong> the limitations that the By-law<br />

Officers face, such as the fact they cannot compel a person to provide the identification<br />

necessary to issue a ticket, or that peace <strong>of</strong>ficers (including Police Officers) do not have<br />

the right to enter a “Residence” without a warrant, unless there is a criminal activity in<br />

the works or a criminal activity in plain view. Additional funds were allocated in the 2012<br />

budget for enhanced patrols in the problem area, and the result was fewer infractions,<br />

and happier residents. A brief overview is included in the report from the North Area Bylaw<br />

Officer, and a full report on “Short Term Rental 2012” is pending.<br />

Report from the By-law Officers:<br />


<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> North- 2012 Bylaw Enforcement Report:<br />

Bylaw enforcement for <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ North during the summer <strong>of</strong> 2012 consisted <strong>of</strong><br />

4 full time <strong>of</strong>ficers and 4 part time <strong>of</strong>ficers. As in the past, <strong>of</strong>ficers handled the needs <strong>of</strong><br />

a tourist area with flexible judgment and common sense. <strong>The</strong> co-operation <strong>of</strong> the OPP<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficers, <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>’ staff and Council allowed <strong>of</strong>ficers to apply municipal bylaws in<br />

a fair but firm manner. Heightened enforcement in Plan 24 during peak periods<br />

achieved the desired result <strong>of</strong> fewer complaints and better behavior by tenants.<br />

Bylaw <strong>of</strong>ficers issued 2032 parking infractions, 447 <strong>of</strong> which were issued on Main Street<br />

Grand Bend.<br />

Bylaw <strong>of</strong>ficers issued 39 charges under the Provincial Offenses Act:<br />

Breakdown <strong>of</strong> P.O.A. charges:<br />

Public Nuisance 10<br />

Glass on Beach 10<br />

Safety on Beach 03<br />

Nuisance on Beach 02<br />

Noise 14<br />

Total 39<br />

This compares with 40 P.O.A. charges laid in 2011. Noise charges were down from 17<br />

last year with the biggest change occurring at the corner <strong>of</strong> Woodward and Centre<br />

Streets, which dropped from 09 charges in 2011 to only 02 charges in 2012. 5 charges<br />

were laid in the “Shady Lane” area, and the other 8 were spread throughout the<br />

community.<br />

P.O.A. charges on the beach were up from 09 in 2011 to 15 in 2012. Extra hours used<br />

for Plan 24 in 2012 totaled 146 at a cost <strong>of</strong> $3,212.00 out <strong>of</strong> the $5,000.00 budgeted.<br />

Breakdown <strong>of</strong> extra hours by month were:<br />

May 30<br />

June 49<br />

July 42<br />

August 15<br />

September 10<br />

May and June are Prom months and July is the busiest tourist/rental month. Extra staff<br />

was utilized on a perceived need basis with more frequently weekend day patrols, extra<br />

bodies at night and earlier start times. This created more enforcement visibility and in<br />

most cases nipped potential problems in the bud. <strong>The</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> the property lines<br />

and the controlled parking at Centre and Woodward were also factors in reducing<br />

problems at that location. Co-operation from the landlords at 11 and 13 Woodward was<br />

appreciated.<br />


<strong>The</strong>re continues to be a need for more visible signage on Main Street, and a list <strong>of</strong> sign<br />

replacements and additions/alteration will be provided to the Community Services<br />

Department. This list will encompass parking lots, back and side streets in Plan 24 and<br />

entrance points to Grand Bend from all major links.<br />

We have 3 trials scheduled for November 2012, all related to noise charges. (Note: all<br />

charges were upheld)<br />

People sleeping in their vehicles especially during the long weekend in May increased<br />

this year. It is suggested that the fine for 2am – 6am overnight parking be increased<br />

from the current $40 or a separate category created on the ticket which levies a stiff fine<br />

for occupying a parked vehicle during restricted hours. Minor revisions are also needed<br />

to the “Streets Bylaw” to allow tickets to be issued anyone relieving themselves in our<br />

parking lots or on municipal property.<br />

Overall, I consider bylaw enforcement during the summer <strong>of</strong> 2012 successful. We were<br />

frequently at saturation with the excellent weather. In spite <strong>of</strong> the “over enforcement”<br />

comments received, crowds and full parking lots indicate that our community <strong>of</strong>fers<br />

more than enough to compensate people for 1-3 hour drives and $20 parking fees.<br />

Most people love our safe, clean beach and beautiful Main Street and even comment<br />

positively on the helpfulness and visibility <strong>of</strong> OPP and bylaw patrols as well as the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> lifeguards. We do our best, and to most visitors and residents that is good<br />

enough.<br />

(Report prepared by Keith Crawford, North Area By-Law Enforcement Officer)<br />

<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> South- 2012 Bylaw Enforcement Report:<br />

<strong>The</strong> summer <strong>of</strong> 2012 started in early April due to the warm weather and was busy until<br />

the Labour Day weekend. Most weekends had good weather resulting in numerous<br />

visitors to the beach especially on Holiday weekends.<br />

<strong>The</strong> revised boat launch area at Ipperwash worked very well with only two incidents <strong>of</strong><br />

boaters parking and leaving their vehicles in the prohibited area. <strong>The</strong> usual parking<br />

problems in Windsor Park subdivision continue and meetings are being planned for<br />

early in the new year with the Windsor Park residents.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following complaints were investigated or infractions issued:<br />

Property Standards Investigations (major) 9<br />

Property Standards Investigations (minor) 13<br />

Property Standards Investigation follow-up 27<br />

Grass and Weed complaints (Tidy Yard) 10<br />

Fence By-law investigations 4<br />

Sign By-law investigations 7<br />

Giant Hog Weed investigations 4<br />


Parking exemption request re Council meetings 8<br />

Parking complaints 8<br />

Dog complaints (barking, strays etc.) 42<br />

Dogs taken to Sarnia Humane Society 9<br />

Zoning By-law investigations 7<br />

Zoning By-law investigations follow-up 3<br />

Burning Complaints 16<br />

Garbage dumping complaints 1<br />

Street Alteration investigations 2<br />

Noise By-law complaint investigations 3<br />

Chip wagon inspections 2<br />

Livestock Evaluations 1<br />

Weed Control Act investigations 1<br />

Training seminars 2<br />

Seminars attended 3<br />

Meetings attended 5<br />

General Occurrences 21<br />

Grease Trap inspections 5<br />

Dumpster By-law investigation 1<br />

(Report prepared by G.C. Bell, South Area By-Law Enforcement Officer)<br />


<strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> is extremely fortunate to employ By-Law Enforcement Officers who<br />

understand the issues, and the need to resolve situations to the benefit <strong>of</strong> all parties<br />

involved. This is especially challenging in <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong>, as it is an area that serves<br />

both permanent residents and visitors to our area, groups that <strong>of</strong>ten have different goals<br />

and desires.<br />

Respectfully submitted,<br />

Carol McKenzie<br />

Clerk<br />



BY-LAW NUMBER 09 <strong>of</strong> 2013<br />

A By-law <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

to confirm the proceedings <strong>of</strong> Council which were adopted<br />

up to and including January 14, 2013<br />

WHEREAS:<br />

It has been expedient that from time to time, the Council <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> should act by<br />

resolution <strong>of</strong> Council;<br />


It is deemed advisable that all such actions that have been adopted<br />

by a resolution <strong>of</strong> the Council be authorized by By-law;<br />


<strong>The</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the Corporation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong><br />

enacts as follows;<br />

THAT all actions <strong>of</strong> Council which have been authorized by a resolution <strong>of</strong> the Council and<br />

adopted in open Council and accepted by Council up to and including January 14, 2013<br />

be hereby confirmed; and<br />

THAT the Mayor and the proper <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Municipality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lambton</strong> <strong>Shores</strong> are hereby<br />

authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the approved actions or<br />

to obtain approvals where required, and to execute all documents as may be necessary in<br />

that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the Corporate Seal to all<br />

such documents.<br />

THAT any pecuniary interest declared during any Council meeting or Committee meeting is<br />

deemed to be in force and the same as though repeated in this by-law;<br />

THAT THIS BY-LAW is read a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and finally passed<br />

January 14, 2013<br />

_________________________<br />

MAYOR – Bill Weber<br />

_________________________<br />

CLERK – Carol McKenzie<br />


Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion: January 4, 2013<br />

Moved by:<br />

Councillor Bonesteel<br />

Seconded by:<br />

That staff be directed to prepare a strategy/protocol to regulate/manage the location <strong>of</strong><br />

charitable donation boxes throughout the municipality.<br />


Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!