13 - July 14, 2026 Committee of the Whole Agenda Package110c,
ElginCounty
Elgin County Council
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Orders of the Day
Tuesday, July 14, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON
Note for Members of the Public:
Please click the link below to watch the meeting livestream:
https://video.isilive.ca/elgincounty/live.html
Accessible formats available upon request.
Pages
1.
Meeting Call to Order
2.
Approval of Agenda
3.
Adoption of Minutes
2
4.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
5.
Members' Motions
6.
Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards
6.1 Policy Planner - PLN-26-09 — Clovermead Official Plan Amendment
5
6.2 Senior Planner- PLN-26-12 Official Plan Amendment No. 02/26 and
24
Draft Plan of Subdivision
6.3 Director of Engineering Services - ENG 26-18 Engineering Services for 58
Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation — Contract Award
6.4 Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic Initiatives - 101
EDT 26-03 Sponsorship and Grant Policy Review: Supporting Strategic
Priorities
6.5 Director of Planning and Development - PLN 26-13 2026 Land Division 108
Committee Update
7. Adjournment
0!M
11000
Eig M i('.. m,i ii'i ty.
Elgin County Council
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Minutes
June 23, 2026, 10:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON
Members Present: Warden Dominique Giguere
Deputy Warden Grant Jones
Councillor Ed Ketchabaw
Councillor Mark Widner
Councillor Jack Couckuyt
Councillor Todd Noble
Councillor Mike Hentz
Councillor Richard Leatham
Members Absent: Councillor Andrew Sloan (with notice)
Staff Present: Blaine Parkin, Chief Administrative Officer
Nicholas Loeb, Director of Legal Services
Brian Masschaele, Director of Community & Cultural Services
Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services
Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning and Development
Holly Hurley, Director of People & Culture
Joe Anne Holloway, Director of Homes and Seniors Services
Katherine Thompson, County Clerk/Manager of Administrative
Services
Diana Morris, Senior Planner
Stefanie Heide, Executive Performance Coordinator
Lindsay King, Policy Planner
Meeting Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 11:09 a.m. with Warden Giguere in the chair.
2. Approval of Agenda
Resolution Number: CW26-65
Moved by: Councillor Couckuyt
Seconded by: Councillor Leatham
RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the June 23, 2026 Committee of the Whole
Meeting be approved as presented.
Motion Carried.
3. Adoption of Minutes
Resolution Number: CW26-66
Moved by: Councillor Hentz
Seconded by: Deputy Warden Jones
RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting held on June 9, 2026 be adopted.
Page 2 of 117
Motion Carried.
4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
None.
5. Members' Motions
None.
6. Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards
6.1 Policy Planner - PLN 26-10 Hospital Expansion Lands Official Plan
Amendment No. CE OPA-01-26
The Policy Planner presented the report recommending approval of
Official Plan Amendment No. CE OPA-01-26, adopted by the Municipality
of Central Elgin with respect to the former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital
lands. The proposed Official Plan Amendment establishes a
comprehensive planning policy framework to guide the long-term
redevelopment of the subject lands as a mixed -use community containing
residential, commercial institutional, open space, and supporting land use
designations.
Resolution Number: CW26-67
Moved by: Councillor Couckuyt
Seconded by: Councillor Noble
RESOLVED THAT Elgin County approve Official Plan Amendment No. CE
OPA-01-26, adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin on
April 13, 2026; and
THAT staff be directed to provide Notice of this Decision in accordance
with the requirements of the Planning Act.
Motion Carried.
6.2 Director of People and Culture - PAC 26-04 Non -Union Job
Evaluation and Market Comparators
Councillor Hentz left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
The Director of People and Culture presented the report recommending
approval for a list of comparators that will be used during the market
review of wages.
Resolution Number: CW26-68
Moved by: Deputy Warden Jones
Seconded by: Councillor Widner
RESOLVED THAT the following list of comparators for the job evaluation
and market comparison review, as contained in the June 23, 2026, report
titled "Non -Union Job Evaluation and Market Comparators" be approved.
• Oxford County
• Middlesex County
• City of St. Thomas
• Municipality of Chatham -Kent
• County of Lambton
• County of Essex
• County of Wellington
2
Page 3 of 117
• City of London
• Perth County
• Norfolk County
Motion Carried.
6.3 Director of Engineering Services - ENG 26-16 County Asset Transfers
The Director of Engineering Services presented the report that provides
details regarding the discussions with Elgin County's local municipal
partners regarding the assets proposed to be transferred from the County
of Elgin and recommended that the asset transfer process begin with
completion expected in early 2027.
Resolution Number: CW26-69
Moved by: Deputy Warden Jones
Seconded by: Councillor Leatham
RESOLVED THAT staff proceed with the road and bridge asset transfers
as identified in the adopted Transportation Master Plan with a goal to
finalize the transfers by January 31, 2027; and
THAT funding be provided to receiving municipalities between 2027 to
2030 and as identified in the Asset Transfer Funding Schedule Table
contained within this report; and
THAT current Road Maintenance Agreement allocations continue until
December 31, 2027 when the agreement expires.
Motion Carried.
7. Adjournment
Resolution Number: CW26-70
Moved by: Councillor Widner
Seconded by: Councillor Couckuyt
RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn at 11:53 a.m. to meet again on July 14,
2026 at 9:30 a.m.
Motion Carried.
Katherine Thompson, Dominique Giguere,
County Clerk/Manager of Warden.
Administrative Services.
3
Page 4 of 117
ElginCOUr'ity'
Report to Committee of the Whole
From: Lindsay King, Policy Planner
Date: June 23, 2026
Subject: PLN-26-09 — Clovermead Official Plan Amendment
Recommendation(s):
THAT Elgin County Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-01-26,
being an amendment to the Elgin County Official Plan to permit a site -specific large-
scale agri-tourism use deemed to constitute a non-agricultural use within the
Agricultural designation, in accordance with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;
and
THAT the site -specific permission apply only to the approximately 11-hectare portion of
the subject lands identified through the implementing Official Plan Amendment schedule
in order to establish clear limits on the extent of the non-agricultural use, maintain the
long-term agricultural function of the balance of the lands, and mitigate potential land
use compatibility impacts; and
THAT notice of Council's decision be issued in accordance with the Planning Act.
Introduction:
The purpose of this report is to provide planning analysis and a recommendation
regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-26 for lands municipally known
as 11302 and 11460 Imperial Road, located in the Township of Malahide. The
application proposes to amend the Elgin County Official Plan to permit a site -specific
large-scale agri-tourism use associated with the existing Clovermead Adventure Farm
operation within lands designated Agricultural.
The subject lands are located within a Prime Agricultural Area, where the Provincial
Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) generally limits permitted uses to agricultural uses,
agriculture -related uses, and on -farm diversified uses (OFDUs). While the existing
Clovermead Adventure Farm has historically operated as an agricultural and agri-
tourism operation, Planning staff are of the opinion that the scale and intensity of the
existing agri-tourism component has evolved beyond what would reasonably be
contemplated as an OFDU under the PPS and associated provincial guidance.
Page 5 of 117
Accordingly, Planning staff are of the opinion that the agri-tourism component of the
operation is more appropriately characterized as a site -specific non-agricultural use
within a Prime Agricultural Area and should be evaluated against the applicable PPS
policy framework for non-agricultural uses.
The proposed amendment seeks to recognize and appropriately regulate an existing
long-established operation through a site -specific policy framework while limiting the
extent of the non-agricultural use to approximately 11 hectares of the subject lands in
order to maintain the long-term agricultural viability and function of the balance of the
property. Pursuant to Section 17 of the Planning Act, Elgin County Council is the
approval authority for amendments to the Elgin County Official Plan.
Background and Discussion:
The subject lands are municipally known as 11302 and 11460 Imperial Road and are
located approximately 1.7 kilometres north of the Town of Aylmer within the Township of
Malahide. The lands are approximately 21.8 hectares in area and are designated
Agricultural within the Elgin County Official Plan (as shown in Appendix A) and
Agriculture in the Township of Malahide Plan (as shown in Appendix B). An aerial photo
of the site is provided in Figure 1 (and a higher resolution version is provided in
Appendix C).
PhotoFigure 1 - Aerial ,
The surrounding area is characterized predominantly by agricultural uses, including
active farming operations, agricultural buildings, and scattered rural residential uses.
Approximately 50% of the subject lands will continue to be actively utilized for
Page 6 of 117
agricultural purposes, including apiculture operations, crop production, orchards, and
limited livestock -related activities.
The subject lands contain the existing Clovermead Adventure Farm operation, a long-
established agri-tourism use associated with an active agricultural operation that
includes agricultural education, farm -based recreation, food service, seasonal
attractions, and agricultural awareness programming centred around beekeeping and
Figure 2 - Clovermead Adventure Farm Map
pollination.
The Elgin County Official Plan contains policies intended to protect agricultural lands,
support agricultural operations, and maintain rural character. Section 5.5 of the Official
Plan provides that development within the Rural Area shall first and foremost protect
agricultural land, agricultural operations, and rural character, while permitting non-
agricultural development only where impacts are appropriately addressed and
transportation and servicing requirements are satisfied.
Furthermore, the Elgin County Official Plan recognizes agri-tourism operations as an
important component of the rural economy. Section 5.14 contemplates agri-tourism
operations primarily as on -farm diversified uses, generally limited to less than one
hectare in size where located within agricultural areas. However, the Official Plan also
recognizes that larger -scale agri-tourism operations may occur where impacts to
farming operations and rural character are addressed.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the scale, intensity, and visitor -oriented
infrastructure associated with the Clovermead Adventure Farm operation have evolved
beyond what would reasonably be contemplated as an on -farm diversified use under
both provincial and County policy. The proposal includes organized admissions
infrastructure, formalized parking, site circulation improvements, servicing upgrades,
Page 7 of 117
and destination -based
seasonal programming that
collectively exceed the scale
reasonably contemplated for a
secondary and limited on -farm
diversified use. Accordingly,
Planning staff are of the
opinion that the proposal is
more appropriately
characterized as a site -
specific non-agricultural use
production and continue to function as part of the broader agricultural operation, as
identified in Figure 6, and attached as Appendix D for greater detail.
The applicant is proposing to formalize and improve an existing overflow parking area
currently utilized to accommodate seasonal demand associated with the operation.
Planning staff note that the proposed parking expansion area has historically functioned
as overflow parking and is intended to improve site organization, traffic circulation, and
operationally safety rather than facilitate unrestricted expansion of the use.
A Traffic Impact Study submitted in support of the application concluded that Imperial
Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic associated with the
proposal. The study further identified recommended access and sightline improvements
intended to improve
transportation safety and
operational efficiency, which
the applicant has agreed to
implement. Furthermore, the
applicant is pursuing upgrades
to the private septic system in
order to better accommodate
operational demands
associated with the agri-tourism
use and improve long-term
servicing capacity.
Page 8 of 117
Section 4.3.3 of the PPS generally limits permitted use within the Prime Agricultural
Areas to agricultural uses, agricultural -related uses, and on -farm diversified uses
(OFDUs). Planning staff are of the opinion that while portions of the Clovermead
Adventure Farm operation and are of the opinion that the agri-tourism component no
longer reasonably fits with the policy intent of an OFDU.
m.
YaxWO'""'i 'ikwrcn Eiff'w 1 rim Gnsonf
a�
u� x
Garner mMa� Nl r„m, j
cryr r AnH Mn: '� {f
mrvn JV
:SYry nkun' eM i.AR-n.1luxrrr yvnmvt we u�
� III u � I h mwRRrxr
n1
uoloummON 0
IUWII ilUw b
��pgdA'I
NIIO r
a
Ed
� IIII I
._l
a
✓,
,..... ..... [ riM ut u.,nriwer pwrn,vrna�.n dannM.� f�Fni
FN
Page 9 of 117
Planning staff acknowledge that the operation remains functionally tied to agriculture
and continues to support agricultural awareness, pollination education, and agricultural
tourism associated with an active farming operation. However, the operation has
evolved into a large-scale, destination -based agri-tourism use characterized by
dedicated visitor infrastructure, organized admissions, seasonal attractions, parking
areas, food service components, and site servicing demands that exceed what would
reasonably be considered secondary and limited in scale.
The proposal includes continued operation of an established destination agri-tourism
use, upgrades to site circulation and parking, servicing improvements, and a new
admission building intended to better organize and safely accommodate existing visitor
demand. Collectively, these characteristics are more appropriately reflective of a site -
specific non-agricultural use than an OFDU as contemplated by the PPS. Accordingly,
Planning Staff are of the opinion that the appropriate policy framework for evaluating the
proposal is Section 4.3.5 of the PPS respecting non-agricultural uses in Prime
Agricultural Areas.
Section 4.3.5.1 of the PPS permits non-agricultural uses in Prime Agricultural Areas
provided specific policy tests are satisfied, including that:
1. The lands do not comprise a specialty crop area;
2. The use complies with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae;
3. There is an identified need for the use within the planning horizon;
4. Reasonable alternative locations have been evaluated and there are no
reasonable alternative locations in lower priority agricultural areas; and
5. Impacts on surrounding agricultural operations are avoided or, where no
possible, minimized and mitigated.
Planning Staff have evaluated the proposal against the above criteria, as follows in
Table 1.
PPS Policy Test
Planning Analysis
The lands do not
The subject lands are not located within a Speciality Crop Area
compromise a
as defined by the PPS. The Agricultural Impact Assessment
specialty crop area
submitted in support of the application confirms that the lands do
not contain specialty crop lands. Planning Staff are satisfied that
the proposal satisfies this criterion.
Compliance with
Supporting materials submitted by the applicant confirm
Minimum Distance
compliance with applicable MDS requirements. Planning Staff
Separation (MDS)
are satisfied that the proposal does not create adverse land use
Formulae
conflicts associated with livestock operations and complies with
the intent of the PPS to maintain agricultural compatibility.
There is an
Planning Staff are satisfied that an identified need exists for the
identified need
proposal. Clovermead Adventure Farm represents a long -
within the planning
established agri-tourism operation that provides agricultural
horizon
education, tourism opportunities, pollinator awareness, school
programming, and rural economic activity within Elgin County.
Importantly, the proposal is not speculative in nature nor
Page 10 of 117
intended to establish a new tourism destination within Prime
Agricultural Area. Rather, the application seeks to appropriately
recognize, regulate, and safely accommodate an established
operation that has demonstrated sustained public demand over
several decades. The proposal additionally facilitates operational
improvements related to parking, circulation, servicing,
pedestrian safety, and visitor management required to support
the continued functioning of an existing operation. The Elgin
County Official Plan identifies in Section 3.14 that tourism is a
"significant contributor to the County's economy" and "strategic
priority". Furthermore, Sectio n4.3.6 of the PPS states that
"planning authorities are encouraged to support local food,
facilitate near -urban and urban agriculture, and foster a robust
agri-food network" which is defined as "a network that includes
elements important to the viability of the agri-food sector such as
regional infrastructure and transportation networks; agricultural
operations including on -farm buildings and primary processing;
infrastructure; agricultural services, farm markets, and
distributors; and vibrant, agriculture -supportive communities."
Planning Staff are of the opinion that this represents an
identified planning need consistent with rural economic
development and placemaking objectives recognized through
the Elgin County Official Plan.
Reasonable
Planning Staff are satisfied that no reasonable alternative
alternative
locations exist. The operation is functionally dependent upon
locations have
and integrated with an active agricultural operation, including
been evaluated
apiary functions, agricultural programming, and farm -based
and there are no
education activities that require an agricultural setting.
reasonable
Relocation to settlement areas would not reasonably support the
alternative
agricultural and operational characteristics of the use and would
locations in lower
likely introduce land use compatibility concerns related to traffic,
priority agricultural
noise, animal uses, and seasonal visibility activity. Furthermore,
areas.
Staff note that Elgin County is predominantly comprised of Prime
Agricultural Areas, substantially limiting opportunities to relocate
the use to lower priority agricultural lands. Existing agri-tourism
components are generally clustered within repurposed farm
buildings and consolidated portions of the site, consistent with
provincial and OMAFRA guidance encouraging utilization of
lower priority agricultural areas where feasible. Planning Staff
additionally note that the proposed parking improvements are
intended to formalize an area already utilized for overflow
parking associated with the operation, rather than introduce a
new disturbance area.
Impacts on
Planning Staff are satisfied that the impacts on surrounding
surrounding
agricultural operations have been appropriately addressed. The
agricultural
proposal has been designed to maintain agricultural production
operations are
on approximately one-half of the property, cluster non -
avoided,
agricultural activities within a defined area, and avoid
Page 11 of 117
minimized, and fragmentation of the broader agricultural parcel. The
mitigated. recommended site -specific permission limits the agri-tourism
component to the approximately 11 hectares and maintains
agricultural lands surrounding portions of the use, thereby
assisting in buffering and mitigation potential compatibility
concerns. Supporting technical materials, including the AIA and
Traffic Impact Study, identify mitigation measures including
landscape buffering, site circulation improvements, access
upgrades, traffic management, servicing upgrades, and strategic
siting of activities toward the interior of the property. The
operation remains seasonal and primarily daytime in nature.
Property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands were
circulated for comment on June 2, 2026 and at the time of
writing this report, Planning Staff have not received any
comments or objections regarding agricultural compatibility at
the time of writing this report. Collectively, Planning Staff are
satisfied that impacts have been avoided where possible and
otherwise minimized and mitigated consistent with PPS policy
direction.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) was circulated on the application
and provided comments for the County's consideration. Provincial comments identified
considerations respecting agricultural compatibility, Minimum Distance Separation
(MDS), the interpretation of permitted agricultural uses under the PPS, and potential
natural heritage and natural hazard considerations associated with an intermittent
watercourse and regulated floodplain area on the subject lands. The ministry requested
notice of Council's decision on the application.
Planning staff have considered the provincial comments as part of the review of the
application and note that the applicant has revised the Planning Justification Report to
evaluate and justify the proposal as a site -specific non-agricultural use within a Prime
Agricultural Area, rather than as an agricultural -related use or a on -farm diversified use.
Planning Staff are satisfied that this represents the appropriate policy framework for
evaluation and have assessed the proposal against the policy tests established under
Section 4.3.5.1 of the PPS.
With respect to MDS, the applicant has also provided MDS calculations showing the
proposal conforms with MDS formulae, and staff are satisfied that the applicable
separation requirements have been addressed and that the proposal will not create
adverse compatibility impacts with surrounding agricultural operations.
Regarding natural heritage conservation considerations, Planning staff are satisfied that
the proposed development area is substantially setback (approximately 250 m) from the
Catfish Creek Conservation Authority regulated floodplain area and associated natural
features. Staff also note that the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority shared no
concerns with the proposal, and they would be circulated through the subsequent site
plan process by the Township of Malahide.
Page 12 of 117
Planning staff are satisfied that the proposal meets the applicable policy tests
established under Section 4.3.5 of the PPS for non-agricultural uses within Prime
Agricultural Areas. While the proposal represents a non-agricultural use within Prime
Agricultural Area, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed site -specific and
area -limited approach represents an appropriate and balanced planning response. The
recommended Official Plan Amendment recognizes an established and functionally
agricultural -related tourism operation while maintaining the long-term agricultural
function of the balance of the lands and preventing unrestricted expansion of the non-
agricultural component.
Financial Implications:
There are no direct financial implications to Elgin County associated with the proposed
Official Plan Amendment. The applicant will be responsible for implementing any
required site improvements, infrastructure upgrades, servicing modifications, and
mitigation measures identified through subsequent planning approvals, technical review
processes, and applicable development agreements.
Advancement of the Strategic Plan:
The proposal supports the "Sustainable Community Growth" theme of Elgin County's
Strategic Plan by:
• Supporting rural economic activity, tourism, and agricultural diversification;
• Supporting agricultural awareness, education, and community engagement
opportunities;
• Facilitating appropriate rural development while maintaining the long-term
agricultural function of the subject lands;
• Supporting placemaking and destination -based tourism opportunities within Elgin
County; and
• Encouraging site improvements that improve operational safety, circulation, and
servicing for an established rural tourism destination.
Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposal represents a balanced approach that
supports rural economic resilience while maintaining the long-term protection for
agricultural lands.
Local Municipal Partner Impact:
The Township of Malahide is the affected Local Municipal Partner. The subject lands
are designated Agriculture in the Township of Malahide Official Plan and are subject to
corresponding local Official Plan Amendment approval. Additionally, at the Township of
Malahide level, the applicant is required to obtain Zoning By-law Amendment and Site
Plan Control approvals which will allow the Township further oversight on permissions
and site design.
As Elgin County is the approval authority for amendments to the Elgin County Official
Plan, the County Official Plan Amendment must proceed prior to final consideration of
the corresponding local Official Plan Amendment and implementing Zoning By-law
Page 13 of 117
Amendment. No concerns or objections have been identified by Township staff through
the circulation process.
The proposed County Official Plan Amendment will provide the upper -tier policy
framework necessary to support alignment between County and local planning
documents respecting the long-established Clovermead Adventure Farm operation.
Communication Reauirements:
Notice of the statutory public meeting has been provided in accordance with the
Planning Act. Following Council's decision, notice of approval or refusal will be issued in
accordance with the Planning Act, including the applicable appeal provisions. Provincial
ministries and agencies circulated on the application, including the MMAH, will be
provided notice of Council's decision. Pursuant to Section 17 of the Planning Act, Elgin
County Council is the approval authority for amendments to the Elgin County Official
Plan.
Conclusion:
Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents an
appropriate, site -specific planning response to recognize and regulate a long-
established agri-tourism operation that has evolved beyond the scale and intensity
reasonably contemplated for an on -farm diversified use under the Provincial Planning
Statement, 2024.
While the proposal constitutes a non-agricultural use within a Prime Agricultural Area,
Planning Staff are satisfied that the application has demonstrated consistency with the
applicable policy framework of the PPS, include the policy tests established under
Section 4.3.5 respecting non-agricultural uses.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal appropriately demonstrates:
• Compliance with Minimum Distance Separation requirements;
• No impacts to specialty crop areas;
• An identified need to recognize and safely accommodate an existing long-
established operation;
• No reasonable alternative locations that would appropriately support the
functionally integrated agricultural and agri-tourism nature of the use; and
• Appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on surrounding
agricultural operations.
The recommended amendment is limited in scope and includes a clearly defined site -
specific permission restricted to approximately 11 hectares of the subject lands. This
approach establishes clear boundaries for the non-agricultural component of the
operation, maintains agricultural production of the balance of the property, supports
compatibility with surrounding agricultural uses, and ensures that any future expansion
would require additional planning review and review and approval.
Page 14 of 117
On balance, Planning Staff are satisfied that the proposal represents an appropriate and
carefully bounded planning response that supports agricultural tourism, rural economic
activity, and agricultural education while maintaining the long-term agricultural function
and viability of the subject lands. Accordingly, Staff are recommending approval of
Official Plan Amendment application OPA-01-26.
Attachments:
Appendix A — Elgin County Official Plan Map
Appendix B —Township of Malahide Official Plan Map
Appendix C — Location Map
Appendix D — Concept Plan / Site -Specific Permission Area (11 ha)
Appendix E — Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Comment
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
Lindsay King
Policy Planner
Reviewed for Submission
Mat Vaughan
Director of Planning
Approved for Submission
Blaine Parkin
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 15 of 117
z
RM
Subject Site 340800004009700 &
340800004009800
File Number:
Owner., CLOVERMEAD APIARIES LIMITED &
LITTLE AYLMER FARMS LTD
CA-. Catfish Creek Conservation Authority
Created By: YE
Date: 06/11/2026
Township of Malahide
The Corporation of the County Vqin
Preparpti By: Plamq and VevOoprrient
0=6
Land Use Designations X Strategic Employment
Settlement Areas Areas
E Tier I 41; St Thomas Municipal Airport
EM Tier 2 Provincial Highway
0 Tier 3, County Highway
F-1 Agricultural Page _1 64A cad
L---J
25 so 1 Q10
A
County of Elgin OfficW Plan
ElginGounty
Sch�edul�e'A'
County Structure Map
DaW Mar J6, 2026
Projecricim NAD 93 Zone I-)N
b nd srr r all -;b, .1,;,hwd by Gb, p.,A, Appl,,V1b.
I IIINVI ..t ON ,b.�My wmmrtv WA IN, I
, Pv b,;IT,!
T, !, wvw ,, , On !1b, � � 0 puOulwe.
491 "'ay � ... � 0" W—")W�, W D sy y', b14 It", Mul",4JMW, .,Iq .,q
d,V uWw"htvlXycnw 010" Ph, —P b, "mr.—T'.4
I
J
I Subject Site
'
II ( �iii muu �u rvw,«,
3
I U,
16
SIR
age
Ate.., +n rye m fi
I ircnru� �+u
a�Gm
CID
i
r
00
91
"' M
LEGEND
I� SUBJECT LANDS
Location Map
RC$Ounc� Ors
BASE FEATUff.3
L iJ"1 14A,IUHA1 �+Y1�ttttoe��
Nfi4)h+r�G(�{�f h, uClWiw�At�h" �
Ma la h i de - Sch ed u l e'A 1' - Land Use Plan
Subject Site: 11302 & 11460 Imperial Road
IANFIEM"'A6C"ArOAJ jAl°`
�` Iwtrh�iPVdh ,M'xP➢�dY':¢tid�uF Ytt :re",SMyRK],FiS
r.r� ���G A�
File Number:
ALMINKAAWki�
— RAIPWAY
Owner: CLOVERMEAD APIARIES LIMITED &
N `uU'
��s���A���DANA
�PLA
- pace
� � Municipal Boundary
LITTLE AYLMER FARMS LTD
WJRJ� A �r�' e ° � ��
Flood Line
CA: Catfish Creek Conservation Authorit
Y
y
CJ�i SERVATP4N LANDS
/�r //� R y
'�✓ k�� �i�ul tuz�n Limit
Created By: TE
4',ul,�
I
Waterbody
Date: 06/11 /2026
fdjli l WNERAG A.G RECATE 0KRATHaN
HAMLET
Township of Malahide Page 17 of
1 r,,,r'
�731
Location Map
Legend
Subject Site: 11302 & 11460 Imperial Road
Subject Site
File Numbec
Owner: CLOVERMEAD APIARIES LIMITED &
County Road
LITTLE AYLMER FARMS LTD
CA: Catfish Creek Conservation Authority
Created By: TE
/1"I, . . .. . .
Local Road
Date: 06/11/2026
Township of Malahide
Buildings
N
The Corporation of the County Egin
Prepared By: Planning and Development 0 30 66?age 18 of ITO
mod- Ey
—
_
s may_
zaN
I —
=da
E2
2 �11
000 el
b/49 fi4
I
yY
—
� 2 YYI
1
I
10
�
AI
dS d dS to
N
l0
a
a 0
I
ogtlag—
o m
ease r l0 a
�oleuglod �amoupllm/ 2 c I`
pag bulgoeal agtlag
m
r--1I / I
-
�
m
a
To
l Ii I
,
I ^,
0r964LE
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Municipal Services Office
Western Ontario
2nd Floor
659 Exeter Road
London ON N6E 1 L3
Tel: 519 873-4020
Toll Free: 1 800-265-4736
Fax: 519 873-4018
May 15, 2026
Diana Morris
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Bureau des services aux municipalites
de I'Ouest de I'Ontario
2e etage
659 Exeter Road
London ON N6E 1 L3
Te1.: 519 873-4020
Sans frais : 1 800-265-4736
Te1ec.: 519 873-4018
Senior Planner
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON, N5R 5V1
dmorris@elgin.ca
Ontario Q
Sent via e-mail only
Re: One Window Provincial Review Comments
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications — Clovermead
Thank you for circulating the draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and draft Zoning By-
law Amendment (ZBA) applications to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It is
recognized that the OPA is exempt from the Minister's approval, and the following One
Window comments are provided to the County for its consideration in making decisions
on these matters.
It is understood that the subject lands are located at 11302 Imperial Road in the
Township of Malahide, Elgin County. The purpose of the OPA is to establish a site -
specific policy framework to recognize and permit a large-scale, intensive agri-tourism
use. The proposal involves a phased expansion and reconfiguration of the existing
Clovermead Adventure Farm and Apiary, including improvements to site access,
parking, and servicing, with the addition of visitor -oriented facilities.
The subject lands support an existing agricultural operation, including apiary activities
and crop production, along with agricultural -related and on -farm diversified uses
associated with agri-tourism. Agriculture is proposed to remain the primary land use,
with agri-tourism and related uses continuing as secondary uses at an increased scale
and intensity. The lands are designated "Agricultural Area" in the Elgin County Official
Plan and "Agriculture" in the Township of Malahide Official Plan and are located within a
prime agricultural area.
Page 20 of 117
Consideration has been given to this matter with respect to the policies of the Provincial
Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), and applicable provincial guidance. The following
comments identify matters for the County's consideration in reviewing the applications,
including areas where additional information may be required to demonstrate
consistency with provincial policy.
Agricultural Land Use and Compatibility Considerations
The applications propose a large-scale and intensive agri-tourism use within a prime
agricultural area. The County should assess whether the proposal is consistent with
PPS policy direction intended to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term
agricultural use and to ensure that on -farm diversified uses remain compatible with, and
do not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations (PPS policy 4.3.1).
The Planning Justification Report indicates that no livestock facilities are present on or
near the subject lands and concludes that Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
requirements are met. However, aerial imagery suggests there may be a livestock
operation north of the subject lands along College Line. This is noted for awareness,
and the determination of whether an MDS calculation is required remains with the
County.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (OMAFA) provides guidance
to support the interpretation of PPS policies related to permitted uses in prime
agricultural areas. In reviewing the proposal, the County is encouraged to consult
OMAFA's Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas, including
the criteria used to evaluate whether proposed uses qualify as agricultural -related uses
or on -farm diversified uses.
The proposed agri-tourism components may be characterized as agricultural -related
uses and/or on -farm diversified uses and should be assessed against the relevant
definitions and criteria in the PPS. The proposes uses are considered to be agricultural
related should demonstrate that they are directly related to and service farm operations
in the area as a primary activity, support agriculture, benefit from proximity to farm
operations, and provide direct products and/or services to farm operations. Where a
proposed use does not meet the criteria for an agricultural -related use, it may instead
be considered an on -farm diversified use, provided that all applicable criteria for that
category are satisfied.
Uses considered to be on -farm diversified should demonstrate that they are secondary
to the principal agricultural use of the property, limited in area, and related to agriculture,
supportive of agriculture, or able to coexist with agriculture without conflict. While agri-
tourism uses may qualify as on -farm diversified uses, the County should be satisfied
that the scale and form of development continue to support agriculture as the principal
land use on the property.
Page 21 of 117
The proposal indicates that on -farm diversified uses would exceed the two percent lot
coverage benchmark referenced in OMAFA guidance for interpreting the "limited in
area" criterion. While this benchmark is not a strict cap, it is intended to help ensure
agriculture remains the primary land use, minimize the amount of land removed from
agricultural production, and reduce off -site impacts. The County should evaluate the
proposal on a site -specific basis, including the total area rendered unavailable for
agricultural production by the on -farm diversified use, including buildings, parking,
servicing, access roads, and related features.
An Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted in support of the
application. Subject to the County's discretion, the scope of the assessment may be
tailored to the type, complexity, and scale of the proposed agricultural -related or on -
farm diversified uses, as well as the anticipated magnitude of impacts. The County
should ensure that the assessment adequately identifies potential impacts on the
agricultural system and includes appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts, consistent with OMAFA guidance. See Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA)
Guidance Document for further information.
Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard Considerations
It is noted that no Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or equivalent natural heritage
assessment was included with the circulated materials. As a result, it is unclear whether
potential impacts to natural heritage features and their ecological functions have been
appropriately evaluated.
Available information indicates the presence of an intermittent watercourse adjacent to
the subject lands, with a portion of the property regulated by the Catfish Creek
Conservation Authority and a floodplain identified south of the site. The Planning
Justification Report indicates that the proposed development is located outside the
identified natural hazard lands and associated regulated area. However, under the PPS
and the Fisheries Act, watercourses, including intermittent streams, are considered fish
habitat unless demonstrated otherwise. No information has been provided to
characterize the watercourse or confirm the absence of fish habitat.
As the potential for fish habitat and associated functions cannot be ruled out,
development and site alteration within or near the drainage area of the watercourse may
impact hydrology, water quality, and thermal regimes, which could affect potential fish
habitat. The County should treat the adjacent watercourse as potential fish habitat
unless demonstrated otherwise, confirm the presence and extent of fish habitat,
determine whether a scoped assessment by a qualified professional is required, and
consider the potential impacts to the watercourse from development within the drainage
area as part of the application review.
We trust these comments will assist the County in its consideration of the draft OPA and
associated ZBA. Provincial staff are available to discuss these comments. If there are
Page 22 of 117
any questions, please contact the undersigned. By copy of this letter, the Ministry
requests that the County provide notice of decision on these applications.
Kind regards,
David Stubbs
Senior Planner (acting)
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Municipal Services Office — Western
Cc: Alicia Csoff, County of Elgin
Anna Drake, OMAFA
Fathima Shamla, MNR
Monika Macki, MECP
Michael Kilgore, MTO
Erick Boyd, MMAH
Page 23 of 117
ElginCOUr'ity'
Report to Committee of the Whole
From: Diana Morris, Senior Planner
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: PLN-26-12 Official Plan Amendment No. 02/26 and Draft Plan of Subdivision
34T-CE2502, in the Municipality of Central Elgin
East Road, Part of Lot 2, Concession 2
Recommendation(s):
THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin approves Official Plan
Amendment No. 02/26 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Central Elgin; and
THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin grants draft plan approval to
Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-CE2502, Municipality of Central Elgin, 0 East Road, Part
of Lot 2, Concession 2, certified by Robert Wood O.L.S on behalf of Wastell
Developments., dated October 7, 2025; and
THAT staff be directed to provide Notice of this Decision in accordance with the
requirements of the Planning Act.
Introduction:
This report will provide County Council with information required to consider granting
approval to the above noted draft plan of subdivision, in accordance with Section 51 of
the Planning Act, the Council of the County of Elgin, as "Approval Authority," is required
to make a decision which gives approval or refusal for a proposed draft plan of
subdivision.
The Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin has adopted an amendment to their
Official Plan, and they have subsequently forwarded the amendment to the County of
Elgin for approval. In accordance with Section 17 of the Planning Act, the Council of the
County of Elgin, as "Approval Authority," is required to make a decision on the adopted
amendment in which Council may approve, modify, or refuse to approve the amendment.
If Elgin County fails to make a decision within 120 days after the amendment is received,
the registered owner, public body and/or specified person may appeal to the Ontario Land
Tribunal.
Page 24 of 117
This report is intended to provide County Council with the information required to make
a decision on the proposed draft plan of subdivision and adopted Official Plan
Amendment.
Background and Discussion:
The County of Elgin received a draft plan of subdivision for the above noted subject
lands, located in the Municipality of Central Elgin, legally described as Part of Lot 2,
Concession 2 and located south of Sunset Road and west of East Road within the
Village of Port Stanley, as shown in Appendix A- Location Map. The subject lands are
approximately 8.2 hectares (20.26 ac) in size, with an approximate frontage of 247
metres (810.37 ft) along East Road (County Road) and a frontage of 46 metres (150.92
ft) along Sunset Road (County Road).
The subject lands are currently used for agricultural purposes (cultivated field) with a
significant woodland located along the northerly portion of the property. Surrounding
land uses are primarily low -density residential dwellings with institutional and
commercial uses along Sunset Road.
The proposed development includes:
• Approximately of 178 dwelling units comprising of 32 single -detached units, 10
blocks for street townhouses for approximately 61 units, 1 block for
approximately 85 residential units in the form of townhouses/stacked
townhouses or apartments (medium density uses).
• An open space block is proposed to the south of the development for a
stormwater management pond with an area of 0.39 ha (0.96 ac).
• The northern portion of the lands contain significant woodland features and is
proposed to be retained and protected within the Natural Heritage/hazard block
comprising an area of 1.81 ha (4.47 ac).
• The development includes a public street network which includes the extension
of Beamish Street to integrate with the existing surrounding neighbourhood anc
provide access to East Road.
The Draft Plan of Subdivision can be found in Appendix B.
With a total of approximately 178 units and an area of approximately 8.2 hectares
(20.26 ac), the proposed development would comprise a density of approximately 21.70
units/hectare.
Should the draft plan of subdivision be approved by the County, the detailed design of
the medium density residential block will be subject to Site Plan Approval.
The subject lands are within a Tier 1 Settlement Area in the County of Elgin Official
Plan(s), as shown in Appendix C. Tier 1 settlement areas have full servicing, allow for a
range of uses and where the majority of growth is to be directed. The proposed
development also meets the County's Natural System policies by maintaining these
areas in their natural and undisturbed state with no development or site alteration.
Page 25 of 117
The Municipality of Central Elgin designates the lands Residential and Natural Heritage
with a Natural Hazard overlay, as shown in Appendix D. These designations permit
residential uses within a fully serviced settlement area while protecting identified natural
heritage features.
A Local Official Plan Amendment was submitted to add a site -specific policy in order to
permit a medium density development in the form of street townhouses with direct
access to a local road, whereas the Official Plan polices require that medium and higher
density development have access to an arterial or collector road.
OPA No. 02/26 was adopted by Municipal Council on June 22, 2026 (By-law No. 2026-
044), as shown in Appendix E.
In addition to the OPA, a Zoning By-law Amendment was also submitted to rezone the
subject lands from `Open Space Zone 2- Exception 53 (OS2-53) in the Township of
Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended to `Residential Zone 1 with Exception
94 (R1-94), `Residential Zone 2 with Exception 5 (R2-5)' and `Open Space Zone 3 with
Exception 4 (OS3-4)'. The By-law amendment was approved by Municipal Council on
June 22, 2026 (By-law No. 2026-045) and can be found in Appendix F.
No objections to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments were
received by circulated department and agencies.
The subject applications proceeded through the standard application process including
the preparation, review, and acceptance of a number of technical studies and reports,
and the technical circulation to statutory review agencies. The Notice of application was
circulated to property owners as regulated by the Planning Act.
A Statutory Public Meeting was held on May 11, 2026, and no comments or concerns
were heard at that meeting. However, e-mail correspondence was received from
neighbouring property owners and are attached to this report under Appendix G.
The comments received were reviewed by the Municipality and provided to the County
in consideration for draft approval.
County staff have had the opportunity to review the proposal, associated submission
materials and public comments against the requirements of the Planning Act, the
Provincial Planning Statement, the County of Elgin Official Plan and general intent of
the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan and are satisfied that the proposal meets
all relevant requirements and is appropriate for the context of the subject lands.
Financial Implications:
There are no direct financial impacts to the County with respect to approval of this
application.
Advancement of the Strategic Plan:
Planning for and facilitating residential growth within Elgin County.
Page 26 of 117
Local Municipal Partner Impact:
This decision will directly impact the Municipality of Central Elgin.
Communication Requirements:
Notice of the decision will be sent to all parties that requested notification, to the local
Municipality and to any other person/body prescribed under the Planning Act.
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis it is recommended that County Council grant draft plan
approval to application No. 34T-CE2502, and approve Official Plan Amendment No.
02/26 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Central Elgin, subject to the conditions in
Appendix H, as the applications are:
• Consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement;
• Conforms to the County of Elgin Official Plan and intent of the Municipality of
Central Elgin Official Plan;
• Conforms to the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law as amended and
approved by By-law 2026-045, and;
• Constitutes good land use planning.
Attachments:
Appendix A- Location Map
Appendix B- Draft Plan of Subdivision
Appendix C- Elgin County Official Plan Map
Appendix D- Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan Map
Appendix E- Adoption of Official Plan Amendment to the Municipality of Central Elgin
(By-law No. 2026-044)
Appendix F- Approved Zoning By-law No. 2026-045 (Township of Yarmouth)
Appendix G- Public Comments
Appendix H- Conditions of Draft Plan Approval
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
Diana Morris, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Mat Vaughan, RPP, MCIP
Director of Planning and Development
Approved for Submission:
Blaine Parkin
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 27 of 117
Apow
N
0
Location Map
Subject Site: 341800000103701
File Number: 34T-CE2502 Page 28 of 117
Owner: WASTELL DEVELOPMENTS INC.
CA: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority
IM/
Legend
Subject Site
County Road
%41
z�
o
�
oz
za zaww
W N„x
`d
=
O
o
�
5 f r,� d !i
f'
u�o
67 Z �
}
l� a
/D w7q
�o
w
s
Z
a
5 ,ar o
a N
o
o
a
0
f
,
7
7
�
V 133US
dE
�
✓ " 7
x
' �
r� xr ww wiuu
i
m
7c+
1:
°(a
f
t
i
Al jgj
qj
ZZ
z
,�z
u z
z�Q
I�
r^
1
LL
z
.i
i d'rry,
'
ti
z z„
LL r
u
°off ii
w
Site Location
Subject Site: 341800000103701
File Number: 34T-CE2502
Owner: WASTELL DEVELOPMENTS INC
CA: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority
Created By: DA
Date: 06/23/2026
Municipality of Central Elgin
The Corporation of the County Elgin
Prepared By: Planning and Development
50 100 200 300
Legend
Land Use Designations X Strategic Employment
Settlement Areas Areas
Tier 1 St. Thomas Municipal Airport
® Tier 2 Provincial Highway
Tier 3 — County Highway
❑ Agricultural Page 30LoWllRoad
Meters
County of Elgin Official Plan
05, M
N cotin ",
Schedule 'A'
County Structure Map
Date: June 23,2026
Projection: NAD 83 Zone 17N
Disclaimer: The County of Elgin takes every precaution to put up-to-date and
correct information on all maps published by Corporate Applications.
However, it does not expressly warranty that the information contained in
the map is accurate on the date of publication.
All users may use this information at their own risk. The Municipality will not
entertain any claims arising out of the use of this map or information.
U *Ct Sit(
ElginCourity
LEGEND
101ors
SUBJECT LANDS
Landmat
Location Map
Use Designation
.... Natural Hiqz�rd
11.5.001
[Land
.]
AqrIL.ulh.—I
� — 160 Ycar LHke Er�e
Central Elgin - Schedule'G'- Land Use Plan
ke,,drtio�
Ercs`ron Setback
Hi,bou, L— Deiisily kelcdpiaiAl
Frrilleir Waste sites
Subject Site: 341800000103701
MI�
7"eu w,-a�
Local
NOTE � Modlfication No, 29
e 71, 34) of t.he
und , Seztiori I
File Number: 34T-CE2502
—.rdnl
Ptanning Act
Owner: WASTELL DEVELOPMENTS INC.
Map Legend
— — — — Urban Settlem,,fit Area
CA: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority
mh—1 L)", 2
BuM Area Urnits
Created By: TE
galclmreC-1,
MUFlHClfM1f Brundary
Date: 06/23/2026
H6,b— C.-m-Ity F.� lit—
Railway
Watei,,-aurses
Municipality of Central Elgin
ka,1,,,JLy F., dAy
Wa te r Ocl I es
Page 31 of
1 7
q L
.
I
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL ELGIN
By-law No. 2026-044
Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 02126
to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan,
as, amended, for the Watermark Subdivision
WHEREAS the Municipality of Central Elgin is authorized to enact this by-law by virtue of Section
17(22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P13, as amended, (the Act);
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin has
considered an amendment to the Central Elgin Official Plan in accordance with the proOsions of
the Act,
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin
enacts as follows:
1. THAT Amendment No. 02/26 to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan as set out in
the text and Schedule 'N attached to, and forming part of this by-law, is hereby adopted.
2. AND THAT this by-law shall take force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning
Act.
Enacted this 2211 day of June, 2026.
MAYOR
Certified that the above is a True Copy of By-law No. 2026-044 as enacted and passed by the
Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin on June 22, 2026.
1111-31 R11"Mm""MMIM
Amendment No. 02126 to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan
PART A — PREAMBLE
I 111111120-:T0033't
The purpose and effect of the Official Plan Amendment is to add a site -specific policy for the
subject lands in order to permit a medium -density development in the form of street townhouses
with direct access to a local road, whereas the Official Plan policies require that medium and
higher density development have direct access to an arterial or collector road.
2. LOCATION
The subject lands are legally described as Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, Geographic Township of
Yarmouth and is located south of Sunset Road and west of East Road within the Village of Port
Page 32 of 117
Stanley, a designated settlement area,
The Subject lands are approximately 8.23 hectares (20.33 acres) in size, with an approximate lot
frontage of 245 metres (804 feet) along East Road (County Road) and a frontage of 45 metres
(148 feet) along Sunset Road (the Natural HeritagelHazard Block).
The subject lands are currently used for agricultural purposes (cultivated field), with a significant
natural heritage (Woodland and valley land feature) along the northerly portion of the property.
The surrounding land uses are primarily low -density residential dwellings with institutional and
commercial uses oriented along Sunset Drive.
3. BASIS
The basis for this Amendment is as follows
The Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Residential" in part and "Natural Heritage" in part
with the "Natural Hazard" overlay-,
The proposed Amendment will permit a medium -density development with direct access to a local
road via the extension of Beamish Street (a local road) and will provide access to East Road,
which is classified as a minor arterial road, and owned and maintained by Elgin County.
The proposed Amendment will facilitate the orderly development of a residential plan of
subdivision that contributes to an appropriate range and mix housing!, type and provides an
opportunity for all ages and income groups, while ensuring that servicing, transportation, :and
other municipal systems can accommodate the proposed development. The design reflects an
efficient use of land and infrastructure, minimizes land use conflicts, and supports long-term
planning objectives.
Finally, the Amendment has been evaluated against and aligns with the Provincial Planning
Statement, 2024 (PPS) by promoting efficient land use patterns, supporting the development of
complete and sustainable communities and optimizing the use of existing and planned
infrastructure.
Page 33 of 117
FMTITJEEKE���
1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
All of this part of the document entitled "Part B — The Amendment" constitutes Amendment No.
02/26 to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan.
2,. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
The Official Plan is amended as follows:
Item 1:
The area shown on the attached Schedule "A", defines the Subject Lands, and amends
Schedule "G" — Community of Port Stanley Land Use Plan to the Municipality of Central Elgin
Official Plan by permitting an exception to the policies of the Official Plan for "Medium Density"
Item 2:
Subsection 4.3.2 (Density) of the Official Plan is amended by adding the following new
subsection after subsection 4.3.2.g) and before subsection 4.3.3 (Home Occupations):
"4.3.2.1 Exceptions
"432 11 (Exception — East Road at Dexter Line, Port Stanley)
The lands known as 0 East Road, and, described as being Concession 2, Part of Lot 2,
Geographic Township of Yarmouth, permit medium -density residential uses to have direct
access to a local road maintained to a municipal standard, provided such access is located
within 220 metres of a Collector Road or County Road."
3. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
The Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with the
respective policies of the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan.
Report Number: DPE.41.26
File Number: OPA02/25
Name: Watermark Subdivision
Page 34 of 117
OFFICIAL PLAN MAP AND SCHEDULE
° Q
1.
.�.
E;
r
ga a
° �f P
.... ..
CON
T 2
LO
r.r a
OPA N�o.02126 Ors
..
y p EET Y
M
4
r
b
i
EMERY STRE � t
J
,.MrLL rRe roa�� siREET
w Ca y Ik% UYp llf %'R'mN rA 1J9d'Qflf4ild .Od 14PAyY4 W IY ry Z.. `. •. J r^ J JJT^.9 G
.�� 0
c[ ° r
. 0
CON 9 � CaC� 1. < T.
LiPr 1 v LOT 2 aann.i (1. Gll
� df3 - C
° LIJ
J
car p�"ie� a_
. C
Subject hands
Residential
Natural Heritage
Natural Hazards
THIS IS SCHEDULE W TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT No. 02/26
BY-LAW NO. 2026-0'45
A By-law to amend the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998
WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Planning; Act, RSO, 1990, cP 13 Section 34 as
amended, the council of a municipality may enact by-laws regulating the use of lands, and the
erection of buildings thereon"
AND WHEREAS the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, regulates the
use of land and the use and erection of buildings and structures within the Municipality of Central
Elgin"
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin deems it
expedient and advisable to amend certain sections of By-law 1998, as amended, insofar as they
relate to certain lands to which the said By-law apply;
AND WHEREAS the matters set out in this By-law are deemed to have met the requirements of
Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO, 1990, cP 13;
THE, COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL ELGIN
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT this by-law shall apply to the lands described as the Watermark Subdivision aind
shown on Schedule 'A (attached to and forming part of this by-law);
2. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by amending Zoning Map Part 9, identified on Schedule'A' (attached to and
forming part of this by-law) by changing the zoning on the lands from 'Open Space Zone
2 with Exception 53 (OS2-53)'to "Residential Zone 1, with Exception 94 (R1-94)'.
3. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998,,as amended, is hereby further
amended byadding thereto, aftersubsection 9.2.2,93 and before Section 9.3the following
new subsection
"9,2.2.94
9,2.2,94,1 Defined Area R1 -94, as shown on Zoning
Map Part 9,
9,2294,2 Minimum Lot Area: 370 square metres,
92.2,94.3 Minlmuim Lot Frontage: 12 metres.
Page 36 of 117
922,94.4 Minimum Front Yard 6.0 metres.
9.2294.5 Maximum Coverage: 50 percent.
9,2294.6 Minimum Ground FloorArea:70 square metres.
9,2,2.94.7 Exceptions: The provisions of
subsections 9.2.1-3,
9.11,4,9,2.1,6, 9,2.1.7.1
and 9.2.1.10 shall not apply,
to the area defined in
subsection 9.2.2.94.1."
4. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-iaw No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by amending, Zoning Map Part 9, identified on Schedule 'A (attached to and
forming part of this by-law) by changing the zoning on the lands from from 'Open Space
Zone 2 with Exception 53 (OS2-53)'to 'Residential Zone 2 with Exception 4 (R24)'.
5. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto, after subsection 9.3.2.3 and before Section 9.4 the foRowing
new subsection:
"932.4
9.12,41 Defined Area; R2-4, as shown on Zoning
Map Part 9.
9.3242 Additional Permitted (a) Townhouse dwelling;
Buildings and (b) Accessory buildings.
Structures.-
9.3.2.4.3 Minimum Lot Area: 220 square metres per
dwelling unit.
9.3.2.4.4 Mintmum Lot Frontage: 7.5 metres per dwelling
unit.
Page 37 of 117
9.3.24.5 Minimum Front Yard (a) From a County Road : 6
metres,
(b) From a Local Road :3,5
metres.
9.3,2.4.6 Minimum Interior 1.5 metres.
Side Yard..
9.3.2.41 Minimum Exterior (a) From a County Road: 6,O
Side Yard-1 metres.
(b) From a Local Road: 3.5
metres.
9.3.2.4.8 Maximum Coverage: 55 percent.
9.3,2.4.9 Maximum Bujiding
3 storeys,
Height:
9.2.3.4.10 Off -Street Parking:
(a) For buildings and
structures permitted by
subsection 9,3,2,4.2 (a):
one parking space per
dwelling unit.
932A.11 Exceptions:
The provisions of
subsections 9.3,1, save and
except for subsections
9.3.1.1 shall
not apply to the area
defined in subsection
9.3.2,4. 1 . "
6. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1996, as amended, is hereby further
amended by amending Zoning Map Part 9, identified on SchedWe'A (attached to and
forming part of this by-law) by changing the zoning on the lands from 'Open Space Zone
2 with Exception 53 (OS2-53)'to 'Residential Zone 2 with Excepfion 5 (R2-5)'.
7, THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto, after subsection 9.3,2.4 and before Section 9.4 the following
new subsection:
"9.3.2.5
Page 38 of 117
9.3.2,51
Defined Area:
R2-5 as shown on Zoning
Map Part 9
9.32.5.2
Additional Permitted
(ai) Townhouse dwelling;
Buildings and
(b) Stacked townhouse
Structures
dwelling;
(c) Apartment dwelling;
(d) Accessory buildings.
9,3253
Minimum Front Yard
(a) Townhouse Dwelling:
3.5 metres;
(b) Stacked Townhouse
dwelling: 3,5 metres;
(c) Apartment dwelling; 6.0
metres,
9.12.5.4
Minimum Exterior
(a) For a Townhouse
Side Yard:
Dwelling & Stacked
Townhouse Dwelling from a
County Road.- 6.0 metres;
(b) For a Townhouse
dwelling and Stacked
Townhouse dwelling from a
Local Road: 3.5 metres;
(c) For an Apartment
Dwelling: 6,0 metres.
9.32,5.5
Maximum Coverage:
50 percent.
9.3.2.5,6
Maximum Density,
75 units per hectare,
9,3,2,51
Maximum Building
(a) For a Townhouse
Height
dwelling: 3 storeys;
(b) For a Stacked
Townhouse Dwelling: 4
storeys',
(c) For an Apartment
Dwelling. 4 storeys.
9,3.2.5.8
Minimum Dwelling Unit
(a) For buildings and
NoorArea:
structures permitted by
Page 39 of 117
subsection 9.3,2.5.2 (a): 45
square metres;
(b) For buildings and
structures permitted by
subsection 9.3.2.5.2.(b)
and (c): 28.0 square metres
9.2.3.5.9 Off -Street Parking: (a) For buildings and
structures permitted by
subsection 9.3,2,5.2 (a):
one parking space per
dwelling unit
9.3.2.5.10 DefinRjons: For the purposes of this
amendment the following
definitions shall apply:
Stacked Townhouse
Dwelling! means the use of
a building containing three
or more dwelling units
attached side -by -side, with
each of these dwelling units
having at least one dwelling
unit above or below them,
and where each dweWng
unit has an independent
entrance from the exterior
or a common vestibule.
9.3.2,5.11 Exceptions The provisions of
subsections 9.3.1, save and
except for subsection
9.3.1.1 shall not apply to
the area defined in
subsection 9.3.2.41."
8. THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by amending Zoning Map Part 9, identified on Schedule `A (attached to and
forming part of this by-law) by changing the zoning on the lands from 'Open Space Zone
2 with Exception 53 (OS2-53)'to 'Open Space Zone 3 with Exception 4 (OS3-4)'
9, THAT the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto, after subsection 8.4.2.3 and before Section 9.1 the following
new subsection'.
" 8,424
Page 40 of 117
8,424-1 Defined Area:
OS3-4 as shown on Zoning
Map Part S.
8.4.2,4.2 Permitted Uses:
(a) Storm rater
Management System;
(b) Conservation Purposes.
&4,2,43 Permitted Buildings
Buildings and structures
and Structures7.
approved by the
Municipality of Central
Elgin and the Kettle Creek
Conservation Authority
for uses permitted by
subsection 8.4.2.4.2
8.4.2,4.3 Exceptions: The provisions of
Subsection 8.4.1shall not
apply to the area defined in
Subsection 8.4.2.4.1."
10.AND THAT fts By-law shafl come into full force and effect onthe date of passing bythe
Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin, subject to the provisions of
Sections 34(18) and 34(21) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, cP 13, as amended,
READ THREE TIMES AND FINALLY PASSED, this 22n6 day of June, 2026.,
Delany Leitch
Clerk Mayor
Page 41 of 117
Schedule "A" -Amended Zoning Schedule
Page 42 of 117
TOWNSHIP CAE YARMOUTH BY-LAW NO. 199
ZONING (SAP AND SCHEDULES
SECTION 3 MAP PART 9
SCHEDULETHIS IS r 1 0
PASSED d IMF •JU1 .
r
Page 43 of 117
Christine Hollingshead
111b&M
May 27, 2026
To: E. Austerberry, M. Mughal, and Central Elgin County Council
Municipality of Central Elgin Planning Department & Secretary -Treasure, Committee of
Adjustment
450 Sunset Drive
Elgin County Administration Building,
St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, N5R 5V1
Phone: (519) 631-4860
Subject: Letter of Opposition — Wastell Homes Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Dear Mr. Mughal,
am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed zoning by-law amendment
submitted by Wastell Homes for the development located at 0 East Road (Part Lot 2,
Concession 2), Port Stanley.
While I understand the need for responsible growth and housing development within our
community, I have significant concerns regarding this proposal and its potential impact on
the surrounding neighbourhood.
My concerns include the following:
Traffic and Road Safety
The proposed development is expected to increase vehicle traffic substantially in an
area where homeowners have intentionally moved to a dead end street for safety.
Residences are comforted by the ability to allow their children and pets to play safely.
Opening up an access from Beamish Street to East Road will allow motorists from
the high traffic East street to use Beamish Street as an arterial road -moving large
volumes of traffic between different neighborhoods. Increased traffic density will
completely change a neighbourhood community where children have grown up
playing road hockey and pickleball resulting in unsafe road conditions.
2. Neighbourhood Character and Compatibility
The scale, density, and design of the proposed development do not appear
consistent with the existing character of the surrounding community. Our
neighbourhood is predominantly a residential hub characterized by largely
single-family homes. The proposed zoning changes may set a precedent for
overdevelopment and alter the established residential nature of the area. High
density commercial/residential development that is out of character (due to the
Page 44 of 117
development's magnitude or character) with our existing residences and/or
commercial buildings in our community alters the cherished, traditional village
character of Port Stanley.
3. Too High Density for Our Village
Our Community is also concerned about the ultimate growth and size of the village.
Only a few blocks away, we already have a range and mixture of close to 200
housing types including condos, townhomes, and a highrise on Compass trail. There
are concerns regarding whether current infrastructure — including water, sewage,
stormwater management, schools, parks, and emergency services — can adequately
support the additional 165 residential units proposed by Wastell Homes residential
development. Wastell is changing the village's character forever. People come to Port
Stanley because it's a quaint rural village with a beach. Tourists leave their city to
relax in our small community. This mixed housing growth doesn't seem to be in a
controlled and balanced fashion when we already have multiple other
mega -developments simultaneously underway right now in Port Stanley -Kokomo
Beach Club and Compass Trail.
4. Lack of Community Consultation
Many residents feel that community concerns have not been sufficiently addressed.
The zoom link was not activated during the public meeting on May 11th at 6pm
(please see attached screen shot). Meaningful consultation and transparency are
essential before major zoning changes are approved.
respectfully request that Council deny the proposed zoning by-law amendment, or at
minimum defer approval until additional studies, consultations, and revisions are completed
to address the concerns of residents.
I ask that this letter be included in the public record for this application and considered during
all future discussions and decisions related to this matter.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Christine Hollingshead
Page 45 of 117
May 27, 2026
To: Wastell Homes
Subject: Request for Clear Boundary Delineation, Tree Preservation, and Privacy Fence in
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Plan on East Road, Port Stanley.
Dear Sir/Madam,
am writing regarding the proposed zoning by-law amendment and development plans for
the lands adjoining my property found in the East Road (Part Lot 2, Concession 2), Port
Stanley application.
As a neighbouring property owner, I respectfully request that the following matters be
addressed as part of the planning and development process:
Clear Identification of Property Boundaries
Prior to any site preparation, grading, or construction activity, I request that all shared and
adjoining property boundaries be professionally surveyed and clearly marked on -site. This
will help avoid any encroachment issues, misunderstandings, or inadvertent disturbance of
neighbouring lands during development.
Preservation of Existing Trees Along the Property Line
The mature trees and vegetation currently located along the shared property line provide
important privacy, noise buffering, drainage stability, and environmental benefits. I strongly
request that these trees be preserved wherever possible and protected throughout
construction. Appropriate tree protection measures should be implemented to prevent
damage to root systems and surrounding vegetation.
Installation of a Privacy Fence
Given the proposed increase in density and activity associated with the development,
request that a high -quality privacy fence be installed along the shared property boundary as
part of the development plan. This would help mitigate impacts related to privacy, noise,
lighting, and general neighbourhood compatibility.
ask that these concerns and requests be formally considered and incorporated into the
proposed zoning by-law amendment and any related site plan approvals.
Please keep me informed regarding future public consultations, revised plans, and decisions
related to this application.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Christine Hollingshead
Page 46 of 117
i,
r
April 27, 2026
Emerald Austerberry
Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
pll,,im,im,p,im„q�llgii,,,�rg,; eausterberry@centralelgin.org
450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
Geoff Brooks
Director of Planning and Engineering Services
450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION CONCERNING A PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AND OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS (ZBA 09/25 & OPA 02/25)
Dear Emerald and Geoff,
Please accept our written submission in opposition to the proposed ZONING BY-LAW AND
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (ZBA 09/25 & OPA 02/25) application for East Road in Port
Stanley, to be known as 'Watermark' subdivision. We previously submitted similar opposition
to the proponent's Draft Plan of Subdivision application via email to Elgin County on July 16,
2025, but we have received no official response from either Elgin County or Central Elgin that
our concerns were addressed as of this writing.
An important distinction is that we are opposed to the sanitary servicing detail as currently
proposed — not the development itself.
As the property owners directly north of the proposed subdivision (specifically 5069 East Road,
or Block 43), we are very concerned that the existing 200mm municipal sanitary sewer currently
stubbed off at the end of Beamish Street will not be available for connection to us, based on
the proposed servicing layout and related report submitted by the proponent.
The attached report (PW 77-15 Sunset Bluffs Sanitary Servicing — Oversizing Cost
Apportionment) shows that Don West Construction Limited installed the 200mm sanitary sewer
that is stubbed off at the end of Beamish Street as part of our Sunset Bluffs development, and
the intent of this sewer was to service the entire table lands along East Road as it became
intensified through future development. This is noted in CJDL's Sanitary Servicing Report from
2015, which is included as part of the attached report referenced above. Subsequent new home
purchasers incurred considerable additional costs (through development charges) to not only
Page 1 of 3
Page 47 of 117
increase the diameter of this sewer pipe, but also to bury it at sufficient depth for future
servicing of all tributary lands to the north of the proponent's property.
We made a years -long concerted effort with the proponent of Watermark to facilitate the
extension of the sanitary sewer to our property, at our cost, but they had no interest
whatsoever in helping us.
We then arranged a consultation meeting with local planning officials (Kevin McClure, Alex
Piggott, etc.), which took place on December 5, 2024, to discuss our concerns, and were
informed that they could offer no help and that basically we were on our own. It was suggested
at that meeting that we have the opportunity to connect with the Sunset Road sewer, which
involves considerably more cost both for us in the short term and for the municipality in the
long term. We believe this places an unfair burden upon us that is entirely superfluous.
The aforementioned attached report was subsequently provided to Kevin McClure and Alex
Piggott by our consulting engineer in December of 2024, and both of them have not only
completely ignored it, but have not yet provided any responses to important questions asked at
that meeting.
Central Elgin Council adopted the report (PW-77-15) on September 21, 2015 and agreed to a
cost -sharing formula for the oversizing and the extra depth of the sanitary sewer located along
Beamish Street for the express purpose of future servicing of the Crevits lands and Block 43
(now owned by us), as well as all lands north of Sunset Bluffs.
The proponent should be given the option to either continue the Beamish Street sanitary sewer
through to Block 43 (as shown in the report) or bring it north from their proposed stub at their
proposed intersection of Beamish Street and East Road to the very northern limits of their
proposed subdivision for connection of future development in the area.
Ironically, the 200mm sanitary sewer in question is depicted in the Preliminary Servicing and
Stormwater Management Report submitted by the proponent (page 28, attached) and
prepared by Development Engineering (London) Limited, but no reference of CJDL's 2015
Sanitary Servicing Report was found, or any explanation as to why this would be shown in their
report.
One tool at the disposal of the planning authority is that a One Foot Reserve was transferred to
The Corporation of Municipality of Central Elgin as Block 113, Plan 11M-212 — see attached
excerpt from the registered plans and parcel register. Releasing this reserve could be
conditional upon extending this sanitary sewer as was intended.
Page 2 of 3
Page 48 of 117
Further, we believe the SWMF (storm water management facility) should be available for
connection as well, as it does not make sense to have duplicate facilities within such close
proximity. Not only would that constitute a waste of valuable land, but the municipality would
eventually be responsible for the repairs and maintenance of both facilities. Given that our
parcel is fairly small, this may not even require a redesign of their proposed facility — a simple
pipe to our property is likely all that is required. As there is currently no storm sewer available
at or near our property, we believe we would be placed in an unfair position if we were not
allowed to connect to their proposed facility. Don West would pay the cost to determine
capacity restraints and the cost to connect to the proponent's SWMF, which would result in
considerable long-term savings for the municipality and their taxpayers.
At the very least, given that Report PW-77-15 was adopted by Council on September 21, 2015,
decision -makers should be briefed on the report to ensure costs are recovered as prescribed
therein — it should not be ignored such as it was when we presented it to Mr. McClure and
Mr. Piggott.
Regards,
�i son McWhirter
President, Don West Construction Limited
Page 3 of 3
Page 49 of 117
DECISION
The conditions to final plan of approval for registration of this Subdivision (File No. 34T-
CE2502) as provided by the County of Elgin are as follows:
No. Conditions
1. That this approval applies to Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-CE2502, Municipality of Central
Elgin, 0 East Road, Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, certified by Robert Wood O.L.S on behalf of
Wastell Developments., dated October 7, 2025; that shows a total of one -hundred and
seventy-eight (178) residential units, including thirty-two (32) single -detached dwellings, ten
(10) blocks for street townhouses, one (1) medium density residential block, one (1) block for
a stormwater management pond and one (1) natural heritage/hazard block, in the County of
Elgin.
2. The owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality of Central Elgin
wherein the owner agrees to satisfy all of the requirements, financial and otherwise of the
Municipality of Central Elgin concerning the installation of services including roads, sanitary
sewage collection system, water distribution system, utilities and storm water management
facilities for the development of the lands within the plan.
3. The subdivision agreement shall be registered against the lands to which it applies upon
registration of the final plan.
4. The subdivision agreement, where required, shall contain a provision, prepared to the
satisfaction of the Municipality, regarding the phasing or timing of the development.
5. The owner shall provide easements as may be required for services, utility or drainage
purposes in a form satisfactory to the Municipality or Utility and where required by the
Municipality, daylight corners and street reserves shall be shown on the final plan and
conveyed in a form satisfactory to the Municipality.
6. The approval of the draft plan of subdivision shall lapse in three (3) years pursuant to section
51(32) of the Planning Act.
7. The road allowances included in this draft plan shall meet the standards of the Municipality
and be shown and dedicated as public highways on the final plan submitted for approval and
registration.
Page 50 of 117
8. The streets within the draft plan of subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the
Municipality of Central Elgin.
9. The Owner shall provide the Stormwater Management (SWM) facility and associate drainage
works and the erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with the guidelines
from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to the satisfaction of the
Municipality of Central Elgin and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA). The Owner
shall:
a. Implement all stormwater management works and erosion and sediment control
measures identified in the approved plans, including any phasing requirements,
prior to and during construction;
b. Operate, maintain, repair, and, if necessary, replace all stormwater management
facilities and erosion and sediment control measures in good working order, to the
satisfaction of the Municipality of Central Elgin, from the commencement of any
site alteration or servicing works until such time as the Municipality has formally
assumed the stormwater management infrastructure.
10. The subdivision agreement between the owner and the Municipality shall contain a provision
requiring the owner to install geodetic monuments within the subdivision. The number,
specifications and location of the monuments are to be approved by the Director of Planning
and Engineering prior to final approval and registration.
11. The Owner shall implement any measures and recommendations contained within the
approved Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions
Limited (October 2024) and Updated TIS dated May 2026, including any revisions accepted
by the Municipality of Central Elgin, to the satisfaction of the Municipality and Elgin County.
Such requirements shall be incorporated into the subdivision agreement.
12. The Owner shall implement any measures and recommendations contained within the
approved Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by DevEng
(2024), including any revisions accepted by the Municipality of Central Elgin, to the
satisfaction of the Municipality. Such requirements shall form part of the subdivision
agreement.
13. The Owner shall implement all recommendations, mitigation measures, and monitoring
requirements contained within the approved Environmental Impact Study prepared by MTE
Consultants Inc. (November 15, 2024), including any revisions accepted by the Municipality
of Central Elgin, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Such requirements shall be secured
through the subdivision agreement where appropriate.
14. The Owner shall implement all applicable recommendations contained within the
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by LDS Consultants (2024), including any revisions
accepted by the Municipality of Central Elgin, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Such
Page 51 of 117
requirements shall be incorporated into the detailed engineering design and subdivision
agreement.
15. That the subdivision agreement between the owner and the Municipality contain a provision
requiring:
a. The owner to include a statement informing the persons who first purchase a unit following
final approval of all the approved development charges, including development charges
for school purposes, relating to any such unit within the draft plan of subdivision pursuant
to Section 59(4) of the Development Charges Act. 1997;
b. All services, which in the opinion of the Municipality are necessary for the development
of the lands within the Plan, such services being hereinafter called the "necessary
services" shall be in place before the development begins.
16. The Owner shall satisfy all archaeological requirements of the Province of Ontario. Prior to
final approval and/or registration of the plan, the Owner shall provide written confirmation to
the satisfaction of the Municipality of Central Elgin that all archaeological assessment
requirements have been completed, and that no further archaeological work is required, or
that all archaeological concerns have otherwise been satisfactorily addressed.
17. The owner shall obtain any required approvals and permits, if applicable, from the Kettle
Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA), in accordance with Section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 41/24, to the satisfaction of the Municipality of
Central Elgin. This will be included as a condition in the subdivision agreement.
18. Prior to final approval and registration of the draft plan, the Municipality of Central Elgin
shall be satisfied that adequate uncommitted municipal water and wastewater servicing
capacity is available to service the proposed development.
19. The Owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with all applicable utility providers for
the provision of underground and/or above ground services and shall grant any easements
required for the installation and maintenance of such services, to the satisfaction of the
Municipality and the respective utility authorities.
20. The Owner shall satisfy the Municipality's parkland dedication requirements in accordance
with the Planning Act and the Municipality's applicable by-laws and policies. Such
requirements may be satisfied through the conveyance of land and/or payment of
cash -in -lieu, to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Central Elgin.
21. That prior to final approval, the Owner shall satisfy the County of Elgin with respect to all
funding, cost sharing, cost recovery, securities, approvals, and agreement requirements
for the stormwater outlet works within or affecting the County Road allowance. The County
of Elgin shall provide written confirmation to the approval authority that this condition has
been satisfied.
22. That prior to final approval by Elgin County, the Owner shall submit for review and approval
by the Municipality, a draft of the final M-Plan.
23. The County of Elgin will accept the proposed infrastructure as a County asset upon
assumption by the Municipality of Central Elgin and will solely fund the future Operations and
Page 52 of 117
Maintenance. However, the construction of the developments' infrastructure to County of
Elgin standards and associated costs shall be borne by the owner.
24. To further clarify, should the developer/owner utilize the Dexter Line corridor, all costs
associated with the development's construction trench shall be borne by the owner as well
as any restoration to County standards, to the satisfaction of County Engineering Services.
25. That confirmation of the selection of a stormwater discharge method and location be
submitted to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority for approval.
26. That a permit be obtained from Kettle Creek Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation
41/24 prior to any development or alteration upon lands that are affected by KCCA's
Regulation Limit. A complete application for a permit would include details describing the
outlet and works in the Regulated Area which may include, but is not limited to, geotechnical
and additional studies/reports prepared to the satisfaction of KCCA.
27. Prior to final approval the Owner shall ensure that the requirements of Canada Post have
been satisfied:
a) The developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable permanent locations for
the Community Mailboxes and to indicate these locations on appropriate servicing plans;
b) The builder/owner/developer will confirm to Canada Post that the final secured permanent
locations for the Community Mailboxes will not be in conflict with any other utility; including
hydro transformers, bell pedestals, cable pedestals, flush to grade communication vaults,
landscaping enhancements (tree planting) and bus pads.
c) The owner/developer will install concrete pads at each of the Community Mailbox locations
as well as any required walkways across the boulevard and any required curb depressions
for wheelchair access as per Canada Post's concrete pad specification drawings.
d) The owner/developer will agree to prepare and maintain an area of compacted gravel to
Canada Post's specifications to serve as a temporary Community Mailbox location. This
location will be in a safe area away from construction activity in order that Community
Mailboxes may be installed to service addresses that have occupied prior to the pouring of
the permanent mailbox pads. This area will be required to be prepared a minimum of 30
days prior to the date of first occupancy.
e) The owner/developer will communicate to Canada Post the excavation date for the first
foundation (or first phase) as well as the expected date of first occupancy.
f) The owner/developer agrees, prior to offering any of the residential units for sale, to place
a "Display Map" on the wall of the sales office in a place readily available to the public which
indicates the location of all Canada Post Community Mailbox site locations, as approved by
Canada Post, and the Municipality of Central Elgin.
g) The owner/developer agrees to include in all offers of purchase and sale a statement, which
advises the prospective new home purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated
Community Mailbox, and to include the exact locations (list of lot #s) of each of these
Community Mailbox locations; and further, advise any affected homeowners of any
established easements granted to Canada Post.
h) The owner/developer will be responsible for officially notifying the purchasers of the exact
Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sales with specific clauses in
the Purchase offer, on which the homeowners do a sign off.
Page 53 of 117
28. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the Municipality
of Central Elgin how conditions 2-22 have been satisfied.
29. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the respective
utility companies (Enbridge Gas, Bell etc), how condition 19 has been satisfied.
30. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the County of
Elgin's Engineering Services how conditions 23 and 24 have been satisfied.
31. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Kettle Creek
Conservation Authority how conditions 25 and 26 have been satisfied.
32. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Canada Post
how condition 27 has been satisfied.
Notes to Draft Approval:
1. That this approval applies to draft plan approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-CE2502,
Municipality of Central Elgin, 0 East Road, Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, certified by Robert Wood
O.L.S on behalf of Wastell Developments., dated October 7, 2025; that shows a total of one -
hundred and seventy-eight (178) residential units, including thirty-two (32) single -detached
dwellings, ten (10) blocks for street townhouses, one (1) medium density residential block, one
(1) block for a stormwater management pond and one (1) natural heritage/hazard block, in the
County of Elgin.
2. It is the Owner's sole responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft approval
3. The Owner/developer of any condominiums will be required to provide signature for a License
to Occupy Land agreement and provide winter snow clearance at the Community Mailbox
locations.
4. Enhance Community Mailbox Sites with roof structures will require additional documentation as
per Canada Post's Policy.
5. There will be no more than one mail delivery point to each unique address assigned by the
Municipality.
6. Any existing postal coding may not apply, the owner/developer should contact Canada Post to
verify postal codes for the project.
7. It is suggested that the Owner be aware of section 144 of the Land Titles Act and
subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act.
Subsection 144 (1) of the Land Titles Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located
in a land titles division be registered under the Land Titles Act. Exceptions to this provision are
Page 54 of 117
set out in subsection 144(2).
Subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located
only in a registry division cannot be registered under the Registry Act unless that title of the
owner of the land has been certified under the Certification of Titles Act. Exceptions to this
provision are set out in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 78(10).
8. The Owner is advised that in the event that deeply buried archaeological remains should be
discovered during construction, it is recommended that archaeological staff of the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport be notified immediately.
Similarly, in the event that human remains should be encountered during construction, it is
recommended that the proponent immediately notify the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport and the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Cemeteries Branch.
9. The Ontario Land Surveyor responsible for preparing the final plan for registration should contact
the Municipality of Central Elgin regarding the preparation of the final plan to ensure the
requirements of draft approval are properly addressed in the preparation of the final plan and
that the final plan prepared contains sufficient geodetic information to locate the plan within the
UTM Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, prior to submitting the plan for final
approval. A digital copy of the final plan, in a form satisfactory to the Municipality, is required as
part of the final plan submission.
10. Inauguration, or extension of a piped water supply, a sewage system, or a storm drainage
system, is subject to the approval of the Ministry of the Environment under Sections 52 and
Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
11. The Owner is hereby advised that the review of this plan of subdivision did not include
groundwater, soil, or atmosphere testing to fully discount the possibility that waste materials
and/or other contaminants are present within or near this subdivision. If either the Owner or the
Municipality requires such assurance before proceeding with this plan of subdivision, a team of
consultants should be retained to conduct any necessary investigations.
12. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks must be advised immediately should
waste materials or other contaminants be discovered during the development of this plan of
subdivision. If waste materials or contaminants are discovered, a further approval under Section
46 of the Environmental Protection Act may be required from that Minister.
13. The Owner is advised that if any unplugged petroleum wells or associated works are identified
during the development of the site, the owner shall notify the Petroleum Resources Centre of
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Owner shall plug the wells and rehabilitate
the surface according to the Provincial Standards of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. The
Page 55 of 117
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommends that no structures be built immediately
over a plugged petroleum well.
14. Should the Owner or the Municipality require underground telecommunications facilities to serve
this subdivision, the owner must confirm with the Municipality that satisfactory arrangements
have been made with telecommunications provider for underground services. The Owner is
also advised that, should any conflicts with the existing telecommunications facilities or
easements arise, the Owner shall be responsible for realignments or relocation. Further, the
Owner is to provide easements as required to service this subdivision.
15. Clearances are required from the Municipality of Central Elgin, County of Elgin Engineering
Services, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority, utility companies (Enbridge, Bell) and Canada
Post. If the agency's condition concerns a clause in the subdivision agreement, a copy of the
agreement should be sent to them. This will expedite clearance of the final plan. A copy of the
agreement is also required by the County of Elgin.
16. All measurements on subdivision and condominium final plans must be presented in metric
units.
17. The final plan must be submitted digitally in AutoCAD (DWG) and Portable Document Format
(PDF) with the appropriate citation from the Planning Act used. The AutoCAD (DWG) file must
be consistent with the following standards:
• Georeferenced to the NAD83 UTM Zone 17M coordinate system.
• All classes of features must be separated into different layers.
• Each layer should be given a descriptive name so that the class of feature it contains
is recognizable.
18. The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must include the following paragraph on all copies
(3 mylars and 4 paper) for signature purposes:
Approval Authority Certificate
This final plan of subdivision is approved by the County of Elgin under Section 51 (58) of the
Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, on this_ day of 20
Director of Planning and Development
19. The approval of this draft plan of subdivision File No. 34T-CE2402 will lapse on August 11,
2029, pursuant to subsection 51(32) of the Planning Act, as amended. It is the responsibility of
the Owner to request an extension of the draft approval if one is needed. A request for extension
should be made at least 60 days before the approval lapses since no extension can be given
after the lapsing date. The request should include the reasons why an extension is needed and
a resolution in support of the extension from Council of the Township of Southwold.
Page 56 of 117
20. The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must be registered within 30 days of final approval
or the County may withdraw its approval under subsection 51(59) of the Planning Act.
Page 57 of 117
ElginCOUr'ity'
Report to Committee of the Whole
From: Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services
Mike Hoogstra, Manager of Procurement & Risk
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: ENG 26-18 Engineering Services for Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation —
Contract Award
Recommendation(s):
THAT the contract for Engineering Services associated with the Port Burwell Bridge
Rehabilitation project, Request for Proposal 2026-P23 be awarded to Doug Dixon &
Associates Inc. in the amount of $419,000.00 (excluding HST); and,
THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to sign
the contract.
Introduction:
This report provides details on the Request for Proposal (RFP) that was issued to solicit
proposals from firms to provide engineering services for the Port Burwell Bridge
Rehabilitation project and seeks Council's approval to award the contract.
Background and Discussion:
An RFP seeking professional services from interested engineering firms was recently
released to provide complete project engineering, reporting, detailed design and tender
preparation services for the Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation project.
The Port Burwell Bridge was originally constructed in 1969 and has had a series of
rehabilitations over the years. Several major components of the structure have reached
the end of their life and require replacement as recommended in the Port Burwell Bridge
Inspection Report prepared in August 2025 by Spriet Associates Ltd.
The Port Burwell Bridge is critical infrastructure and the only connection across the Big
Otter Creek for the village, directly impacting residents, businesses, visitors and
emergency services. The engineering consultant for this project is tasked with developing
a design and construction phasing plan that mitigates these impacts and risks as much
as possible. One public information session will be held early in the design phase to
Page 58 of 117
solicit concerns and another PIC will be held to inform the public of the final design and
construction schedule.
The project scope must also support and accommodate critical services and utilities
currently affixed to the bridge (i.e. water, wastewater, gas, fiber) and ensure the Big Otter
Creek remains navigable.
Local staff have been included in the RFP evaluation committee to ensure local
knowledge of critical infrastructure and services are fully represented and understood.
Local staff will remain involved throughout the project.
At the 30% stage of the design, the consultant will present a risk assessment with options
to County Council with respect to full closure versus staging to permit one lane of traffic
open, if determined feasible once detailed engineering investigations are undertaken.
The tentative project schedule has forecasted the investigation, design and public
consultation phase to occur until October 2027 with construction beginning in early 2028.
Depending on the final project design and construction phasing plan, construction may
require 2 years to complete. County Council will be updated when a final construction
schedule is developed.
The RFP for this project was issued on May 4 and closed on June 17. The complete
RFP document and all supporting Addenda are attached to this report as Attachment 1.
Information that was advertised and posted on the County's Bid Portal page
//2ll9li11, d°oi:.�u,.iL r.11 lidsaindeind eirs.g° ) including RFP dates proposals submitted and a
complete plan takers list is attached to this report as Attachment 2.
The Evaluation Committee (refer to Attachment 3) used a `Quality Based Selection
Process' utilizing a "two submission method" procurement process in which proposals were
received in two separate submissions. The first submission (part 1) consisting of technical
and qualitative information was evaluated based on the following criteria:
i) Understanding of the project goals, objectives, scope and key issues
ii) Demonstrated methodology and approach to completing project tasks and
deliverables
iii) Demonstrated methodology and approach to public and stakeholder consultation
iv) Project Team, Experience and Qualifications
v) Firms previous relevant experience
vi) Proposed Project Workplan/Schedule and allocation of staff hours and
appropriate resourcing
vii) Quality and cost control plan
The second submission (part 2) consisting of the corresponding price information was
reviewed and evaluated only after the information in the first submission had been
evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the RFP document (refer to Attachment
1, Section 3.4).
Page 59 of 117
The firm selected by the Evaluation Committee is Doug Dixon & Associates Inc. The
proposal submitted by Doug Dixon & Associates was the highest scoring qualified
proposal and thus represented the best complete quality submission.
All Proponents that submitted a proposal to the County will be advised of the contract
award and will be offered a debriefing of their individual proposal submission.
Financial Implications:
The total cost for engineering design services is $419,000 (excluding HST).
Construction inspection and contract administration costs are not included at this stage
of the process as the final design and construction phasing schedule has not been
determined. Once finalized, the consultant will be requested to provide a quotation for
construction inspection and contract administration services for the project.
The 2026 Capital Budget included an estimated $1,018,217 for the project engineering
costs. Once a detailed project cost estimate is prepared, supplemental project
investment will be included within the 2027 capital budget to complete the work,
therefore sufficient project amounts exist to fund these services. $7.4M has been
currently included in the 10-year capital plan in 2028 for construction costs. This amount
will be adjusted once a detailed engineering cost estimate is prepared.
Alignment with Strategic Priorities:
This initiative supports the responsible maintenance and management of County assets
as laid out in the Asset Management Plan. This work reflects the County's ongoing
commitment to maintaining safe, functional, and efficient facilities and infrastructure.
Local Municipal Partner Impact:
The Port Burwell Bridge provides a critically important connection for the community
and the broader transportation network. Construction closure risks will be mitigated as
best possible. Public engagement will be an important component of the engineering
assignment and local staff will continue to be involved throughout the project.
Communication Requirements:
A project website will be developed for this project to inform the public and stakeholders
about the project utilizing the County's Engage Elgin web portal.
Conclusion:
As detailed above, the Evaluation Committee completed a `Quality Based' evaluation
and selection process in accordance with Request for Proposal 2026-P23, and
subsequently the proposal submission from Doug Dixon & Associates was deemed the
successful qualified proponent and is recommended for award.
Page 60 of 117
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
Peter Dutchak
Director of Engineering Services
Blaine Parkin
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 61 of 117
1/0
qun C 0 U n t,y,
ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE PORT BURWELL BRIDGE
(1345) REHABILITATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
No. 2026-P23
Proposals shall be received by the Bidding System no later than:
June 3, 2026 @ 3:00 p.m. (local time)
Issue Date: May 4, 2026
Documents are available in accessible format and/or with communication supports upon request.
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES- PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
INDEX
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS............................................................................3
SECTION 1.0
- INFORMATION TO PROPONENTS............................................................4
1.1
Introduction and Background...........................................................................4
1.2
Proposal Format and Delivery.........................................................................4
1.3
Designated Official...........................................................................................5
1.4
Questions / Inquiries........................................................................................5
1.5
Site Tour / Information Meeting.......................................................................6
1.6
Addenda...........................................................................................................6
1.7
RFP Schedule..................................................................................................6
1.8
Proponent Communications............................................................................7
1.9
Proponent Investigations.................................................................................7
1.10
Notice of No Response....................................................................................7
SECTION 2.0
- TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................8
2.1
Introduction......................................................................................................8
2.2
Background......................................................................................................8
2.3
Consultants' Scope of Services.......................................................................8
2.4
General Design Requirements......................................................................12
2.5
Inspection and Contract Administration.........................................................13
2.6
Reporting Schedule.......................................................................................13
2.7
Project Schedule............................................................................................14
2.8
Deliverables...................................................................................................14
2.9
Information Provided by the County..............................................................15
SECTION 3.0
- PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................16
3.1
Proposal Submissions...................................................................................16
3.2
Proposal Submission Requirements -Technical Proposal (Part 1).............16
3.3
Financial Submission Requirements - Financial Proposal (Part 2)...............18
3.4
Evaluation Process........................................................................................18
3.5
Evaluation Criteria..........................................................................................19
3.6
Ratings...........................................................................................................20
3.7
Presentation and Interview............................................................................21
SECTION 4.0
- GENERAL CONDITIONS...........................................................................22
4.1
Rights of the County......................................................................................22
4.2
Conflict of Interest..........................................................................................22
4.3
Modified Proposals........................................................................................23
4.4
Disqualification of Proponents.......................................................................23
4.5
Confidentiality.................................................................................................23
4.6
Proposal Assignments...................................................................................23
4.7
Procurement Policy........................................................................................24
4.8
Failure to Perform..........................................................................................24
4.9
Award and Agreement...................................................................................24
1
Page 63 of 117
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
4.10
Insurance Requirements................................................................................24
4.11
1 ndem nif ication...............................................................................................25
4.12
WSIB Requirements......................................................................................25
4.13
Compliance with the Accessibility for Ontario with Disabilities Act 2005 ......25
4.14
Disqualification...............................................................................................26
4.15
Record and Reputation..................................................................................26
4.16
Proponent's Costs..........................................................................................27
4.17
Legal Matters and Rights of the County........................................................27
4.18
Human Rights, Harassment and Occupational Health and Safety...............28
4.19
Pandem ics.....................................................................................................28
4.20
Clarification....................................................................................................28
4.21
Supplementary Information............................................................................28
4.22
Default / Non-Performance............................................................................29
APPENDIX A - SAMPLE AGREEMENT.............................................................................30
E
Page 64 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
The following definitions apply to the interpretation of the Request for Proposal Documents;
1. "Addenda or Addendum" means such further additions, deletions, modifications or other
changes to any Request for Proposal Documents.
2. "Authorized Person" means;
i. For a Proponent who is an individual or sole proprietor that person.
ii. For a Proponent which is a partnership, any authorized partner of the Proponent.
iii. For a Proponent which is a corporation:
a) any officer of director of the corporation; and
b) any person whose name and signature has been entered on the document
submitted with the Request for Proposal, as having been authorized to
participate in the completion, correction, revision, execution, or withdrawal of
the submission, whether that person is or is not an officer or director.
iv. For a Proponent that is a joint venture, the submission shall be signed by a person
for and on behalf of each joint venture or, if they warrant that they have the authority
vested in them to do so, one person so authorized may sign on behalf of all joint
venture's.
3. "Bidding System" means the County's bid portal website operated by bids&tendersTm and
posted as https:Helgincounty.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en
4. "Consultant" means the Proponent whose Proposal has been approved by the County and
who will complete the scope of services.
5. "County" refers to the Corporation of the County of Elgin.
6. "Designated Official" refers to the Manager of Procurement & Risk for the County of Elgin.
7. "Proposal" means the Response in the form prescribed by this Request for Proposal
Documentand completed and submitted by a Proponent in response to and in compliance
with the Request for Proposal.
8. "Proponent" means the legal entity submitting a Proposal.
9. "Request for Proposal (RFP)" means the document issued by the County in response to
which Proponents are invited to submit a Proposal that will result in the satisfaction of the
County's objectives in a cost-effective manner.
10. "Successful Proponent" means the Proponent whose Proposal has been approved by the
County.
c
Page 65 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
SECTION 1.0 - INFORMATION TO PROPONENTS
1.1 Introduction and Backaround
The County of Elgin is situated in the heart of southwestern Ontario along the north shore of
Lake Erie and due south of Highway 401 in what can be best described as a rich agricultural
zone complemented by industry. The County is an upper -tier municipality comprised of seven
local municipalities (excluding St. Thomas) covering an area of 460,000 acres, with a population
of approximately 52,000 people. For more information on the County and the services we
provide, visit www.elgincounty.ca
The County of Elgin is inviting proposals from Consulting Engineers to undertake the detailed
design for the Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation project. The Port Burwell Bridge was originally
constructed in 1969 and has had a series of rehabilitations over the years. Several major
components of the structure have reached the end of their life and require replacement as
recommended in the Port Burwell Bridge Inspection Report prepared in August 2025 by Spriet
Associates Ltd.
The successful engineering firm will possess the requisite technical skills to deal with the matters
to be addressed in the following tasks and will be required to work directly with County staff, the
public and other agencies in a professional manner. The firm, in addition to technical
qualifications, must exhibit skills such as timeliness, diplomacy, tact, strong communication
ability and an understanding of the County.
Further information regarding the scope of work is included in Section 2.0.
1.2 Proposal Format and Delivery
ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONSY, shall be received by the Bidding System.
Hardcopy subm issions not permitted.
All Proponents shall have a Bidding System Vendor account with bids&tendersTm and be
registered as a Plan Taker for this RFP opportunity, which will enable the Proponent to download
the Request for Proposal document, download Addendums, receive email notifications pertaining
to this RFP and to submit their Proposal electronically through the Bidding System.
Proponents are cautioned that the timing of their Proposal Submission is based on when the
Proposal is RECEIVED by the Bidding System, not when a Proposal is submitted, as Proposal
transmission can be delayed due to file transfer size, transmission speed, etc.
For the above reasons, it is recommended that sufficient time be allocated to complete your
proposal submission and attachment(s) (if applicable) and resolve any issues that may arise. The
closing time and date shall be determined by the Bidding System's web clock.
Proponents should contact bids&tenders TM support listed below, at least twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the closing time and date, if they encounter any problems. The Bidding System will send
a confirmation email to the Proponent advising that their Proposal was submitted successfully. If
you do not receive a confirmation email, contact bids&tenders TM support at
support(o)_bidsandtenders. ca.
M
Page 66 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
Late Proposals are not permitted by the Bidding System.
To ensure receipt of the latest information and updates via email regarding this RFP, or if a
Proponent has obtained this RFP document from a third party, the onus is on the Proponent to
create a Bidding System Vendor account and register as a Plan Taker for the RFP opportunity.
Proponents may edit or withdraw their Proposal submission prior to the closing time and date.
However, the Proponent is solely responsible to ensure the re -submitted Proposal is received by
the Bidding System no later than the stated closing time and date.
The onus unequivocally remains with the Proponent to ensure that the Proposal is submitted
electronically prior to the deadline and in accordance with the submission instructions.
The County, its elected officials, employees and agents shall not be responsible for any
liabilities, costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by any Proponent,
prior or subsequent to, or by reason of the acceptance, or non -acceptance by the County of any
Proposal, or by reason of any delay in the acceptance of any Proposal.
The County shall not be liable for any cost of preparation or presentation of Proposals, and all
Proposals and accompanying documents submitted by the Proponent become the property of
the County and will not be returned. There will be no payment to Proponents for work related to,
and materials supplied in the preparation, presentation and evaluation of any Proposal, nor for
the Contract negotiations whether they are successful or unsuccessful.
1.3 Designated Official
For the purpose of this contract Mike Hoogstra, Manager of Procurement & Risk for the County
is the "Designated Official" and shall perform the following functions: releasing, recording, and
receiving Proposals, recording and checking of submissions; answering queries from
perspective proponents, considering extensions of time, reviewing Proposals received, ruling on
those not completing meeting requirements and coordinating the evaluation of the responses.
1.4 Questions / Inquiries
All inquiries regarding this RFP shall be directed through the Bidding System online by clicking
on the "Submit a Question" button for this bid opportunity. Questions submitted through the
Bidding System are directed to the Designated Official.
The deadline for submitting questions is noted in Section 1.7.
If during the period prior to submission of Proposals, the County determines, in its sole and
unfettered discretion, that part of the RFP requires formal amendment or clarification, written
Addenda to this RFP will be distributed to all registered Proponents.
No clarification requests will be accepted by telephone, fax or in -person meeting. Responses to
clarification requests will be provided to all interested parties. Inquiries must not be directed to
other County employees or elected officials. Directing inquiries to other than the Designated
Official may result in your submission being rejected.
Page 67 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
1.5 Site Tour / Information Meeting
A mandatory site tour is not required as part of this RFP. It is recommended that proponents visit
the bridge site themselves to ensure the assignment can accurately be scoped and bid upon.
1.6 Addenda
The County may at its discretion, amend or supplement the RFP documents by Addendum at
any time prior to the closing date. Changes to the RFP documents shall be made by Addendum
only. Such changes made by Addendum shall be supplementary to and form an integral part of
the RFP documents and should be allowed for in arriving at the total cost. The County will make
every effort to issue all Addenda no later than three (3) days prior to the closing date.
Proponents shall acknowledge receipt of any Addenda through the Bidding System by checking
a box for each Addendum and any applicable attachment.
It is the sole responsibility of the Proponent to have received all Addenda that are issued.
Proponents should check online at https:Helgincounty.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en
prior to submitting their Proposal and up until the RFP closing time and date in the event
additional Addenda are issued.
If a Proponent submits their Proposal prior to the RFP closing time and date and an Addendum
has been issued, the Bidding System shall WITHDRAW the Proposal submission and the bid
status will change to an INCOMPLETE STATUS and Withdraw the Proposal. The Proponent
can view this status change in the "MY BIDS" section of the Bidding System.
The Proponent is solely responsible to:
• make any required adjustments to their Proposal; and
• acknowledge the Addenda; and
• Ensure the re -submitted Proposal is RECEIVED by the Bidding System no later than the
stated RFP closing time and date.
The Proponent shall not rely on any information or instructions from the County or a County
Representative except the RFP Documents and any Addenda issued pursuant to this section.
1.7 RFP Schedule
The RFP process will be governed according to the following schedule. Although every attempt
will be made to meet all dates, the County reserves the right to modify or alter any or all dates at
its sole discretion by notifying all Proponents through the Bidding System.
Issue RFP:
May 4, 2026
Site Tour:
N/A
Last Date for Questions:
May 27, 2026
RFP Close:
June 3, 2026
Interviews/Presentations:
TBD*
Award of Contract:
July 14, 2026*
*Dates noted above are an approximation only and are subject to change.
Page 68 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
1.8 Proponent Communications
Each Proponent is solely responsible to ensure that all contact information for the Proponent is
accurate and updated at all times during the RFP process. Proponents may update or revise
their contact information in their Bidding System Vendor account. All correspondence from the
County to a Proponent will be issued through the Bidding System.
1.9 Proponent Investigations
Each Proponent is solely responsible, at its own cost and expense, to carry out its own
independent research, due diligence or to perform any other investigations, including seeking
independent advice, considered necessary by the Proponent to satisfy itself as to all existing
conditions affecting the Proposal for this RFP. The Proponents' obligations set out in this RFP
apply irrespective of any background information provided by the County or information
contained in the RFP Documents or in responses to questions.
The County does not represent or warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information set
out in the RFP Documents or made available to Proponents. The Proponents shall make such
independent assessments as they consider necessary to verify and confirm the accuracy and
completeness of all such information as any use of or reliance by Proponents an any and all
such information shall be at the Proponent's sole risk and without recourse against the County.
1.10 Notice of No Response
If you are unable, or do not wish to provide a Proposal, please complete a notice of no response
form in the Bidding System. It is important to the County to receive a reply from all Proponents.
Page 69 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
SECTION 2.0 - TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.1 Introduction
The County of Elgin is inviting proposals from Consulting Engineering firms to undertake the
detailed design of the Port Burwell Bridge (1345) Rehabilitation Project.
It is the intent of the County to secure an Engineering firm who will be the County's prime
Consultant for the engineering and project administration of these projects.
The successful Consultant and subsequent subconsultants will possess the requisite technical
skills to manage and address the tasks described herein and will be required to work directly
with County staff, the public and other agencies in a professional manner.
2.2 Background
As recommended as part of the County's 2023 OSIM program, the County undertook a detailed
condition survey and enhanced OSIM inspection report for the Port Burwell Bridge. Spriet
Associates Ltd. undertook the inspection with Bridge Check Canada undertaking a Detailed
Condition Survey Report in August 2024. Both reports are included in the RFP package for
reference.
The conclusions of the report were that the original concrete deck deterioration was not fully
removed during the last rehabilitation. In addition, the chloride contamination extended to the
upper reinforcing steel level in large areas of the deck. These chloride contaminations levels are
very high, indicating significant corrosion is occurring in the original deck reinforcing steel. The
reinforcing steel in the concrete overlay is not experiencing corrosion as the steel is epoxy
coated. However, this concrete overly is not bonded to the original deck due to continued
corrosion occurring in the original deck. This is causing the overlay to fail as the high chloride
content from the original deck is migrating to the overlay.
In addition, since the bridge's original design, live loads used to design the structural girders
have significantly increased. This increase results in the bridge girders experiencing factor
moments and reactions of 2.07 times greater than originally intended, which is a significant
amount.
2.3 Consultants' Scope of Services
The scope of work is to provide complete project engineering, reporting, detailed design and
tender preparation services to remove the existing bridge superstructure (deck, girders, barriers,
etc.) in their entirety and design a new superstructure meeting current standards utilizing the
existing abutments and piers with modifications in accordance with the most current edition of
the Provincial Structural Manual, the Canadian Bridge Design Code and all Provincial
Standards.
Page 70 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
Environmental Assessment (EA)
• With reference to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Feb. 2024 —
the County would anticipate the project fall under "Municipal Road Projects — Category
31a" being that the structure is over 40 years old and is assumed to have no cultural
heritage value or interest. It is therefore expected to be an exempt project under the
MCEA.
o For fulsome review of the above, the Consultant shall assume as part of their
submission, a Municipal Heritage Bridge Checklist be completed to review the
structure for cultural heritage value
o If the structure is found to have cultural heritage value, a Heritage Impact
Assessment will have to be completed and the heritage attributes be
conserved in accordance with the recommendations — as it is assumed to not
have cultural heritage value or interest, this is not to be included in the scope of
services or pricing at this time.
Archaeological Assessment
• The project is not expected to involve disturbance to the bed of a waterbody as part of
the structure's removals or reconstruction.
• Minimal disturbance is expected to the surrounding lands as part of required
rehabilitation and enhancements required to the existing abutments and piers — all of
which are within the existing public right-of-way.
• As noted above, if the project is found to have cultural heritage value or interest, an
Archaeological Screening Process must be completed to remain exempt under the
MCEA — as it is assumed to not have heritage value or interest this shall not be
included in the submission or budget and would be discussed at a later date with
respect to budget and timeline if it were required.
Sediment, Erosion and Environmental
• The Consultant shall prepare draft sediment, erosion and concrete containment
drawings for review by the Conservation Authority as Big Otter Creek is within the
regulated area of the CA.
• As part of this work, the Consultant shall be required to obtain a permit from the Long
Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) under O.Reg. 41/24.
• The County of Elgin will pay for the permit directly and this shall not be included as part
of the budget.
• The Consultant shall incorporate comments from the Conservation Authority as part of
the tender package.
o The Contractor shall be responsible for preparing final ESC drawings and
concrete / demolition containment drawings for approval by the Consultant and
for review by the CA's.
9
Page 71 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
• The Consultant shall also exercise due diligence for any anticipated Designated
Substances under O.Reg. 490/09.
Permitting
• In addition to the above permit required from the Conservation Authority, the
Consultant shall also be responsible for federal permits required from Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO), and Transport Canada's Navigation Protection Program (NPP)
as Big Otter Creek is a navigable waterway.
• The Consultant, within its expertise, shall apply for any other associated permits it
would deem necessary as part of the work contemplated not explicitly noted above.
• All permit costs will be paid directly by the County but permit submission, and
associated documentation required shall be the responsibility of the Consultant as part
of this scope of work.
Project Management
• Conduct an in -person kick-off meeting with the County, Municipality and any other
persons intimately involved with the project.
• Due to the scale of the project, the Consultant shall assume monthly progress
meetings for a total of eighteen (18) meetings held from the kick-off meeting to the final
IFT package.
• Prepare technical draft documents for use by Elgin County's Communications
Department for the purpose of a project webpage.
o The County will utilize its Engage Elgin webpage and will require updates,
drafts, concept plans, renderings, etc. for the purpose of public information and
engagement.
• Due to the scale, potential disruption and cost of the project, the County intends to hold
a PIC for the project near the 90% phase to garner public input and provide public
awareness. The Consultant shall prepare concept plans, information boards and plan
for one public PIC. The County will be responsible for all facility rental costs related to
the PIC.
• Tendering support including addendum responses, clarifications, drawing revisions and
reissuing as required to prepare Issued for Construction (IFC) drawings.
Utility Coordination
• As part of the structure, several different pieces of critical infrastructure exist, the
following utilities are noted with their respective owner, as part of this work, the
Consultant shall be responsible for meeting with all associated owners to discuss
required temporary measures, removal and replacement where required as it is
assumed the replaced structure will continue to support this infrastructure.
o Watermain —Municipality of Bayham
o Sanitary Forcemain — Municipality of Bayham
o Gas Main — EPCOR
o Hydro — Supplied by Hydro One to support County owned streetlights
10
Page 72 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
• The Consultant shall be responsible for the design of temporary measures required to
support the above services and shall design the permanent replacement of the above
utilities where appropriate for approval by their respective owners.
• If upgrades are required to meet current design, future capacity, etc. the respective
owner shall be responsible for providing design standards to the Consultant.
• Costs for temporary support, removal and replacement shall be categorized by
respective owner for cost recovery by the utility provider.
Survey and Base Plan
• The Consultant is expected as part of the detailed design assignment to complete a
topographic survey and legal survey of the road allowance from Hurley Street to
Robinson Street (CR19) —200m outside of the expansion joints.
• The Consultant, at their discretion, should extend this investigation as required for
stormwater and roadside safety improvements in proximity to the structure.
Risk Assessment
• Due to the potential disruption to the public, commuting, tourism impacts, EMS and
utilities, the Consultant shall prepare an environmental risk assessment and present it
to County Council at the 30% design phase.
• The risk assessment shall consider the possibility of keeping one lane open for the
public and EMS vs. a full closure of the structure and detail the consequences and
proposed mitigation activities for each solution.
• Further detailed in Section 2.6, a suitable detour is not available should the bridge be
closed and meetings with EMS, school buses and the County's Emergency
Management department will be required to ensure plans are in place during a
potential full closure.
• The consultant shall present the above risk assessment to County Council to explore
different options and ultimately recommend a method of construction prior to
proceeding to the 60% design phase.
Detailed Design Drawings and Reporting
• The Consultant shall prepare a detailed design drawing package in accordance with
the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Provincial Structural Manual, relevant
Ontario Traffic Manuals (OTM) and the County's Stormwater CLI-ECA.
• While not currently part of the County's cycling master plan, the Port Burwell bridge
forms part of the Waterfront Trail and Trans Canada Trail cycling routes —the structure
shall therefore consider cyclists as part of the design.
• Pedestrian level aesthetic enhancements are encouraged in the design such as design
consistency with the Port Bruce Bridge and pedestrian level improvements (sidewalk
width, lighting, etc.).
All drawings are to be prepared in a digital format using AutoCAD Civil3D version 2018 or later.
11
Page 73 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
All documentation is to be as per the specifications of the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA).
Appropriate requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (2024) must be followed. This is assumed to be an exempt project as noted above.
The Consultant will be required to obtain and manage the services of any additional firms or sub -
consultants necessary to provide information required for the completion of the project.
The Proponent shall address all tasks and include the cost for all sub -consultants noted in the
Terms of Reference. The Consultant shall not transfer task(s) or cost of task(s), to the County or
act as a coordinator between the County and any sub -consultant or delete tasks in the RFP.
2.4 General Design Requirements
a) Conduct a project initiation meeting with the Project Team.
b) Investigating and confirming the present location(s) of all utilities potentially impacted
by the project. Coordinating with the utility companies any possible utility stake outs
and/or relocation as required. Locations of existing utilities to be collected to be
displayed on design drawings.
c) The Consultant will be required to liaise with and attend a reasonable number of
meetings with the appropriate authorities, including but not limited to: The County of
Elgin, local municipalities, utility providers (as noted above), and other regulatory
agencies, as required, to obtain their input and requirements for the project. For
consistency among Proponents, the Consultant shall allow for a minimum of eighteen
(18) project team meetings (including the initiation meeting) at the County
Administration Building (450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON).
d) Review all the available documents and investigate the existing conditions. Conduct a
site investigation to assess the site -specific requirements related to the bridge
including, but not necessarily limited to, the requirements of the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code CAN.CSA S6:19, current edition, MTO Structural Manual and all
other applicable MTO directives.
e) Undertake field survey work required for:
o Estimation of quantities
o Assessment of vegetative and underground features
f) Prepare detailed design drawings (1.250 scale) for construction. Incorporate comments
raised by the County, agencies and the Public, where appropriate. Design drawings to
be submitted to the County in a timely fashion for review and comment.
g) Submit application(s), plans, supporting documentation for any agency/authority
approval, as required. Attend meetings at the offices of the agencies to discuss the
design and provide explanations for the purpose of furthering the application towards
approval. Application fees will be paid by the County.
12
Page 74 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES- PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
h) Prepare contract documents (Special Provisions and Form of Tender) for the project
including tender quantities, material lists, specifications and special provisions. The
County's Standard Tender documents will be used for this project. Including a detailed
itemized construction cost estimate.
i) Provide a complete set of drawings in PDF and AutoCAD Civil3D digital formats and a
digital copy of tender documents in Microsoft Word and/or Microsoft Excel format and
one form of tender in Excel Format.
j) The Consultant shall provide the County's Project Manager with a monthly financial
report to accompany invoices, indicating the status of the project with early
identification of any potential financial issues.
k) The Consultant shall acknowledge that any expenditure beyond the upset limit will
require appropriate written approval.
2.5 Inspection and Contract Administration
During the construction phase of the project, the Consultant shall provide full-time construction
inspection and contract administration services and act on behalf of the County to be the direct
contact person for all project inquiries. Inspection and Contract Administration (CA) costs
are not part of this submission and will be reviewed at the tendering phase for
appropriate scope, schedule and cost.
The County requests, however, that as part of the financial submission, the Consultant shall
provide a detailed time and cost estimate for full-time inspection and CA assuming the bridge
can remain open to one lane at a time. This information will not be utilized in the evaluation of
this RFP. This will be used by the County to plan 2028 and 2029 budgets and will be further
reviewed at time of tender for award pending County Council direction and outcomes from the
detailed design.
2.6 Reporting Schedule
The reporting schedule will be as follows:
• 30% drawing submission.
o The County's intention at the 30% stage of the design would be to present
options to County Council with respect to a full closure vs. ability to keep one
lane open at a time (if possible). Given possible cost and time savings, County
Council may opt for a full closure of the structure to expedite construction. The
Consultant shall be expected to prepare an Environmental Risk Assessment
noting considerations of both options including: safety considerations, cost and
time savings.
o A full closure will require further consideration due to the location of the Bayham
Township Fire Station 1 west of the bridge and the shortest route to reach the
east side of Port Burwell is -9km.
13
Page 75 of 117
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES- PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
o Should County Council elect to proceed with this option, it's assumed that a
meeting will be held with the Bayham Fire Department to plan EMS services
during construction and any other considerations as part of the design.
• 60% drawing submission.
o At the 60% drawing submission stage, the County would intend to prequalify
Contractor's for the project utilizing the drawing package. The Consultant would
be expected to assist in the prequalification process of potential Contractor's.
• 90% drawing submission.
o Preliminary form of tender, specifications and cost estimates to aid the County in
setting 2028 budget allocation for the project.
• IFT drawing submission including all detail plans, removals, traffic management plans,
etc.
Final submission to include stamped tender ready plans, specifications, form of tender and a
detailed construction cost estimate.
2.7 Project Schedule
The anticipated project schedule will be as follows:
• Kickoff Meeting August 2026
• Design Concept Review (30%) November 2026
• 60% Design Submission March 2027
• 90% Design Submission & Construction Estimate July 2027
• 100% Tender Ready October 2027
• Construction" April 2028 — October 2029
"Pending County Council direction.
2.8 Deliverables
The deliverables for this project are summarized below:
• Preliminary and detailed design plans as noted in the Reporting Schedule.
• Reports, memos, communications, etc., as may be required during the course of this
assignment.
• Approvals and permits from all external agencies for all construction to proceed.
• PDF and CAD format drawings and a digital copy of tender documents and form of
tender.
• Monthly construction meeting agendas /minutes and progress payment certificates.
• As -constructed drawings in PDF and CAD for the County's asset inventory
14
Page 76 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
2.9 Information Provided by the County
The County will supply the following items:
• Access to all available plans and reports (if available).
• Standard template for use in preparing specifications and form of tender.
• General direction to the Consultant in completing the services and granting of approvals
as necessary in a timely fashion.
• Review of information and plans prepared by the Consultant and comment in a timely
fashion.
• Other documentation as available.
Attachments:
• 042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Bridge Details
• 042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Bridge Elevation Drawing
• 042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Deck Assessment 2006
• 042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Deck Condition Survey 1985
• 042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Pictures 1983-1990
• 045-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell Site Plan and Alignment 1963 (Previous structure)
• 224036 — Port Burwell Bridge Inspection Report —August 2025
• 224036 — Port Burwell Bridge Inspection Report — Photo Record — March 2025
• B45 — 2023 OS I M
• BCC24042 — Revised Draft Report — Site No. 005-157 — August 2024
• Port Burwell Bridge Watermain and Forcemain Details — 1994
15
Page 77 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
SECTION 3.0 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Proposal Submissions
ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONSY, shall be received by the Bidding System.
The Proposal Submission shall comprise of two (2) separate Proposal submission files as
detailed in section 3.2
Hardcopy subm issions not permitted.
This RFP is a two -stage submission and requires that pricing be included separately as Part 2.
Any submissions which contain pricing information in the Technical Proposal (Part 1) will be
rendered informal and will be disqualified. All information related to fees/pricing must be
submitted in Part 2 only.
Failure to include the submission requirements may result in your Proposal being disqualified.
3.2 Proposal Submission Requirements — Technical Proposal (Part 1
Proponents shall upload a PDF Proposal Submission to the Bidding System.
The submission shall be no longer than twenty (20) single sided pages (Arial 12 font or
equivalent), excluding the Curricula Vitae. The submission should include all of the
information listed in this Technical Proposal Requirements section.
Each response to a request should clearly identify the section of this RFP to which it is
responding (by number and heading). The Proponent should provide information of sufficient
scope and depth to demonstrate the ability of the Proponent to deliver the services described in
this RFP.
Information submitted is subject to verification, and further pertinent information may be obtained
from references.
The Proposal submissions must include at a minimum the following information and
shall be submitted in the same sequence in order to be considered responsive.
a) Section A: Overview / Project Understanding
A narrative demonstrating the firm's understanding of the full scope of services and key
issues, reasons why the Proponent is interested in taking on this project and its familiarity
with the County of Elgin.
b) Section B: Work Program
Provide a detailed project work plan summarizing the approach and methodology for the
specific tasks proposed. The work plan shall include resources necessary to meet the
project objectives and shall indicate the tools and techniques that will be used to ensure
the project remains on budget and on schedule. The Proponent shall identify issues and
risks associated with the project, including deviations to the project plan and how they
would handle and manage the risks through the course of the project.
16
Page 78 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
c) Section C: Project Team — Own Personnel
Identify the Project Team proposed for the assignment. For each member of the Project
Team, confirm if the individual is a full-time, permanent employee of the Proponent and
the estimated number of hours allocated to accomplish each task by staff person.
Provide a complete company profile including the resumes and relevant experience
(while employed by the proponent) of the proposed project manager. Provide
confirmation that the individuals that will serve as the key personnel for the duration of the
project assignment are available to work on this project. Provide prime consultant contact
info for the Project Manager last two completed projects.
d) Section D: Project Team — Specialist Consultants
Identify the other members of the Project Team proposed for the assignment. For each
member of the Project Team, identify specific role/specialty, the individual responsible,
and their specific experience as it pertains to this assignment.
Describe the organization of the Project Team. Demonstrate the experience and
capability of the members of the Project Team. Provide resumes for all members of the
project team clearly indicating that the personnel have experience in the provision of the
Scope of Services, identification of the personnel's education qualifications, professional
affiliations, years of experience in the field, and the number of years with the firm. It is
important that your Project Team show a proven track record in designing and detailing
similar facilities and show foresight in resolving problems before construction starts.
Provide confirmation that the individuals that will serve as the key personnel for the
duration of the project assignment are available to immediately commence on this
project.
e) Section E: Project Schedule
Provide a comprehensive project timeline / schedule in the form of a Gantt chart (or
equal) which identifies the proposed scheduling of all major project tasks as identified in
the Terms of Reference including scheduling of all milestones and any scheduling
dependency relationships between activities, tasks and/or phases of the project. Indicate
any possible areas that have flexibility to provide time and cost savings.
f) Section F: Client References
Provide at least three (3) references the County may contact. References should be from
sources of similar project experience relevant to the requirements of this project and
include projects where various timelines and schedules were managed simultaneously,
and the timeline and budget were met to deliver a successful project. Where the budget
and timeline were not met, include details regarding the challenges faced and the
workarounds utilized to complete the project.
17
Page 79 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
3.3 Financial Submission Requirements - Financial Proposal (Part 2)
Proponents are required to complete the electronic Pricing Forms in the Bidding System. The
total estimated cost including disbursements for the work proposed shall be considered in the
upset limit. Fees & expenses shall not include contingencies or HST.
The upset limit shall be inclusive of all required tasks and sub -consultants identified in the Terms
of Reference.
The Proposal must clearly state which services are not included in your financial pricing
subm ission.
Part 2 will only be unsealed if Technical Proposal (Part 1) scores a minimum of 60 points out of
a possible 80 points (75%) by the evaluation team.
3.4 Evaluation Process
This is a multi -stage evaluation process that considers both the qualifications of the Proponent
and price.
Phase I: Technical Proposal
During this phase of the evaluation process, technical proposal submissions will be
reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee through a consensus method
based on the evaluation criteria set out in section 3.5.
The disclosure of the allocated weightings for each category/criteria is provided to
assist Proponents in preparing a submission that best meets the requirements of the
County.
Only submissions which score a minimum of 60 points out of a possible 80 points
in Phase I will have met the established threshold and pass to Phase II and will be
given further consideration for award.
Phase II: Financial Proposal
Only those Proponents who have met the established threshold will enter into Phase
11. If the Proponent does not meet the minimum criteria, they will not be
considered for Phase II or any subsequent award. Pricing will be unsealed and
will be calculated according to the example in section 3.6.
Each Proposal will be evaluated on its clarity and the demonstrated understanding of the Project
requirements, the services proposed and timeframes, as well as the proponent's experience and
the anticipated benefit to Elgin County. A short list of firms may be created for purposes of an
interview or presentation, should this be required. Proponents may be contacted to explain or
clarify their Proposals; however, they will not be permitted to alter information as submitted.
An Evaluation Committee will be established from members of the County or any others as
deemed necessary.
Proposals will be evaluated based on all information provided by the Proponent. Each Proposal
will be reviewed to determine if the Proposal is responsive to the submission requirements
18
Page 80 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
outlined in the RFP. Failure to comply with these requirements may deem the Proposal non-
responsive.
Selection of a Proposal will be based on (but not solely limited to) the following criteria and any
other relevant information provided by the Proponent at the time of submission as well as any
additional information provided during subsequent meetings with the Proponent.
In recognition of the importance of the procedure by which a Proponent may be selected, the
following criterion outlines the primary considerations to be used in the evaluation and
consequent awarding of this project (not in any order). The County reserves the right to
evaluate and rank each submission using criterion noted. Actual scores will be confidential.
The County reserves the right to request confidential references for any of the proponent's
projects listed, as well as any of the proponent's other projects, and factor the ratings from all
references, whether completed or in progress.
3.5 Evaluation Criteria
Submissions will be evaluated by an evaluation committee based on the following categories.
The disclosure of the allocated weightings for each category is provided to assist in preparing a
Proposal that best meets the requirements of the County.
By responding to this RFP, Proponents agree to accept the decision of the evaluation
committee as final.
Proposals will be evaluated based on the following weighted evaluation factors:
Maximum
Rated Criteria
Weight
Points
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
80 POINTS
Understanding of the Project
Understanding of the Project Goals, Objectives, Scope and Key Issues
20
Methodology and Approach to Project Tasks, Deliverables and
Consultation
Demonstrated Methodology and Approach to Completing Project Tasks
10
and Deliverables
Demonstrated methodology and approach to public and stakeholder
10
consultation that maintains a high engagement in meetings and other
consultation forums in a virtual/remote format or combination thereof of
in -person formats, for the duration of the assignment.
Project Team and Experience
Project Manager, Experience and Qualifications
10
Key Team Members and Sub Consultants (if any), Experience and
5
Qualifications
Project Firm Experience
Firms previous relevant experience
15
19
Page 81 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
Project Work Ian, Schedule and Quality / Cost Control Plan
Proposed Project Workplan and Schedule including milestones,
submissions and allocation of staff hours with appropriate resourcing
(time / task matrix)
5
Quality and Cost Control Plan
5
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
20 POINTS
Fees / Pricing / Total Overall Cost
20 points
TOTAL CUMULATIVE POINTS
100 POINTS
3.6 Ratings
The following ratings will be used to evaluate the technical portion of the RFP process. For
consistency, the table below describes the characteristics attributable to particular scores between
0 - 10.
0
Unacceptable
Did not submit information
1
Very Poor
Information provided does not meet any requirements
2
Poor
Barely meets some requirements, does not meet others.
3
Weak
Minimally addresses some, but not all of the requirement of the
scope. Lacking in critical areas
4
Below
Addresses most of the requirements of the criteria to the minimum
Average
acceptable level. Lacking in some areas.
Somewhat
Addresses most, but not all, of the requirements of the criteria to the
5
Satisfactory
minimum acceptable level. May be lacking in some areas that are
not critical.
6
Satisfactory
Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria. May be
lacking in some areas that are not critical.
7
Good
Meets all requirements of the criteria.
8
Very Good
Somewhat exceeds the requirements of the criteria.
9
Excellent
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria in ways that are beneficial.
10
Outstanding
Proposal exceeds the requirements of the criteria in superlative
ways / very desirable.
The firms achieving the minimum score identified will be shortlisted and Phase 2 of the
evaluation will be unsealed for consideration.
20
Page 82 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
The lowest cost proposed shall be awarded the full amount of points available for the fee portion
of the evaluation. All higher Proposals shall be awarded points, rounded to the closest full point
for the cost portion of the evaluation by the following:
Lowest Cost = Proposed Cost x Maximum Points = Total Cost Points.
It should be emphasized that pricing/cost is only one of the factors being considered in
determining the successful Proponent.
In submitting a Proposal, the Proponent acknowledges the County's right to accept other than
the lowest priced Proposal and expressly waives all rights for damages or redress as may exist
in common law stemming from the County's decision to accept a Proposal which is not the
lowest price Proposal, if it is deemed to be in the County's best interest to do so.
All qualified Proposal submissions will be reviewed and evaluated. Additional information may be
requested if necessary.
Only the Proposal response and Curricula Vitae requested will be evaluated. Proponents must
include all relevant information in the required page limit restriction identified in section 3.2.
3.7 Presentation and Interview
The County may have the two highest scoring Proponents attend an interview to present the
evaluation team with additional insight into the Proponent's ability to meet the requirements as
requested in the RFP. The County reserves the right to interview more or fewer than two
Proponents based on the scoring results. Note- If the County elects to interview short listed
proponents, the proposed Project Manager is required to attend.
The interviews would be conducted by the representatives of the Evaluation Committee via
Microsoft Teams Web Conferencing. Senior staff members to be assigned to this project must
attend the interview.
Presentations shall follow this general format:
➢ Introduction of Proponents Project Team (5 minutes)
➢ Proponent Presentation of the Proposal (15 minutes)
➢ Question and Answer session (10 minutes)
The Proponents will be notified of the final format and exact date and time for interviews /
presentations in advance.
For the interview portion of the evaluation (if required), the County of Elgin will be using the
rating criteria shown below and will evaluate each short-listed Proponent only.
Interview Criteria and Weighting (Second Stage if required):
Criteria Category
Weighted Points
Presentation
1 25
The score from the Proposal evaluations and the Interview will be combined to determine an
overall score.
21
Page 83 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
SECTION 4.0 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
4.1 Riahts of the Count
The County is not liable for any costs incurred by the Proponent in the preparation of their
response to the RFP or selection interviews, if required. Furthermore, the County shall not be
responsible for any liabilities, costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by
any Proponent, prior or subsequent to, or by reason of the acceptance, or non -acceptance by
the County of any Proposal or by reason of any delay in the award of the contract.
The County reserves the right to accept any Proposal, in whole or in part, that it feels most fully
meets the selection criteria. Therefore, the lowest cost Proposal, or any Proposal may not
necessarily be accepted. County staff shall evaluate all compliant Proposals received by the
closing time and make evaluations and recommendations for acceptance.
The County reserves the right to request specific requirements not adequately covered in their
initial submission and clarify information contained in the Request for Proposal.
The County reserves the right to modify any and all requirements stated in the Request for
Proposal at any time prior to the possible awarding of the contract.
The County reserves the right to cancel this Request for Proposal at any time, without penalty or
cost to the County. This Request for Proposal should not be considered a commitment by the
County to enter into any contract.
The County reserves the right to enter into negotiations with the selected Proponent. If these
negotiations are not successfully concluded, the County reserves the right to begin negotiations
with the next selected Proponent.
Proposals shall remain open and subject to acceptance for a period of ninety (90) days from
closing date.
In the event of any disagreement between the County and the Proponent regarding the
interpretation of the provisions of the Request for Proposal, the Director of Financial Services or
an individual acting in that capacity, shall make the final determination as to interpretation.
No Proposal shall be accepted from any person or Proponent who, has a claim or has instituted
a legal proceeding against the County or against whom the County has a claim or has instituted
a legal proceeding, without the prior approval of County Council. This applies whether the legal
proceeding is related or unrelated to the subject matter of this RFP.
4.2 Conflict of Interest
The Proponent declares that no person, firm or corporation with whom or which the Proponent
has an interest, has any interest in this RFP or in the proposed contract for which this Proposal
is made.
The Proponent further declares that no member of the Council of the County and no officer or
employee of the County will become interested directly or indirectly as a contracting party,
22
Page 84 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
partner, shareholder, surety, or otherwise in or in the performance of the Contract or in the
supplies, work or business to which it relates, or in any portion of the profits thereof, or in any of
the money to be derived therefrom.
Should the Proponent feel that a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists; the
Proponent must disclose this information to the County prior to the submission of a Proposal.
The County may, at its discretion, delay any evaluation or award until the matter is resolved to
the County's satisfaction. The County may allow a conflict of interest or potential conflict of
interest to exist if it is satisfied that there are adequate safeguards in place and if the County
determines that it is in its best interests to do so.
The County reserves the right to disqualify a Proposal where the County believes a conflict of
interest or potential conflict of interest exists.
4.3 Modified Proposals
In the event that a preferred Proposal does not entirely meet the requirements of the County, the
County reserves the right to enter into negotiations with the selected Proponent, to arrive at a
mutually satisfactory arrangement and to make any modifications to the Proposal as are in the
best interests of the County.
4.4 Disqualification of Proponents
More than one Proposal from an individual firm, partnership, corporation or association under
the same or different names will not be considered. A Proponent shall not discuss or
communicate, directly or indirectly with any other Proponent, any information whatsoever
regarding the preparation of its own Proposal or the Proposal of the other Proponent.
Proponents shall prepare and submit Proposals independently and without any connection,
knowledge, comparison of information or arrangement, direct or indirect with any other
Proponent. Collusion between Proponents will be sufficient for rejection of any Proposals so
affected.
4.5 Confidentiality
The Proposal must not be restricted by any statement, covering letter or alteration by the
Proponent in respect of confidential or proprietary information. The County will treat all
Proposals as confidential. The County will comply with the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, and its retention by-law pursuant to the Municipal Act, in respect
of all Proposals. All Public Reports approved by the Council of the County will become public
information.
4.6 Proposal Assignments
The successful Proponent will not be permitted to assign or transfer any portion of the Proposal
as submitted or the subsequent agreement without prior written approval from the County.
23
Page 85 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
4.7 Procurement Policy
Submissions will be solicited, received, evaluated, accepted and processed in accordance with
the County's Procurement Policy as amended from time to time. In submitting a Proposal in
response to this RFP, the Proponent agrees and acknowledges that it has read and will be
bound by the terms and conditions of the County's Procurement Policy. The Procurement Policy
can be viewed on the County's website, www.elgincounty.ca
4.8 Failure to Perform
Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this Proposal, and failure to supply all
documentation, as required herein, shall be just cause for cancellation of the award. The County
shall then have the right to award this contract to any other Proponent or to re -issue this RFP.
4.9 Award and Agreement
The Proponent that fully meets the requirements and scores the highest based on the evaluation
criteria, will be recommended for award. Once the award is made and approved by the County
or County Council, the report recommending such award including the total cost of the awarded
project shall be a matter of public record, unless otherwise determined by Council.
A written agreement, prepared by the County shall be executed by the County and an
Authorized Person of the successful Proponent. The complete Proposal response submitted by
the successful Proponent, together with the entire Request for Proposal documents prepared by
the County of Elgin, shall form part of the Agreement (see attached sample of agreement in
Appendix A).
4.10 Insurance Requirements
Any agreement resulting from this RFP will contain the following insurance requirements:
a) Comprehensive general liability insurance including bodily injury, property damage
liability, personal injury liability, completed operations liability, blanket contractual liability,
non -owned automobile and shall contain a severability of interest and cross liability clause
to a limit of no less than five million ($5,000,000) dollars in respect to any one occurrence.
The above -mentioned policy shall be endorsed to include the County of Elgin as an
Additional Insured.
b) Professional Liability insurance covering all activities as described in the Proponent's
Proposal to a limit of no less than two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate.
Such insurance shall provide coverage for errors and omissions made by the professional
in the rendering of, or failure to render, professional services in connection with the
Agreement. Upon completion of the work the policy shall remain in force for twelve (12)
months. The Proponent must confirm that any property damage, personal injury or
bodily injury resulting from an error or omission is considered an insurable loss whether
coverage is under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy or the Professional Liability
Policy (Errors & Omissions).
24
Page 86 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
c) Standard OAP 1 Automobile liability policy in the amount of two million ($2,000,000)
dollars.
d) The aforementioned policies of insurance shall contain or shall be subject to the following
terms and conditions:
➢ be written with an insurer licensed to do business in Ontario;
➢ be non-contributing with, and will apply only as primary and not excess to any other
insurance or self-insurance available to Elgin County;
➢ contain an undertaking by the insurer to notify the County in writing not less than sixty
(60) days before any material change in risk or cancellation of coverage.
➢ any deductible amounts shall be borne by the Proponent.
➢ Prior to the execution of the Agreement and within fifteen (15) business days of the
placement, renewal, amendment, or extension of all or any part of the insurance, the
Proponent shall promptly provide Elgin County with confirmation of coverage
insurance and, if required, a certified true copy(s) of the policy(s) certified by an
authorized representative of the insurer together with copies of any amending
endorsements applicable to the Agreement.
4.11 Indemnification
The successful Proponent shall indemnify and hold harmless the County of Elgin, its officers,
County Council, Employees and volunteers from and against any liabilities, claims, expenses,
demands, loss, cost, damages, suits or proceedings by whomsoever made, directly or indirectly
arising directly or indirectly by reason of a requirements of this agreement save and except for
damage caused by the negligence of the County or their employees.
4.12 WSIB Requirements
The successful Proponent shall furnish a WSIB Clearance Certificate rp for to commencement of
work and agrees to maintain their WSIB account in good standing throughout the contract
period.
If the successful Proponent is a self-employed individual, partner or executive officer who does
not pay WSIB premium and is recognized by WSIB as an "independent operator" a letter from
WSIB acknowledging independent contractor status and confirming that WSIB coverage is not
required must be provided to the County of Elgin prior to commencement of work.
4.13 Compliance with the Accessibility for Ontario with Disabilities Act 2005
The Proponent shall ensure that all its employees and agents receive training regarding the
requirements as outlined in the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (Ontario
Regulation 191/11) as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Proponent is responsible to
ensure that all of its employees, volunteers and others for which the Proponent is responsible
are adequately trained.
In accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 20051ntegrated
Accessibility Standards Regulation (Ontario Regulation 191111), the County requires content
25
Page 87 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
created for the municipality that is to be posted on our website to be provided in a format which
is compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA requirements. As required under Section 14 of the
regulation, any content published on our website after January 1, 2012 needs to be compliant
with the WCAG requirements by the timelines set out in the Regulation. It is the successful
Proponent's responsibility to produce the required documents in an accessible format
4.14 Disqualification
The County may, in its sole discretion, disqualify a Proposal or cancel its decision to make an
award under this RFP, at any time prior to the execution of the Agreement by the County, if,
➢ the Proponent fails to cooperate in any attempt by the County to verify any information
provided by the Proponent in its Proposal;
➢ the Proponent contravenes one Proposal per Person or Entity;
➢ the Proponent fails to comply with the laws of Ontario or of Canada, as applicable;
➢ the Proposal contains false or misleading information;
➢ the Proposal, in the opinion of the County, reveals a material conflict of interest;
➢ the Proponent misrepresents any information contained in its Proposal.
4.15 Record and Reputation
Without limiting or restricting any other right or privilege of the County and regardless of whether
or not a Proposal or a Proponent otherwise satisfies the requirements of this RFP, the County
may disqualify any Proposal from any Proponent, where;
➢ In the opinion of the County Solicitor or the Purchasing Coordinator for the County, the
commercial relationship between the Corporation of the County of Elgin and the
Proponent has been impaired by the prior and/or current act(s) or omission(s) of each
Proponent, including but not limited to:
a) Litigation with the County;
b) The failure of the Proponent to pay, in full, all outstanding accounts due to the County
by the Proponent after the County has made demand for payment;
c) The refusal to follow reasonable directions of the County or to cure a default under a
contract with the County as and when required by the County or it's representatives;
d) The Proponent has previously refused to enter into an Agreement with the County
after the Proponent's Proposal was accepted by the County;
e) The Proponent has previously refused to perform or to complete performance of
contracted work with the County after the Proponent was awarded the contract;
f) Act(s) or omission(s) of the Proponent has resulted in a claim by the County under a
bid bond, a performance bond, a warranty bond or any other security required to be
submitted by the Proponent on an RFP within the previous five years.
➢ In the opinion of County Council or the Chief Administrative Officer, or their designate,
there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would not be in the best interests of the
County to enter into an Agreement with the Proponent, for reasons including but not
limited to the conviction or finding of liability of or against the Proponent or its officers or
directors and any associated entities under any taxation legislation in Canada, any
criminal or civil law relating to fraud, theft, extortion, threatening, influence peddling and
26
Page 88 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
fraudulent misrepresentation, the Environmental Protection Act or corresponding
legislation in other jurisdictions, any law regarding occupational health or safety or the
Securities Act or related legislation.
4.16 Proponent's Costs
The Proponent shall bear all costs and expenses incurred by the Proponent relating to any
aspect of its participation in this RFP process, including all costs and expenses related to the
Proponent's involvement in;
➢ the preparation, presentation and submission of its Proposal;
➢ the Proponent's attendance at the Proponent's meeting;
➢ due diligence and information gathering processes;
➢ site visits and interviews;
➢ preparation of responses to questions or requests for clarification from the County;
➢ preparation of the Proponent's own questions during the clarification process; and,
➢ agreement discussions.
The County is not liable to pay such costs and expenses or to reimburse or compensate a
Proponent under any circumstances, regardless of the conduct or outcome of the RFP Process,
including the rejection of all Proposals or the cancellation of the RFP, and including any
negligence of the County in the conduct of the RFP process.
4.17 Legal Matters and Rights of the County
This RFP is not an offer to enter into either a Bidding contract (often referred to as "Contract A")
or a contract to carry out the project (often referred to as "Contract B"). Neither this RFP nor the
submission of a Proposal by a Proponent shall create any contractual rights or obligations
whatsoever on either the Proponent or the County.
The County may at its sole discretion change or discontinue this RFP process at any time
whatsoever. The County may in its sole discretion enter into negotiations with any person,
whether or not that person is a Proponent or a Short -Listed Proponent with respect to the work
that is the subject of this RFP.
The County may at its sole discretion decline to evaluate any Proposal that in the County's
opinion is incomplete, obscure or does not contain sufficient information to carry out a
reasonable evaluation.
Without limiting the generality of the RFP, the County may at its sole discretion and at any time
during the RFP process;
➢ reject any or all of the Proposals;
➢ accept any Proposal;
➢ if only one Proposal is received, elect to accept or reject it;
➢ elect not to proceed with the RFP;
➢ alter the timetable, the RFP process or any other aspect of this RFP; and
27
Page 89 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
➢ cancel this RFP and subsequently advertise or call for new Proposals for the subject
matter of this RFP.
In addition to and notwithstanding any other term of this RFP, the County shall not be liable for
any damages resulting from any claim or cause of action, whether based upon an action or
claim in contract, warranty, equity negligence, intended conduct or otherwise, including any
action or claim arising from the acts or omissions, negligent or otherwise of the County and
including any claim for direct, indirect or consequential damages, including but not limited to
damages for loss of profit, loss of reputation, injury to property and bodily injury that results from
the Proponents' participation in the RFP process, including but not limited to;
➢ the disclosure of a Proponent's confidential information;
➢ the costs of preparation of a Proponents Proposal, whether it is accepted, disqualified or
rejected;
➢ any delays, or any costs associated with such delays, in the RFP process;
➢ any errors in any information supplied by the County to the Proponents;
➢ the cancellation of the RFP; and
➢ the award of the contract to a Proponent other than the Proponent recommended by the
Proposal Review Committee.
4.18 Human Rights, Harassment and Occupational Health and Safety
The successful Proponent shall be required to comply with the County's policies regarding
Human Rights, Harassment in the Workplace and Occupational Health and Safety as well as all
Provincial and Federal laws, regulations and guidelines regarding Human Rights, Harassment in
the Workplace and Occupational Health and Safety.
4.19 Pandemics
Not applicable to this RFP.
4.20 Clarification
The County may require the Proponent to clarify the contents of its Proposal, including by the
submission of supplementary documentation, or seek a Proponent's acknowledgement of the
County's interpretation of the Proponent's Proposal.
The County is not obliged to seek clarification of any aspect of a Proposal.
4.21 Supplementary Information
The County may, in its sole discretion, request any supplementary information whatsoever from
a Proponent after the submission deadline including information that the Proponent could or
should have submitted in its Proposal prior to the submission deadline. The County is not
obliged to request supplementary information from a Proponent.
28
Page 90 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
4.22 Default / Non -Performance
The County will reserve the right to determine "non-performance" or "poor quality" of service and
further reserves the right to cancel any or all of this contract at any time should the Proponent's
performance not meet the terms and conditions of the RFP upon 30 days written notification to
the Proponent.
"Non-performance" shall mean the failure to meet the complete terms and conditions of this
Contract including, but not limited to, the response time. In the event of such cancellation, the
County retains the right to claim damages as a result of such default.
If the County terminates the Contract, it is entitled to:
a) withhold any furtherpaymentto the Proponent until the completion ofthe workand the expiry
of all obligations under the Contract; and
b) recover from the Proponent any loss, damage and expense incurred by the County by
reason of the default (which may be deducted from any monies due or becoming due to the
Proponent).
29
Page 91 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginICOL,111t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
APPENDIX A - SAMPLE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made effective this XXXX day of XXXXXXX, 2026.
BETWEEN:
-AND -
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
(hereinafter called "County")
(hereinafter called "Consultant")
OF THE FIRST PART
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS on <Insert Date>, the County issued Request for Proposal No. <Insert #> and
Addendum No. <X> dated <Insert Date> for <Insert Project Name> forthe County of Elgin (the
"RFP");
AND WHEREAS on <Insert Date> the Consultant submitted a Proposal in response to the RFP
(the "Proposal");
AND WHEREAS the County wishes to enter into an agreement with the Consultant for the
services, as more particularly described in the RFP Terms of Reference, attached hereto as
Schedule A forming part of this Agreement (the "Services");
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) now paid by the
Consultant to the County and performance of the promises, obligations and covenants herein
contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby irrevocably acknowledged,
the Parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
ARTIM F 1
The Consultant shall provide the Servicesset forth in Schedule 1" hereto, including but not lim iced
to satisfaction of all qualifications and requirements as set forth therein; provided that, if there
should be any conflict between the text of this Agreement and the provisions of the said Schedule
"1", the text of this Agreement shall prevail.
ARTICLE 2
The County covenants with the Consultant that the Consultant, having in all respects complied
with the provisions of this Agreement, will be paid for and in respect of all the work, at the quoted
prices or lump sum amount as detailed in Schedule <#>.
ARTICLE 3
The Term of this Agreement is deemed to commence on or about <Insert Date> and expire on
<Insert Date>.
ME
Page 92 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
ARTICLE 4
A copy of each of the Terms of Reference (as Schedule 1) and Addendum No. 1 (as Schedule 2)
are hereto annexed and together with the Consultant Proposal, General Conditions, Proposal
Requirements and Information for Proponents relating to the work contemplated herein, even
though not attached, all as listed in the RFP document, form part of and are deemed to be
incorporated into this Agreement.
ARTICLE 5
In case of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and the Terms
of Reference or General Conditions or RFP or any other document or writing, the provisions of
such documents shall take precedence and govern in the following order, namely:
a) Agreement;
b) Addenda;
c) Terms of Reference;
d) Consultant Proposal;
e) General Conditions;
f) Proposal Requirements;
g) Information to Proponents.
ARTICLE 6
Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time, without notice or creation of any right
to compensation or damages, forjust cause, which shall include, without limitation,
dishonesty, fraud, willful deceit or failure to properly fulfill the obligations hereunder where
such failure is not remedied within ten (10) days after notice of same is given.
Notwithstanding that set forth immediately above, either Party hereto may terminate this
Agreement, for convenience and without creating any right to compensation or damages, upon
giving at least ninety (90) days written notice to the other Party.
ARTICLE 7
The Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the County, including it elected officials,
officers, employees and agents and further including their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, and assigns (hereinafter collectively the "Releasees") from and against any and
all claims of any nature, actions, causes of action, losses, expenses, fines, costs (including legal
costs as between a solicitor and his or her own client), interest, or damages of every nature and
kind whatsoever as arising from the negligence, errors, omissions, fraud, or willful misconduct of
the Consultant, including its officers, employees, servants, agents, and consultants or sub -
consultants, or any one or combination of them, as attributable or connected with the
performance, non-performance, or purported performance by the Consultant of any promise,
obligation, or covenant as contemplated by this Agreement, save and except to the extent that
same is attributable to or caused by the negligence of the County, its officers, employees,
servants, agents, or consultants or sub -consultants, or any one or combination of them.
Furthermore, this indemnity shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement and
continue thereafter in full force and effect.
31
Page 93 of 117
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES- PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
ARTICLE 8
This Agreement together with its Schedule constitutes the entire understanding between the
Parties. Any change, addition to, or waiver of the terms hereof m ust be specifically agreed
upon, in writing, and signed by both Parties. Failure on the part of either Party to insist upon the
strict observance of any of the terms and/or conditions herein shall not operate as a waiver of
such Party's right to require the future observance of any such terms or conditions.
ARTICLE 9
The Consultant declares that it has either investigated for itself the character of the work and all
local conditions that might affect the Proposal or acceptance of the work, or that not having so
investigated, it is willing to assume and does hereby assume all risk of conditions arising or
developing in the course of the work which might or could make the work, or any items thereof,
more expensive in character or more onerous to fulfill, than was contemplated or known when
the Proposal was made of the Contract signed. The Consultant also declares that it did not and
does not rely upon information furnished by any methods whatsoever, by the County or its officers
or employees, being aware that any information from such sources was and is approximate and
speculative only, and was not in any manner warranted or guaranteed by the County.
ARTICLE 10
Where any notice, direction or other communication is required to be or may be given or made by
one of the parties hereto to the other, it shall be deemed sufficiently given or made if mailed or
delivered in writing to such party at the following addresses:
COUNTY: Corporation of the County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
CONSULTANT:
Either Party may from time to time change its address for service by notice to the other Party as
previously set out.
For the purposes immediately set forth above, Notices which are served in the manner as set
out above shall be deemed sufficiently given for all purposes of this Agreement, in the case of
those personally served directly upon the Party to be deemed to have been completed upon the
date of service, and in the case of registered mail, on the third postal delivery day following the
mailing of the Notice. Should normal service of mail be interrupted by strikes, slowdown or other
cause, then the Party sending the Notice shall use any similar service which is not been so
interrupted in order to secure prompt receipt of the Notice and for purposes of this Agreement
such service shall be deemed to be personal service.
32
Page 94 of 117
Attachment 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
ARTICLE 11
This Agreement shall not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either Party hereto without the
prior written consent of the other Party.
ARTICLE 12
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province
of Ontario and, when applicable, the Dominion of Canada.
ARTICLE 13
All obligations under this Agreement shall be considered a separate covenant and any
declaration of invalidity of any such covenant shall not invalidate any other such covenant.
ARTICLE 14
The Contract shall apply to and be binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, executors,
successors, administrators, and assigns jointly and severally.
(Balance of Page Left Blank Intentionally)
33
Page 95 of 117
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2026-P23
lginI COL,11r t'y ENGINEERING SERVICES— PORT BURWELL BRIDGE (B45) REHABILITATION
ARTICLE 15
This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which, when so executed,
shall constitute but one and the same document. This Agreement may also be signed in paper
form, by facsimile signature or by electronic signature in accordance with section 11 of the
Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 (Ontario). It may also be signed, whether or not in counterpart,
scanned to Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF) and delivered by way of electronic mail.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day
and at the location indicated below or otherwise caused their corporate seals to be affixed,
attested by the signature of their proper officers, as the case may be.
Date:
Location
Date:
Location
Date
Location
<INSERT CONSULTANT E
Per:
Name:
Position:
I have the authority to bind the Corporation
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
Per:
Name: Dominique Giguere
Position: Warden
Per:
Name: Blaine Parkin
Position: Chief Administrative Officer / Clerk
We have the authority to bind the Corporation
Page 96 of 117
KE
"000b Franqais
I I �� a
lb iw d s 9 l � ; '-v-- k, �
View Details
Return to the Bids Homepage(https://elgincounty.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en).
Bid Details
Bid Classification:
Services
Bid Type:
Request For Proposal
Bid Number:
2026-P23
Bid Name:
Engineering Services for Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation
Bid Status:
Closed
Published Date:
Mon May 4, 2026 4:10:59 PM (EDT)
Bid Closing Date:
Wed Jun 17, 2026 3:00:59 PM (EDT)
Question Deadline:
Wed Jun 3, 2026 4:00:00 PM (EDT)
Electronic Auctions:
Not Applicable
Language for Bid Submissions:
English unless specified in the bid document
Submission Type:
Online Submissions Only
Submission Address:
Online Submissions Only
Public Opening:
No
Description:
The County of Elgin is inviting proposals from Consulting Engineers to
undertake the detailed design for the Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation
project.
The Port Burwell Bridge was originally constructed in 1969 and has had a
series of rehabilitations over the years. Several major components of the
structure have reached the end of their life and require replacement.
Bid Document Access: Bid document preview, bid opportunity, and award notices are available on
the site free of charge. Suppliers are not required to register for a bid
opportunity prior to previewing unsecured bid documents. Please note,
some documents may be secured and you will be required to register for
the bid to download and view the documents. To download secured
documents and/or to participate in this opportunity, you will need to have a
subscription plan or buy Pay -Per -Bid access for this opportunity (available if
you don't have an active subscription).
Categories: Show Categories [±]
Register ror Chris lId Download Bid Documents
Documents
File Name
RFP Document
Monday May 4, 2026 03:56 PM
Financial Forms (Viewing Copy Only)
Monday May 4, 2026 03:50 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Details
Monday May 4, 2026 03:56 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Elevation Drawing
Monday May 4, 2026 03:57 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Deck Assessment
Monday May 4, 2026 03:57 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Deck Condition Survey
Monday May 4, 2026 03:58 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Pictures (1983-1990)
Monday May 4, 2026 03:58 PM
Monday May
t - PB B idg 9 Site Plan & Alignment Page 97 Of 117
Attachment - PB Bridge Inspection Report (Aug. 2025)
Monday May 4, 2026 04:00 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Inspection Report - Photo Record
Monday May 4, 2026 04:01 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge OSIM (2023)
Monday May 4, 2026 04:01 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Detailed Assessment (Aug. 2024)
Monday May 4, 2026 04:02 PM
Attachment - PB Bridge Watermain & Forcemain Details (1994)
Monday May 4, 2026 04:04 PM
Addenda
File Name
Addendum No. 1
Friday May 8, 2026 03:49 PM
042-040 Bridge BA Port Burwell 1966 1967 1985
Friday May 8, 2026 04:04 PM
Addendum No. 2
Monday May 25, 2026 02:22 PM
Attachment - Centennial Park Municipal Drain
Monday May 25, 2026 02:23 PM
Attachment - Centennial Park Notes
Monday May 25, 2026 02:24 PM
Attachment - Chatham Street Municipal Drain
Monday May 25, 2026 02:25 PM
Attachment - Chatham Street Notes
Monday May 25, 2026 02:25 PM
Addendum No. 3
Monday June 8, 2026 04:10 PM
Attachment - Bridge BA Port Burwell Navigable Waters Plan 1967
Monday June 8, 2026 04:13 PM
Purchasing Representatives
Employee
Hoogstra, Mike
Robertson, Brandon
Bids Submitted
The following are the unofficial bid results
Company
CIMA Canada Inc.
ConceptDash Inc
Doug Dixon & Associates Inc.
Contact
Fox, Lauren
5935 Airport Road, Mississauga
Ontario, Canada
L4V 1W5
Sharma, Vivek
#5203, 14 York Street, Toronto
Ontario, Canada
M5J OB1
Dixon, Doug
345 - 2 County Court Boulevard, Brampton
Ontario, Canada
L6W 3W8
Wong, Amy
Elements Engineering Inc. 136 Centre Street, Aurora
Ontario, Canada
L4G 1 K1
Team, Proposal
Entuitive 120 Bremner Blvd, 4th Floor , Toronto
Ontario, Canada
M53 OA8 Page 98 of 117
Results
Vail, Barbaralee
Spriet Associates London Limited 155 York Street, London
Ontario, Canada
N6A 1A8
Plan Takers
The following are the plan takers for the bid:
Company
Contact
Ioannides, Natalie
AECOM Canada ULC
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th Floor, Markham
Ontario, Canada
L3T 7W3
Fox, Lauren
CIMA Canada Inc.
5935 Airport Road, Mississauga
Ontario, Canada
L4V 1W5
Sharma, Vivek
ConceptDash Inc
#5203, 14 York Street, Toronto
Ontario, Canada
M5J OB1
Dixon, Doug
Doug Dixon & Associates Inc.
345 - 2 County Court Boulevard, Brampton
Ontario, Canada
L6W 3W8
Wong, Amy
Elements Engineering Inc.
136 Centre Street, Aurora
Ontario, Canada
L4G 1 K1
Team, Proposal
Entuitive
120 Bremner Blvd, 4th Floor , Toronto
Ontario, Canada
M5J OA8
Culver, Lisa
G. Douglas Vallee Limited
2 Talbot Street North, Simcoe
Ontario, Canada
N3Y 3W4
Services, Marketing
HDR Corporation
100 York Blvd, Richmond Hill
Ontario, Canada
L4B 138
Purcea, Kae
Jacobs Consultancy Canada Inc.
Suite 2700, 411 1 Street SE, Calgary
AB, Canada
T2G 4Y5
Team, Pursuit
Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan
300-865 Waverley St, Winnipeg
Inc.
Manitoba, Canada
R3T 5P4
Pintaric, Doretta
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.
30 Gostick Place, North Vancouver
British Columbia, Canada
V7M3G3
Wodzynska, Zuzia
PBX Engineering Ltd.
900-815 West Hastings Street, Vancouver
British Columbia, Canada
V6C 1 B4
Vail, Barbaralee
Spriet Associates London Limited
155 York Street, London
Ontario, Canada
N6A 1A8
Ziegler, Paul
Triton Engineering Services Limited
105 Queen Street West, Unit 14, Fergus
Ontario, Canada
N1M 1S6
Page 99 of 117
Engineering Services - Port Burwell Bridge Rehabilitation
Evaluation Committee RFP No. 2026-P23
Evaluation Team Member Position Conflict of
Interest
Peter Dutchak Director of Engineering Services No
Andrew Parker Manager of Roads and Asset Management No
Steve Adams Manager of Public Works / Drainage No
Superintendent I Municipality of Bayham
Mike Hoogstra Manager of Procurement & Risk No
Page 100 of 117
ElginCOL,ir'ity'
Report to Committee of the Whole
From: Carolyn Krahn, Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic
Initiatives
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: EDT 26-03 Sponsorship and Grant Policy Review: Supporting Strategic
Priorities
Recommendation(s):
THAT staff be directed to bring forward an updated grant program, reflecting the
Committee of the Whole's feedback, for consideration at the next meeting.
Introduction:
The County introduced a new Sponsorship and Grant Policy on October 8, 2024. Since
then, Council has gained some early experience applying the policy, including reviewing
sponsorship requests on March 10, 2026.
During these discussions, Council raised several questions and concerns. Council also
expressed interest in reviewing the policy before 2027 to ensure it is working as
intended.
For the sponsorship program, Council questioned whether the types of applications
being received align with the County's role. In particular, some members were
uncomfortable with funding sports teams and felt this may not be a County
responsibility. Council also raised concerns about accountability, including whether
applicants should be required to provide financial information. At this time, financial
review is not required, as the maximum grant amount is $2,000 and the program was
designed to be simple for applicants, staff, and Council.
Council also discussed the risk of applicants receiving funding from multiple sources,
sometimes referred to as "doubling up." The current process relies on applicants to
disclose this information.
From an administrative perspective, Council noted that staff review of applications is an
improvement over the previous approach, where a committee of Council scored each
application. However, there were broader questions about whether Council should be
Page 101 of 117
involved in grant decisions at all. Alternative models were discussed, including having a
third party, such as a Community Foundation, manage the program.
Similar concerns were raised about the capital grants program. Council questioned
whether some eligible projects fall within the County's mandate and whether the
program is supporting initiatives that were not originally intended, including housing
projects. Council requested a more detailed review of this program before committing
additional funding.
The current policy was developed in response to ad hoc funding requests from
organizations such as the hospital and hospice. At that time, Council did not have clear
criteria to guide decisions. The policy was intended to create a more structured
approach, align funding with Council's strategic priorities, and support the Community
Safety and Well -Being (CSWB) Plan.
Overall, Council has expressed a shared interest in reviewing both programs to ensure
they align with County priorities, are fair and accountable, and make effective use of
staff and Council time.
Background and Discussion:
To consider how the program could evolve, it is helpful to look at what has been funded
in the past and what the County is trying to achieve.
Sponsorship funding has mainly supported festivals, events, and community programs,
often with a focus on tourism and community development. Over time, this approach
has raised some concerns. Many of the same events receive funding each year, which
has led to questions about long-term sustainability and whether the program
encourages new ideas. There have also been questions about impact, including
whether this funding leads to measurable improvements in the community.
For capital grants, larger funding requests have typically gone directly to Council. In the
past, funding has supported organizations such as the hospital. However, before the
policy was introduced in 2024, there was no consistent process to guide these
decisions. As a result, Council often responded to requests without clear or consistent
criteria to assist in guiding their deliberations.
The current policy was designed to address this gap. It aims to align funding decisions
with Council's strategic priorities and the CSWB Plan. These plans are intended to
strategically guide where the County focuses its time and resources. The goal is to
move away from one-off decisions and toward more targeted investments that lead to
meaningful outcomes. While many projects provide value, spreading funding across too
many initiatives can limit overall impact.
For this approach to succeed, there must be clear agreement on priorities. Council's
Strategic Plan and related plans need to clearly define areas of focus, and there must
be a shared commitment to using these plans to guide funding decisions.
Page 102 of 117
Other jurisdictions take different approaches. There is no single model:
• Middlesex County does not offer a general grant program. Instead, it focuses on
targeted initiatives, such as funding for new tourism events and experiences and
contributions to local Community Improvement Plans (CIPs).
• Oxford County offers a grant program that clearly links funding decisions to its
strategic plan and CSWB priorities.
• At the local level, municipalities vary in their approach. For example, the City of
St. Thomas provides grants and also contributes funding to projects such as
supportive housing, often through partnerships.
Despite these differences, a common theme is that funding is most effective when it is
clearly tied to defined priorities.
Moving forward, the key consideration is to ensure that all County funding —whether
through sponsorships or grants —aligns with Council's strategy and related plans,
including the CSWB Plan. These plans are meant to guide decision -making and focus
limited resources where they will have the greatest impact.
A clear and shared strategy supports better decisions. It helps Council focus on priority
areas, use time and funding more effectively, and avoid reactive or inconsistent choices.
Using this approach, the County can make more targeted investments that lead to
stronger and more measurable outcomes for the community.
Recommendation: Future Direction for Grants
A clear set of priorities is the foundation of any grant program. Council's Strategic Plan
and related plans, including the CSWB Plan, should guide where the County focuses its
time and funding investments.
To support this, a more strategic and proactive approach to funding is recommended.
1. Shift Focus to Strategic Projects
The County would transition away from small sponsorships and focus on fewer, larger
capital projects that align with Council's strategic priorities as adopted in their Strategic
Plan and deliver clear, lasting impact. This approach positions the County as an active
partner, working with organizations to develop strong projects that result in measurable
impacts on the community.
2. Adopt a Strategic Partnership Model
The County would move from an open application process to a more proactive, County -
led approach:
• The County identifies priority areas each year based on Council's Strategic Plan
• Staff research opportunities and connect with potential partners
Page 103 of 117
• Projects are developed collaboratively with organizations
• Council continues to approve funding decisions
This model supports more targeted investments and stronger outcomes.
3. Maintain Transparency and Fairness
To ensure the process remains clear and accountable:
• Annual priority areas are set and communicated
• Consistent criteria are used to evaluate projects, including alignment, impact,
readiness, and ability to deliver
• Decisions are documented to show how and why projects are selected
• An optional Expression of Interest (EOI) process is available so organizations
can share project ideas
4. Refocus Smaller Community Funding
If Council wishes to continue supporting festivals, events, or smaller initiatives,
alternative delivery options should be explored outside the County's core grant program,
including through our Local Municipal Partners or Community Foundation.
This approach allows the County to maintain support for community initiatives while
focusing its own funding and time on larger strategic projects.
5. Operating Principles
The following principles would guide all funding:
• Funding is partial and supports projects with multiple funding sources
• Projects must be led by eligible organizations, such as registered charities or
incorporated non -profits
• Funding supports one-time capital projects with long-term community benefit
• All funding remains subject to budget approval and Council decision
This approach shifts the County from a reactive funding role to a more focused and
proactive partner. It emphasizes alignment with Council priorities, stronger project
outcomes, and more effective use of resources.
Financial Implications:
Council approved $78,184 for sponsorships and $249,178 for grants in the 2026
budget.
Page 104 of 117
There are no immediate financial implications associated with this report. Staff are
seeking Council direction on the future of the Sponsorship and Grant Program. Based
on that direction, proposed funding amounts and program structure will be brought
forward for Council's consideration as part of the 2027 budget process.
Advancement of the Strategic Plan:
An updated grants program would support Strategy 3: Service Excellence and
Efficiency, Goal 3: Instilling a Customer -Service Ethos by helping create a clearer and
more consistent approach to County funding. Defining funding priorities and eligibility
criteria will make it easier for organizations to understand what the County will and will
not support, while ensuring applications are reviewed through a transparent process.
The future direction of the program would also support advancing the Strategic Plan as
a whole by focusing funding and staff resources on projects that align with Council's
priorities. Rather than primarily responding to incoming funding requests, staff would
take a more proactive role in identifying opportunities, building partnerships, and
bringing forward projects that support Council's goals as adopted in their Strategic Plan.
For example, Council's current Strategic Plan includes priorities related to Community
Well-being and Inclusivity, including supporting housing needs, providing specialized
services for youth, seniors, and diverse populations, and improving public health and
social services across the County. Under a more strategic funding model, staff would
focus on identifying and advancing projects that directly support these priorities and
help achieve Council's desired outcomes.
Local Municipal Partner Impact:
If Council chooses to move away from small sponsorships, there may be an opportunity
to work with Local Municipal Partners to continue supporting local festivals, events, and
community programs. Funding currently allocated to sponsorships could be distributed
to local municipalities, allowing them to determine which initiatives provide the greatest
benefit within their communities.
Focusing County funding on fewer, larger projects would allow the County to invest it
initiatives with broader, County -wide benefits. These are often projects that individual
municipalities may not have the resources or capacity to support on their own.
Communication Requirements:
If Council approves changes to the Sponsorship and Grant Policy, communication with
community organizations and residents would focus on explaining:
What has changed and why.
Page 105 of 117
• Council's funding priorities.
What types of projects will be considered for funding.
How organizations can work with the County to develop projects that align with
County priorities.
Any alternative funding opportunities available through Local Municipal Partners,
the Community Foundation, or other partners.
Communication with Local Municipal Partners would be needed if responsibilities for
supporting local festivals, events, or community programs change.
Information should also be provided to future Councils as part of Council orientation.
This would help Council members understand the purpose of the program, how it can
support their Strategic Plan, and the importance of establishing clear priorities to guide
funding decisions throughout their term.
Conclusion:
Council has identified several concerns about the future of the Sponsorship and Grant
Program, including whether the County is funding the right types of projects and
whether funding decisions are sufficiently aligned with County priorities.
Staff are seeking direction on the future of the program. One option is to move away
from small sponsorships and focus on fewer, larger capital projects that align with
Council's Strategic Plan. This approach would provide a clear framework for funding
decisions while remaining flexible enough for future Councils to establish and adjust
priorities over time. It would also reinforce the importance of Council's Strategic Plan as
a tool for guiding investment decisions.
To help guide future policy updates and provide direction to staff, the Committee of the
Whole is asked to consider the following questions:
• What role should the County play in funding community projects, and are there
types of projects that should fall outside that role?
What outcomes does Council want grant funding to achieve?
If the County could invest its grant funding in only three areas over the next five
years, what would those areas be and why?
The Committee's feedback on these questions will help determine the future focus of
the Sponsorship and Grant Program and ensure that County funding is directed toward
the priorities that matter most to Council and the community.
Page 106 of 117
All of which is Respectfully Submitted
Carolyn Krahn
Manager of Economic Development,
Tourism & Strategic Initiatives
Approved for Submission
Blaine Parkin
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 107 of 117
ElginCOL,ir'ity'
Report to Committee of the Whole
From: Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning and Development
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: PLN 26-13 2026 Land Division Committee Update
Recommendation(s):
THAT By -Law No. 2162, which establishes the delegated approval authority to the
County of Elgin Land Division Committee be REPEALED effective November 30, 2026;
and
THAT contentious land division applications be reviewed by County Council
commencing December 1, 2026; and
THAT Staff are hereby directed to prepare amendments to the delegation authority By -
Law for planning to give effect to the recommendations of this report.
Introduction:
The Elgin County Land Division Committee (LDC) was established in 1971 and is
responsible for reviewing and making decisions relating to applications for land
severance. Most local municipalities in Elgin County opted to divest their responsibility
for adjudicating land severance applications to the Elgin County Land Division
Committee in 1971, with the exception of the Township of Southwold, Township of
Yarmouth, Village of Port Stanley, and Village of Belmont, which continued to operate
their own land division committees / committees of adjustment until finally joining the
Elgin County Land Division Committee on January 1, 1974. At the time of its formation,
having a LDC was advantageous as the County did not have a planning department,
and its ability to reliably process land division applications relied primarily on third party
planning consultants.
Today, Elgin County's Planning and Development department reviews and processes
approximately 100 consent applications annually. The department is continuously
looking for ways to improve efficiency and reduce costs and staff resources to process
applications.
Page 108 of 117
In 2024, Elgin County Council approved their new 2025-2026 Strategic Plan, serving as
the county's framework for decision -making, priority setting, and resource distribution.
The strategic plan is made up of five (5) strategic priorities. Strategy 3 of the plan is
"Service Excellence and Efficiency". Goals 2 and 3 of this strategy speaks to optimizing
the business planning process and instilling a customer service ethos. The tactics
involved in these goals involve:
• Introduce performance metrics and benchmarks.
• Implementing a continuous management cycle to allow for real-time adjustments.
• Foster collaboration across departments to improve transparency, reduce silos,
and drive outcomes.
• Empower and train employees to take ownership of customer issues and act
decisively.
• Encourage a sense of responsibility to see issues through to resolution, and
• Adapt and evolve processes based on both positive and negative customer
interactions
This report will review the current land division (consent) process and explore
alternative processes to ensure the county is processing consent applications efficiently,
while still maintaining a strong local municipal review and participation process.
Background and Discussion:
1.0 Land Division Committee Current process
Consent applications start with the county's pre -consultation process, where an
applicant connects with a county planner and local municipal staff to explain their
intentions. Direction is provided by local municipal staff and the county's planning
department to help the applicant through the process. This process creates an
efficiency by reducing non -compliant applications before an applicant wastes time and
resources, while saving local and county staff time in focusing on reviewing applications
that are supportable.
The applicant then makes a formal application submission, and the application is
circulated to the relevant local municipal partner (LMP), other external review agencies
(such as a conservation authority) and to neighbours within 60m of the subject lands for
review and comment. In most cases, the planners and technical municipal staff prepare
a list of conditions of approval and present a short information report to the local
municipal council. This report, along with any technical considerations and a local
council resolution is forwarded to the county to be considered as part of the overall
application review process.
If there are no issues, the application is scheduled for the next available LDC meeting.
This process can take approximately 2 to 3 months depending on the complexity of the
application, and whether any additional planning applications are required because of
the nature of the proposed consent application. Below is a diagram of the current
process:
Page 109 of 117
Pre-CmIAW', ion
wMm P,ILYYOrq & Umal Stuawff
FbMW AWJ�rA,
It
cilctimbm A, LAC84 Avviev4
I
LVCM COUMA, AMOWUM
courpty AVA"mo
No Qjw Ilssumd,211,
4D
Livul cohmmittte
Land Chtto Cou"mAlftNet AM,
Page 110of 117
2.0 A review of current practices: Expedited approval and exploring the decision -
making process
The LDC meets once a month and considers 6-10 consent applications each meeting.
The committee processes approximately 100 consent applications per year. Since
2020, the County has received 498 consent applications. Of those applications,
planning staff and local municipal councils have recommended refusal of 12
applications. The LDC refused 3 applications, making their approval rating 99.4%.
Planning staff are seeking to reduce this gap in policy interpretation. With the
introduction of the county's pre -consultation process, today only roughly 1 % of the
consent applications received are recommended for refusal. Most applications that have
been examined through the pre -consultation process are compliant with local and
county policies. These compliant applications could benefit from a new process that
would only require a short, standard list of conditions of approval. These types of
applications are considered by planning staff to be non -contentious.
2.1 Exploring expedited approval
There is an opportunity to accelerate the processing time of these non -contentious
consent applications by creating an expedited approval process. Through a delegation
of authority By-law update, it is estimated that the planning process could be reduced
for compliant applications without any changes to the existing local municipal
review process.
Non -contentious definition:
To accelerate the consent review process, planning staff have conducted a municipal
comparison to investigate how other two-tier municipalities consider consent
applications `non -contentious'. In review of ten (10) municipal comparisons, the
following list of requirements have been developed to help applicants through the
consent application process by:
a) continuing to focus on local review and opinion,
b) accelerating the county's review process, and
c) create cost savings for the applicant
To qualify as a non -contentious application, an application must meet all the following
criteria:
• It is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (s. 3(5) Planning Act);
• It does not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly
development of the municipality (s. 53(1) Planning Act);
• It conforms with section 51(24) of the Planning Act;
• It conforms with the Elgin County Official Plan;
• It conforms with the local municipal Official Plan or Secondary Plan;
• It complies and conforms with the local municipal Zoning By-law (unless
subject to a standard condition of rezoning or minor variance);
Page 111 of 117
There are no concerns raised as part of the detailed local review process;
and
There are no unresolved objections/concerns raised from agencies or the
public.
If all the criteria above are met, the application would be deemed non -contentious. If
even one of the listed criteria aren't met, the application would be deemed `contentious'
and would be required to be reviewed and a decision made.
To keep County Council and our LMPs updated with the most recent land division
application status, staff will create a new process of reporting on expedited approvals
where a quarterly report would be presented to council and shared with our LMPs.
In review of ten (10) two-tier governments across Ontario including:
• Northumberland,
• Frontenac,
• Renfrew,
• Bruce,
• Huron,
• Lanark,
• Peterborough counties, and
• United Counties of Prescott and Russell,
• Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and
• Leeds and Grenville
Nine of the two-tier municipalities are currently implementing delegated authority to
senior planning staff to review non -contentious consent applications. Of those nine two-
tier municipalities, approximately 90% of their consent applications now flow through
their expedited approval process, which many describe has resulted in significant time
savings for their applicants.
2.2 Improving the decision -making process
In addition to streamlining the planning process for non -contentious applications, and in
keeping with the priorities of council's Strategic Plan, staff have reviewed best practices
and developed a recommendation to improve the decision -making process for consent
applications.
Staff have reviewed the practice of five (5) nearby two-tier municipalities.
Essex County — Consent applications are delegated to local municipal partners. Local
municipalities have established Committees of Adjustment that hear applications for
both minor variances and consent.
Lambton County — Recently dissolved their Land Division Committee. Consent
applications have been delegated to local municipal partners. Local municipalities have
established Committees of Adjustment that hear applications for both minor variances
and consent.
Page 112 of 117
Wellington County - Uses active County Councillors as a separate committee for
consent applications. They have a nomination process at County Council to choose who
is on the Committee.
Middlesex County - Consent applications are delegated to local municipal partners.
Local municipalities have established Committees of Adjustment that hear applications
for both minor variances and consent.
Huron County - Land Division Committee was dissolved many years ago. The County
now uses active County Councillors as a separate committee for consent applications.
In review of the five (5) nearby two-tier municipalities, none of those are currently using
an appointed LDC that sit as an outside body to county or local municipal council. Elgin
County's LDC sits as an appointed committee being made up of neither county
councillors, nor municipal councillors.
In review of the LDC current practices, and in review of other municipal examples for
how land division applications are approved in various other jurisdictions, staff
recommend dissolving the County's LDC and send contentious consent
applications to County Council for review and decision. As part of this new
process, non -contentious consent applications will be approved by County
Council via staff delegation after local review and direction is obtained.
There are numerous advantages related to this recommendation.
Advantages
• An additional layer of local insight is added to the County Council decision on
consent applications as County Council is made up of local representation.
• An application will go to Committee of the Whole first and then be approved by
Council 2-weeks later allowing a second consideration or `time to think' on more
complicated land division files.
• County Council review will be more streamlined and add a needed level of
professionalism to consent application review.
• Notable savings in staff time, staff resources and operating budget. These
savings will be reviewed and if appropriate reductions to the consent fee made.
• Notable time savings for application process times after local municipal input is
received. Once local review and direction is received, it is estimated that the
County may be able to save 1 month of processing time.
• Streamline and simplify legal representation for consent application process.
It should be noted that approximately 10 consent applications will be added to the
annual Committee of the Whole / County Council agendas (-1 per month).
The below diagram illustrates how the application process would work for land division
applications moving forward.
Page 113 of 117
pilt t
Rm-Comultatim
with Plaming a L aid Staff
Fo l lic;atibn SUbmissi4
Circulation, Laical nevi
'LacaA Council. Resubitimi
Ccunty Review
i,
Y&s ;• i�;
County ccumil Delegated Staff pprcv�m1
Decisviofl
Should Council wish to explore other options for how the land division process could
change, alternative options are discussed below.
2.3 Alternative options:
1. Dissolve the LDC and have all land division applications reviewed by County
Council.
Page 114 of 117
2. Delegate consent application approval to local municipalities.
2.3.1 Options Discussion
Option 1: Dissolve the LDC and have all land division applications reviewed by
County Council.
Advantages
• An additional layer of local insight is added to the County Council decision on
consent applications as County Council is made up of local representation.
• An application will go to Committee of the Whole first and then be approved by
Council 2-weeks later allowing a second consideration or `time to think' on more
complicated land division files.
• County Council review will be more streamlined and add a needed level of
professionalism to consent application review.
• Streamline and simplify legal representation for consent application process.
Disadvantages
No savings in staff time, or staff resources.
No time savings for application process times after local municipal input is
received.
• Approximately 100 consent applications would be added to Council's agendas
per year (approximately 8-10 reports per month)
Option 2: Delegate consent application approval to local municipalities
Advantages
This option would create a one step process for consent and minor variance
applications which are often submitted together in single tier municipalities. Local
municipalities would be required to integrate consent applications into their
current Committee of Adjustment.
Disadvantages
• This option would cause inconsistencies for how land division applications are
processed and how decisions are rendered.
• There would be unknown expenses incurred to each municipality to process
consent applications.
• This may trigger the need to establish a separate committee outside of local
council which would include committee members, admin staff and planning staff
to operate.
• More inconsistencies may lead to legal intervention which could be costly.
Page 115 of 117
Financial Implications:
The County's LDC has several costs associated with it including:
a) The payment of the committee members including their wage, mileage,
education, and costs for conferences.
b) IT costs associated with fixing digital devices.
c) Staff time setting up and operating monthly committee meetings.
d) Costs to applicants to attend meetings.
Below is a breakdown of the 2025 direct costs associated with the current land division
committee.
Land Division Committee Cost - 2025
Total Cost
Meeting Participation (Flat
Rate) $16,100.00
Meeting Participation (Mileage) $3,498.20
Site Inspections $3,870.00
Development $5,015.34
Annual Stipent (Chair Only) $250.00
Total Cost 1 $26.759.34
Indirect costs include staff time and resources preparing reports, presentations and
preparing for meetings.
Most of these costs would be removed through the implementation of staff's
recommendation, as there would be a reduction in the number of reports prepared and
presentations made for non -contentious applications.
It is estimated that staff's recommendation would provide the department with an annual
cost savings of approximately $75,000.00.
Advancement of the Strategic Plan:
The proposed updates to the consent application process relates to Strategy 3 of the
County's Strategic Plan: "Service Excellence and Efficiency". Goal 2 and 3 of this
strategy speaks to optimizing the business planning process and instilling a customer
service ethos. The proposed changes will allow the county to adapt and evolve our
processes to achieve service excellence and become more efficient while maintaining
excellent customer service.
Page 116 of 117
Local Municipal Partner Impact:
Should staff's recommendation be approved, there would be no changes at the local
level. Applications would still require local input. Applications would be circulated to
local municipal staff for review, comment, and local council endorsement including the
approval of conditions of approval.
Communication Requirements:
This process change has been discussed with the LDC's chair Tom Marks. A copy of
this report was circulated to the land division committee on July 10th, 2026.
Conclusion:
In review of the best practices across rural Ontario, this process change is in line with
other rural two-tier municipality's processes to provide improved customer service and
to streamline the consent approval process. The recommendation in this report
represents the continued evolution of the development of the planning department and
is in line with the county's new Strategic Plan as it promotes service excellence, and a
continued effort to reduce red tape where possible. It is important to note that the
proposed changes are not a criticism of the past — the proposed process changes are
intended to align the County with the present and future.
Planning staff are recommending dissolving the Land Division Committee.
Contentious consent applications will go to County Council for review and
decision, while non -contentious consent applications will be approved by County
Council via staff delegation after local review and direction.
It should be highlighted that this process change will maintain and, in some cases,
improve local municipal review and direction. The consent application process can be
streamlined after municipal review has been completed. Local representation will
continue to be strong through County Council review and approval. Additionally, through
quarterly consultation meetings with the county's Development Information Group
(DIG), county staff secured support to recommend these timely updates to the land
division process. Finally, there will be notable savings in time, staff resources and
budgetary expenses, which could translate into less costs to the applicant.
Planning staff are of the opinion that this recommendation will improve the planning
process. Staff recommend implementing the new process once a new County Council is
elected to allow the current LDC members to finalize their commitments and allow staff
time to transition to the new process. Any existing applications will continue to be
processed through the LDC until the end of their term and then be processed through
the new expedited approval process.
All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission
Mat Vaughan Blaine Parkin
Director of Planning and Development Chief Administrative Officer
Page 117 of 117