Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
March 25, 2010
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 25, 2010 Council Chambers, West Elgin Municipal Building DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST APPROVAL OF AGENDA DELEGATIONS: 9:45 a.m. Port Glasgow Yacht Club re: Overview of Proposed Future Marina Improvements 10:00 a.m. Malcolm Ross re: Heritage Terrace (B1) 10:15 a.m. Ward Houghton re: proposed severance (B2) 1:30 p.m. Court of Revision MacDairmid Drain 1:45 p.m. WESA 2009 Annual Report (Landfill Site) (C8a C8b) 2:15 p.m. Consideration Meeting Lunn Drain 2:30 p.m. Road Superintendent re: tenders (C1a) PLANNING: (B1 -B5) 1. Heritage Terrace re: rezoning and site plan 2.* Proposed severance Presbyterian Church, Rodney 3.* Proposed severance Lot 10, Conc. 8 (Parezanovic) 4. Marina Improvements Class EA consultation with First Nations 5. Community Improvement Plan Task Forces update Mar. 25/10 Page 2 REPORTS: (C1 -C8) 1. ROADS a) Tenders for gravel, brine and trucks 2. RECREATION 3. BUILDING 4. WATER a) Crinan Area water system b) *OCWA preparation of a Financial Plan for West Elgin secondary system 5. BY -LAW ENFORCEMENT 6. DRAINS 7. WEST ELGIN PRIMARY SYSTEM 8. ADMINISTRATION a) *WESA 2009 Annual Report b) *WESA Proposal for 2010 Site Monitoring and Operation c) OCWA Rodney Sewage Treatment Plant quotations for wet well evaluation ACCOUNTS CORRESPONDENCE: (D1 -D3) 1.* County of Elgin Elgin County Official Plan Preliminary Work Plan 2.* County of Elgin Draft Tourism Signage Policy and Public Information Meeting Notice 3. Thomson Rosemunt Notice of Completion for Class EA for Glencoe for Glencoe Water Reservoir Replacement BY -LAWS: By -law No. 2010 -17 Rezoning West Lorne Heritage House Mar. 25110 Page 3 OTHER BUSINESS: (El) 1. Closed session *Information enclosed CONFIRMING BY -LAW ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETINGS March 29, 2010 Tri County Management Committee, 7:00 p.m. April 7, 2010- Elgin St. Thomas Municipal Association Annual Meeting Dinner, 6:00 p.m., Memorial Arena, St. Thomas April 8, 2010 Council April 22, 2010 Council 22 March, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Council Municipality of West Elgin FROM: Ted L. Halwa SUBJ: Proposed Severance Presbyterian Church of Canada (St. Andrew's Church) 233 235 Munroe Street east side of Munroe Street south of Queens Line Village of Rodney I. Purpose: #0008/1839 to sever a lot comprising an area of 1,693.5 square metres (0.4 ac) occupied by a church and a single unit detached dwelling (manse) into two separate parcels; lands proposed to be conveyed comprise an area of 982.3 square metres (10,574 sq. feet), a depth of 40.3 metres (132 feet) and a frontage of 24.7 metres (81 feet) on Munroe Street. The parcel is occupied by a church, being St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (233 Munroe Street). No change in use is proposed; lands proposed to be retained comprise an area of 711.2 square metres (7,656 sq. feet), a depth of 40.3 metres (132 feet) and a frontage of 19.2 metres (63 feet) on Munroe Street. The parcel is occupied by single unit dwelling (235 Munroe Street) that has historically functioned as a manse. The use of the lands for residential purposes, i.e. as a single unit dwelling, is not changing; neighbouring lands are characterized primarily by low- density residential development in the form of single unit dwellings on lots of varying size and frontages; in 2007, the owners of the church conveyed a small parcel (i.e. having a width of 2.4 m) and added it with an existing residential lot to the south (Florence Kelly 229 Munroe Street). This transaction served to rectify a long- standing deficiency with respect to the lot boundary and ensured that the driveway serving the Kelly residence was wholly contained on the parcel. At the time, re- zoning of the conveyed portion from Institutional (1) to Residential First Density (R1) was not required insofar as there was no yard or setback deficiency, and the use of the lands was not changing. 2. Provincial Poli y Statement Official Plan St. Andrew's Church 4 Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities' and a mix of land uses which .efficiently use land and resources (Section 1.1.3.2) #0008/1839 under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), all planning related decisions must be 'consistent with' the PPS. The relevant policies include the following: a the PPS does not specifically address the type of severance being proposed, nevertheless, based on the abovenoted policy, the application is considered to be 'consistent with' the PPS; the subject lands are designated 'Residential' in the Village of Rodney Official Plan. The general consent policies of the Plan (Section 6.7) include: a) the undue extension of any major service is not required; b) creation of lot to have the effect of infilling existing built -up areas; c) frontage on an existing public road; d) compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By -law; e) there are no restrictions imposed on the development of abutting land. 9 based on the foregoing, conformity with the Rodney Official Plan is capable of being maintained. 3. Zonina By -law: `Residential First Density (R1) Institutional (I) O based on the survey provided, the lands being conveyed are zoned, in part, Institutional (I) and Residential First Density (R1). The lot would satisfy the minimum lot area and lot frontage requirements (700 sq m and 18.5 m respectively) of the I zone. A side yard width of 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) is proposed whereas a minimum side yard width of 6.0 metres (19.7 ft) is required. In addition, a minimum number of off street parking spaces are required for a church based on its size (10.5 per 100 sq m of gross floor area). A re- zoning or minor variance would be required to permit these deficiencies insofar as the existing lot and non complying provisions of the Zoning By -law (Section 4.3 and Section 4.12 respectively) do not provide relief in cases where a new lot is being created; in this instance, re- zoning the lands being conveyed from Institutional (I) and Residential First Density (R1) to 'site- specific' Institutional (14) would be appropriate. Re- zoning would ensure that the parcel occupied by the St. Andrew's Church p Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 3 #000811839 church and under one ownership is zoned Institutional (I) in its entirety and would address deficiencies with respect to side yard width and on -site parking. Re- zoning would also provide an opportunity to correct the zoning of lands (i.e. from I to R1) that were severed and merged in title with abutting lands to the south in the previous consent (E38/07) granted in 2007; a the deficiency in side yard width appears to be justifiable on the basis that re- locating the proposed side lot line in compliance with the Zoning By -law would further reduce the width of the lands being retained and result in the loss of the existing driveway providing access to the dwelling. This circumstance is an existing situation and the physical relationship between the church and the dwelling would not change. The proposed side yard width of 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) would also satisfy the minimum spacing requirements of the Ontario Building Code (1.2 m or 3.9 ft) between buildings with unprotected openings. With respect to on -site parking, it would appear that historically there has been little if any on -site parking available for the church parking being provided along Munroe Street. The institutional use in this case is not being intensified or changed; lands being retained are zoned Residential First Density (R1). The lot would satisfy the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements (580 square metres and 15 metres respectively) of the R1 zone. Based on the information provided, all other yard requirements of the R1 zone appear capable of being satisfied. 4. Conclusions the proposed severance represents an appropriate use consistent with the PPS and in conformity with the Village of Rodney Official Plan. The separation of the parcels would not be apparent on the ground and the character of the neighbourhood would not change or be adversely affected; the relevant matters of the Planning Act pertaining to the subdivision or severance of land [Section 51(24)] appear capable of being satisfied. 5. Recommendation St. Andrew's Church Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 4 #0008/1839 That the proposed application for consent be supported subject to the following conditions and the Elgin Land Division Committee advised accordingly: i) That the lands being conveyed be re -zoned from Institutional (1) and Residential First Density (R!) to 'site- specific' Institutional (I to permit the creation of a lot having a side yard width of 1.5 m notwithstanding the minimum side yard width of 6.0 m, and having less than the minimum off street parking spaces notwithstanding the minimum requirements of 10.5 spaces per 100 sq m of gross floor area. REASONS i) The severance is 'consistent with' the Provincial Policy Statement; ii) Conformity with the Official Plan of the Village of Rodney would be maintained; iii) The requirements of the Village of Rodney Zoning By -law are capable of being satisfied; iv) The matters set out in the Planning Act would be satisfied; v) An appropriate separation of lands and uses situated thereon would be facilitated. Ted L. Halwa, MCIP, RPP APPLICATION FOR CONSENT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CANADA Monroe Street Village of Rodney a e -r :4 aaw;4� m�'gs .saa ,?,fie, aae) DATE OF PHOTO: 2006 f ®EMI 111111 less see cam eli LANDS PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED LANDS PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED Municipality of WEST ELGIN SCALE 1:750 Meters 0 4 8 16 24 32 40 PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 1. PROPERTY OWNER: MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED SEVERANCES NAME: The Trustee Board at The Presbyterian aura in Canada ADDRESS: 5o Y C r l er- fC/I ro u PHONE: l}/ 414 2. LOT 7 CONGE£4ION /6S ACREACE OF TOTAL PARCEL: 1C 13 .C3 s 3. PARCEL TO BE SEVERED: �}j� ACREAGE FRONTAGE p`�• WO•l DEPTH 90. ;Om 4. ACREAGE TO BE RETAINED: `71J 5. REASONS FOR SEVERING AN AGRICULTURAL PARCEL SURPLUS DWELLING ONLY IS THE DWELLING SURPLUS TO THE NEEDS OF THE FARM? YES IVA NO NA WHEN WAS DWELLING CONSTRUCTED? /GC))/Pa., (YEAR) IS THE DWELLING STRUCTURALLY. SOUND SUITABLE OR POTENTIALLY SUITABLE, FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY? YES X NO WHERE IS YOUR PRINCIPLE RESIDENCE? Af,,¢ MUNICIPALITY /U4. t`713� 6. REASONS FOR SEVERING A PARCEL FOR OTHER THAN FOR SURPLUS DWELLINGS? 4100A ir,1 ChA, G r a�r� /1 Clew. -(2 1 0.1i1 7. OTHER COMMENTS: DATE Z 2.3 /o SIGNATURE SE6 P4 e-Aeleti 4 i ir.9 Roche, Chef Financial Officer and Treasure NOTE: There is no charge for the first time Council reviews a proposed severance application. The fee for additional reviews and re- submissions by Council is $100.00 per instance. If you wish to attend the council meeting, please contact the Clerk. Proposed severance applications are reviewed by Council at their meeting held on the 4 Thursday of each month. Please submit this application by the 3` Wednesday of the month for inclusion in the agenda. /?LG/Si1:4[0 I THIRD STREET BL 00K 9 14 PAN PL,N LOT 10 LOT 11 L07 /0T1 5 E el Pl1Rr� 2 LOT: 4 ?APT MUNROE sTRCET LOT 7 LOT LO1 22 March, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Council Municipality of West Elgin FROM: Ted L. Halwa #0008/1845 SUBJ: Proposed Severance Michael Parezanovic 23128 Pioneer Line north side of Pioneer Line (County Road No. 2) east of the Village of Rodney 1. Purpose to create a lot out of a 40.2 hectare (100 acre) parcel for the purpose of disposing a surplus farm dwelling; the lands proposed to be conveyed have a frontage of 48.7 metres (160 ft), a depth of 63.3 metres (208 ft) and an area of 3,082.7 square metres (0.8 acres). The parcel is occupied by an older (circa 1900) single unit dwelling, detached garage and a storage shed. A lean -to attached to the shed which presently straddles the proposed side lot line is to be removed. No change in use is proposed; the lands being retained have a frontage of approximately 450 metres (1,476 ft) and an area of 2.1 hectares (5.3 acres). The parcel is occupied by a greenhouse, 10 tobacco kilns and a large storage building. The lands have been primarily cleared for agricultural purposes with the exception of a woodlot situated in the northwesterly corner of the farm. No change in use is proposed; the current owner of the subject lands, Michael Parezanovic, recently purchased the farm in January 2010 and has a purchaser for the proposed residential lot. Mr. Parezanovic farms the lands being retained (cash crop /tobacco) with his son; neighbouring lands comprise a mix of agricultural uses, primarily cash crop. A clustering of rural residential development is situated immediately adjacent to the proposed residential lot on both sides of Pioneer Line. No intensive livestock operations have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed lot, 2. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Official Plan Michael Parezanovic Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 2 in prime agricultural areas, the creation of a lot for the purpose of disposing a residence surplus to a farming operation is permitted by the PPS. A surplus residence is defined as an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus a result of farm consolidation. Farm consolidation is defined by the PPS as: the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation; in this instance, the dwelling on the lands being retained would be surplus to the needs of the owner whose principle residence is located on a farm at 25468 Talbot Line. Mr. Parezanovic owns three other farms in the Municipality having a total acreage of approximately 162 hectares (400 acres); the PPS requires that residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. Such a restriction is appropriately addressed as a condition of consent, if granted, through the application of a 'site- specific' zoning consistent with past practice in the Municipality. The application would be consistent with the PPS; the subject lands are designated, for the most part, 'Agricultural' in the Township of Aldborough Official Plan. A small portion of the lands being retained situated between the lands being conveyed and existing residential lots to the west is designated 'Rural Residential'. The creation of residential lots to dispose surplus farm dwellings in areas designated 'Agricultural' is permitted provided: a) the dwelling was in existence prior to adoption of the Plan; b) it is not practical or feasible to relocate the dwelling to an existing vacant lot; c) the dwelling is structurally sound and suitable for human occupancy; d) the remainder of the farm is zoned to prohibit a dwelling (Section 2.1.15). #0008/1845 the abovenoted criteria are satisfied or are capable of being satisfied. The owner has advised that the dwelling and outbuildings are structurally sound. New roofing is presently being installed on the dwelling. Other criteria to be satisfied include compatibility with surrounding lands use, availability of water supply, suitability of the lot for on -site sanitary waste disposal, access and compliance with the Zoning By -law; the owner has confirmed that the dwelling on the lands being conveyed is connected to the municipal piped water supply. Confirmation will be required to ensure that the existing septic tank and tile field system is wholly contained on the proposed lot which, based on the dimensions provided, would appear to be the case. This Michael Parezanovic Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 3 3. Zoning By law #0008/1845 matter is appropriately addressed as a condition of consent, if granted. The owner has advised that he is in the process of having this confirmed; the proposed lot has an existing entrance to Pioneer Line (County Road No. 2) a public road with year round maintenance. The lands being retained have a separate filed entrance from the road. No new or additional entrances are required or proposed; based on the information provided, conformity with the Official Plan of the Township of Aldborough appears capable of being maintained. the subject lands are zoned, for the most part, Agricultural (Al). The aforementioned small portion of the lands being retained lying adjacent to Pioneer Line between the lands being conveyed and existing residential lots to the west is zoned Rural Residential Two Holding (RR2 -H). The proposed residential lot would require a re- zoning to Rural Residential Three (RR3) given its use and size. The tot would readily satisfy the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements (1,850 sq m and 30 m respectively) of the RR3 zone. Based on a draft survey provided, all other yard requirements are capable of being satisfied; the lands being retained would satisfy the minimum lot area and lot frontage requirements (19 ha and 150 m respectively) of the Al zone. A greenhouse is situated 2.7 metres (8.8 ft) from the proposed lot line whereas a minimum side yard width of 15 metres 49 ft) is required. Nevertheless, provided the external dimensions of the greenhouse do not change, Section 4.15a) of the Zoning By -law provides the necessary relief in cases where there are non complying buildings resulting from the creation of new lots. A re- zoning to `site specific' Agricultural (A14) would be required to prohibit a dwelling being erected on the parcel in the future as stipulated by the PPS and the Official Plan. 4. Conclusions Michael Parezanovic Proposed Severance Municipality of West Elgin March 22, 2010 page 4 5. Recommendation Ted L. Halwa, MCIP, RPP #0008/1845 the proposed severance would represent a type of lot creation which is both contemplated and permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Township of Aldborough Official Plan. The Official Plan provides for the creation of lots to dispose a surplus farm dwelling in agricultural areas. That the proposed application for consent be supported subject to the following conditions and the Elgin Land Division Committee advised accordingly: r) That the requirements of the Municipality, if any, are satisfied with respect to the existing on -site sanitary waste disposal system serving the dwelling on the lands being conveyed; li) That the lands being conveyed be re -zoned to Rural Residential Three (RR3) to permit their size and use for residential purposes; iii) That the lands being retained be re -zoned 'site specific' Agricultural (A1-#) to prohibit the erection of a dwelling thereon in the future; REASONS 1) The severance is 'consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement' ii) Conformity with the Official Plan of the Township of Aldborough would be maintained; iii) The requirements of the Township of Aldborough Zoning By -law are capable of being satisfied; iv) The matters set out in the Planning Act would be satisfied. Michael Pawezanov c Part of L t 1 0 Concession VOID extern ®Mask i) 23128 Pioneer Line Municipality of West Elgin ONEERI INE Al AGRICULTURAL RR2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL TWO M2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AIR PHOTO: 2006 LANDS PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED LANDS PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED 0 GM EMI 1201 Al \21 PIONEER LINE wririk■ al or `LOT 11 SCALE 1: 5,000 Metres 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 Al Figure: 1 ti PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 1. PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Iv l C 1 4 t 3 G L_ 1 4 1,- 4& fO C ADDRESS: /2 /Q Lf Y>< L S Z* PHONE: 2 761 —Iv 7 4 c/5' C:_( 2. LOT 0 CONCESSION ACREACE OF TOTAL PARCEL: MC ,,G 3. PARCEL TO BE SEVERED: r ACREAGE tr FRONTAGE /SQ. 76 DEPTH 02 7, 70 4. ACREAGE TO BE RETAINED: q il cA6 75 5. REASONS FOR SEVERING AN AGRICULTURAL PARCEL SURPLUS DWELLING ONLY IS THE DWELLING SURPLUS TO THE NEEDS OF THE FARM? YES WHEN WAS DWELLING CONSTRUCTED? O (YEAR) Z 31 Z P o, eer1..r!G IS THE DWELLING STRUCTURALLY SOUND SUITABLE OR POTENTIALLY SUITABLE, FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY? YES X NO pQ p i-6'S 60 Ave WHERE IS YOUR PRINCIPLE RESIDENCE? MUNICIPALITY 46 p fi0A4 Cf 2 L,rne 6. REASONS FOR SEVERING A PARCEL FOR OTHER THAN FOR SURPLUS DWELLINGS? 7. OTHER COMMENTS: DATE /WO' MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED SEVERANCES NO C H PART LOT 1 PART OF LOT 10 E CONCESSION 8 PART 1 IS PART OF P.I.N. 35110 -0478 PART 1 IS SUBJECT TO E30204 D U L P. I PART OF P.I.N. nti a ©fl1 4U iF °laterr Agency March 3, 2010 Dear Joanne: Ms. Joanne Groch Administrator/Treasurer The Municipality of West Elgin 22412 Hoskins Line Rodney, Ontario NOL 2C0 Letter report Re: West Elgin Secondary System Financial Plan Component #1 Background and scope of work Capital Plan Projection Horizon of 30 years All costs estimates presented in this report are in 2010 dollars. Inventory OneYonge Street, Suite 1700 Toronto,Orlarlo M5E 1E5 Tel; (4 16)314-5600 Fax: (416)314 -$300 Dir.Line: (416)31 45551 We are pleased to provide you with the Financial Plan Component #1 which consists of this letter report and the attached table. As described in our proposal dated August 7, 2009, the purpose of this assignment is to prepare the Financial Plan for the Municipality of West Elgin Secondary Water System as required under the regulation O. Reg. 453107. The financial plan has three (3) components. Component #1 is the 30 year Capital Plan. it is presented in tabular form. The purpose of this letter is to outline the main aspects of the Capital Plan. The main change in the infrastructure for the secondary system between 2005 and 2009 is the installation of additional watermains. The inventory of all buried asset was undertaken in 2009 by the Municipality for PSAB purposes. This inventory was utilized as a basis for component #1. OCWA Engineering Services West Elgin Secondary System Page 1 of 3 Projected Capital Works and Costs The projected works and estimation of associated costs were based on information provided by the Municipality, by OCWA Operations, as well as on OCWA Engineering Services experience of costing similar capital projects. The major items of the Capital Plan are outlined below. Rodney Elevated Tank The capital works for the Rodney tank include the repainting /recoating of the tank twice in the study period for $300,000. Distribution System For future extensions we have allowed for $100,000 per year for the next 10 years. The amount is reduced to $50,000 per year over the following 20 years. For water main replacement, based on the 5 year Capital Plan provided by the Municipality of West Elgin we have allowed for $250,000 per year for 2010 through 2015. This will cover the replacement of old cast iron pipe. The inventory shows us that the next theoretical replacement date for watermains is 2046 for the asbestos watermains installed in 1970. This assumes a service life of 75 years for all types of watermains, regardless of material. While this assumption is a good starting point for PSAB and this exercise, it may need to be adjusted in the future based on the actual performance of the various pipes and materials. Therefore we have not provided for replacement of watermain within the study period beyond the first 5 years. However we have allowed for $50,000 per year in the last 10 years to cover any major repairs. For the household meters replacement program we have assumed that starting in 2016 the Municipality will move to new water meters with remote reading capabilities. The cost including the meters is estimated at $750,000 over 15 years. We have allowed for $50,000 per year for 15 years. After 15 years we have allowed for a cost of $35,000 per year to maintain the system. We have allowed for the addition of a rechlorination system within 10 years (2016), for an estimated cost of $100,000. For the replacement of hydrants, we have allow for the replacement of 30 hydrants, for a cost of $2,000 each which is $60,000 split over 3 years. Other Costs: Studies, Operations Manual, New Regulations Costs related to studies and engineer's reports, licensing requirements (including DWQMS audit requirements and financial plans), and update to operations manual were grouped under the same section. This section also includes the cost of water from Primary System. OCWA Engineering Services West Elgin Secondary System Page 2 of 3 Operations Costs The projected operations costs will be laid out in Financial Plan Component #2 "Revenue Plan and Rate Setting Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Gabrielle Feuvrier at (416) 314 -4617. Yours truly, Andy Valickis, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager Engineering Services OCWA Engineering Services West Elgin Secondary System Page 3 of 3 ality of West Elgin SECONDARY VVATER SYSTEM 30 Year Capita! Plan CD Eb V 1 OTHER COSTS STUDIES, NEW REGULATION 1 16 1 15 A w cn 1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A w N 1RODNEY ELEVATED TANK 1 Item Project/Activity Description Total Other costs Studies, New Regulation SECONDARY SYSTEM Licensing Requirements (DWQMS and financial play Total Capital Costs SECONDARY SYSTEM Subtotal Distribution System Capital Costs �I m a, O dam n.n S. N 9 o- O a' J J 2 g p1 O N I I N CD m; r m n m p N J D o N N 6. 21 c g. 1 11 m 0 N Subtotal Rodney Capital Costs Paint interior and exterior Tank Inspection $397,000 $392,000 U [n N 0 0 0 69 1 69 o 0 $5,000 0 1 I A I I 0 2010 $397,000 69 0 0 N 0 $385,000 69 w 69 N I 0' O 0 O: o o. o $377,000 $377,000 fA EA N N O 0 O. o o o o o o: o 000 000'003 $0 I 2011 $367,000 $367,000 69 69 0 N 0 b 0 0 1 0 0 0 O o 0 0 $th 2012 $405,000 w En 69 9l N 01 0 O 0 0 0 o 0 0 $385,000 EA 41 FR O O O 0. 0 $387,000 $387,000 69 69 m 0- I N N I O o 0• 0: 0' 0 i 1 0 O 0 O $0 2013 $385,000 W En V o O O $367,000 $367,000 ER C. N O O o b O $0 I 2014 $402,000 69 J 4.4 0 N $402,000 $397,000 N N ee V1 $5,000 2015 $282,000 $282,000 fA I1 :i 1 J 1 0 $0 2016 $385,000 dl o $405,000 $152,000 $152,000 69 50 2017 5385,000 ee 5152,000 $152,000 69 O 0 0 0 0 50 2018 5172,000 $172,000 0 ER 0 NJ 0 0 0 0 $0 2019 $385,000 01 0 $3,919,000 $5,000 $3,750,000 $40,000 $124,000 $3,055,000 $3,045,000 560,000 5100,000 000'05$ $5,000 $0 $290,000' $20,000 1 000'009' 4$ i 510,000, $2,000 0 00'8$ so] 7 2010 to 2019 2020 to 2029 $3,919,000 000'5$ 53,750,000 000'424$ oao'9 $1,595,000 51,285,000 $0 $01 1 000'065 r $150,0001 $500,0001 520,0001 $20,000 50 5310,000: 52,0001 !000'oos$ $3,919,000 55,000 $3,750,000 $40,000 $124,000 $1,770,000 51,460,000 00 0$ 8365,000 520,000. !000'02$ 000'009$ $310,000 52,0001 000'8$ 000'008$ x039 t 20 3? 511,757,000 IT M M it N W N V N N O N O o O O O 0 0 0, 0 o o o. 0 $6,420,0001 55,790,0001 69 0 0 O 0 0 M 69 69 (p O 10 N O O N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 o U 01 O o N N ER ER O O CS Qi O O O O O O O O; O O O 010 0 630,0 01 000'9$ 000 000'009$ Total 1 ality of West Elgin SECONDARY VVATER SYSTEM 30 Year Capita! Plan Wai) Ref. 84718 -06 Annual repd. doc PRELIMINARY DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only 2009 ANNUAL SITE MONITORING AND OPERATIONS REPORT WEST ELGIN LANDFILL SITE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN RODNEY, ONTARIO Prepared for Municipality of West Elgin THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN 22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490 Rodney, ON NOL 2C0 Prepared by: WESA rl Better Environment For Business WESA inc. 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5 March 2010 File No. W- 84718 -06 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND SITE UP -DATE 1 1.2 LIMITING CONDITIONS 3 1.3 SITE SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON CRITERIA 3 2. 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL MONTORING PROGRAM 4 2.1 METHODOLOGY 4 2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring Program 4 2.1.2 Methane Vapour Monitoring 5 2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5 2.2.1 Site Geology 5 2.2.2 Hydrogeology 6 2.2.3 Methane Vapour Concentrations 7 2.2.4 Groundwater Quality 8 2.2.5 Site Groundwater Quality 11 2.2.6 Summary 14 3. ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 15 3.1 HISTORICAL SITE OPERATIONS 15 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 15 3.3 WASTE DISPOSAL 17 3.4 FINAL CONTOURS AND SITE CAPACITY 18 3.5 2010 SITE OPERATIONS 19 3.6 CHANGES TO OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 20 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 20 4.1 ANNUAL SITE MONITORING AND REPORTING 20 4.2 ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 21 5. CONTAMINANT ATTENUATION ZONE 21 6. REFERENCES 24 �L1 WESA 1 IBA ',,r I onrr•:mn TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: WESA 41'. r I nrrrrnirr, rir h.r h:r•irrr LIST OF TABLES Groundwater Elevation Data Methane Vapour Data Groundwater Geochemistry Data General and Elemental Metals Scan Groundwater Geochemistry Data Volatile Organic Compound Data LIST OF FIGURES Site Location Map Site Plan with Air Photo Site Plan Location of Cross Sections Cross Section A -A' Cross Section B -B' Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions May 2009 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions November 2009 Groundwater Chemistry May 2009 Groundwater Chemistry November 2009 Final Contours Revised Landfill Layout Extent of Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ) LIST OF APPENDICES (Not Included in Draft Report) Appendix A: Certificate of Approval Appendix B: Borehole Logs Appendix C: Monitoring Well UTM Coordinates Appendix D: Time- Series Plots for Monitoring Wells Appendix E: Laboratory Reports of Groundwater Chemical Analyses Appendix F: Landfill inspection Forms Page ii 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only 1. INTRODUCTION WESA Inc. (WESA) was retained by The Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin (Municipality of West Elgin) to complete the 2009 annual site monitoring and operations for the West Elgin Landfill site (the site) located near Rodney, Ontario (Figure 1). The monitoring program consisted of semi annual (Spring and Fall) monitoring of the site groundwater quality. It should be noted that "the site" is defined as the study area as a whole (as noted in Figure 2) and incorporates both on -site (property currently owned by the Municipality of West Elgin) and off site components. The Municipality of West Elgin currently operates the West Elgin Landfill site under the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Amended Provisional Certificate of Approval (C of A) for Waste Disposal Site No. A051101 dated December 21St, 2005 (MOE, 2005) and provided in Appendix A of this report. This annual report summarizes the results of the 2009 environmental monitoring program and site operations for 2009. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND S1TE UP -DATE WESA was retained by the Municipality in 2006 to prepare an environmental monitoring and design and operational plans for the site (WESA, 2006). The work components were completed to fulfill the requirements of the site C of A. in response to recommendations provided by WESA in the Hydrogeological Investigation and Design and Operations Report (WESA, 2006) and to the MOE in their comments on the report (MOE, 2007a and b), WESA was retained by the Municipality to complete a subsurface investigation and leachate delineation study for the site (WESA, 2007b). The subsurface investigation and ieachate delineation study allowed for delineation of leachate impacts down gradient of the landfill (off- site). The study concluded that impacts to groundwater were identified beyond the property boundaries (off -site) and therefore the site was out of compliance with the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUL) (B -7) (MOEE, 1994). Details pertaining to the establishment of the Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ) and additional information k provided in Section 5 of this report. WESA Page 1 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only To fulfill the requirements of the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUL) (B -7) and the CAZ, the Municipality has taken the actions outlined below. The actions were provided to the MOE in a letter data February 9th, 2010 (WESA, 2010). The following actions have been taken to date to establish the recommended CAZ to the south (50 m): Steps were taken to investigate the potential purchase of the property (as defined by the 50 m required to establish a CAZ). This was done through discussions with a real estate agent familiar with the area to determine the market value of the property. A third party expert was retained by the Municipality to negotiate with the property owner. Negotiations with the property owner failed to come up with a reasonable purchase price for the property. No further actions have been taken at this time. Actions to establish the recommended CAZ to the south east (30 m) have been limited to initial conversations with the property owner. WESA provided additional information to the MOE pertaining to the need for a CAZ to the southeast. The information was provided to the MOE in a letter addressed to Ms. Sybil Kyba dated November 6t 2009 (WESA, 2009c). A response was provided by the MOE pertaining to this issue in an e-mail from Mr. John McGlynn on March l$t 2010. The response noted that the most down gradient well (MW11) within the proposed 30 m CAZ to the east of the site, will exceed the RUL; thus, the site would still be out of compliance with Reasonable Use Guideline east of the landfill. To ensure compliance an additional monitoring well must be installed east (down gradient) of MWI1. It should be noted that the proposed location of the well by the MOE is within a Provincially Significant Wetland and that there is a notable topographic relief present between the current MW11 location and the proposed location. It is noted that the wetland and the topography may cause logistical difficulties when trying to install the well. Through the monitoring of the site over time (semi annually since 2006) it has been noted that due to mounding effects there is the potential for a small component of groundwater flow to be directed towards MW1 (Figure 3). Background water quality on -site has historically been evaluated on the conditions at MWI. Therefore MW1 may not be fully representative of background conditions for the site (WESA, 2009c). I4 WESA Page 2 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Waste has continued to be placed closer to MW1 which may account for the presence of indicator parameters. Due to the current property boundaries. a new background well would have to be located off -site. The Municipality is looking into the option of installing a well on the property located up- gradient of the site. MW1 will continue to be used to assess background groundwater quality for the purpose of this report (calculations of RUL) with the caution that it may not be fully representative of background conditions. Once a new location representative of background conditions is established site conditions will be re assessed. The approximate location of the new wells is shown on Figure 2. 1.2 LIMITING CONDITIONS The conclusions presented in this report represent our professional opinion, in light of the terms of reference, scope of work and any limiting conditions noted herein. All work is limited to the areas identified in the report. WESA cannot make any conclusions beyond these limits. The information and opinions expressed in this report is prepared for the sole benefit of Municipality of West Elgin and the MOE. No other party may use or rely upon this report or any portion thereof without the express written consent of WESA. 1.3 SITE SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON CRITERIA The MOE Reasonable Use Guideline B7 (MOEE, 1994) was established by the MOE to determine the reasonable use of groundwater on properties adjacent to sources of contaminants (such as a waste disposal site). The guideline allows the determination of acceptable levels of various contaminants that may potentially migrate from a waste disposal site. The limits are calculated considering the natural background quality of groundwater existing and potential reasonable uses of groundwater in the area. The Reasonable Use Limits (RUL) were calculated using data collected up to, and including, the 2008 results for the site groundwater and Ontario Drinking Water Standard, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWS) (MOE, 2006) and will be used to assess the landfill impacts at this site. In WESA 11k -:,i: i ririr •.i ir:� r,i I.,: Page 3 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only previous correspondence with the MOE (WESA, 2009b) it was stated that the RUL would be calculated using data collected up to, and including 2009, however this is not standard practice and will not be done at this time. Instead the RUL is calculated using data collected up -to, and including 2008. Analytical results are compared to RUL and /or ODWS and /or background conditions where no RUL has been established. 2. 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL MONTORING PROGRAM The methods and results of the 2009 environmental monitoring program (Spring and Fall) are presented below. 2.1 METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring Program The groundwater monitoring programs were conducted on May 12'h (Spring) and September 16 (Fall), 2009. Water levels were obtained from each monitoring wells to calculate groundwater elevations and flow directions. Locations of the monitoring wells are detailed in Figure 2. All borehole logs/ monitoring well construction logs are provided in Appendix B. A level survey was conducted in 2009 and the elevations and UTM coordinates for all monitoring wells are included in Appendix C. Samples collected were analysed for a series of inorganic parameters (including metals and chloride) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The list of parameters includes, but is not limited to, the leachate indicator parameters previously established (WESA, 2006). The list of leachate indicator parameters includes dissolved organic carbon (DOC) as requested by the MOE in their letter dated December 3 2008 (MOE, 2008). All parameters were analyzed to confirm the appropriate indicators. All monitoring wells were developed prior to sampling by purging a minimum of three well volumes or until the well was dry three times. The wells were then sampled using dedicated Waterra inertial lift foot valves and polyethylene tubing. WESA Ikih i I, 1. Page 4 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Clean, disposable nitrile gloves were worn when sampling. Inorganic parameter and metal samples were collected in sealed, laboratory provided bottles. Depending on the parameters analyzed, the appropriate preservative was placed in the bottle by the lab. Care was taken in the field to limit cross contamination of preservative and loss of preservative during sampling. In addition, metal samples were field filtered using a 0.45 .tm filter. VOC samples were collected in three, 40mL glass vials with Teflon septa. All samples were stored at approximately 4 °C during shipment to the laboratory. Chain of Custody forms accompanied the samples from the field to the laboratory and until chemical results were presented to WESA. All groundwater samples were submitted to ALS Laboratories (ALS) of Waterloo, Ontario. A full list of parameters analyzed is provided in Table 3 and 4. 2.1.2 Methane Vapour Monitoring Methane concentrations were measured using a portable Eagle® combustible gas monitor calibrated for methane with a Multi -gas methane sensor at all groundwater monitoring locations at the same time as the groundwater elevation measurements. Methane readings in parts per million methane, LEL of Lower Explosive Limit) and methane were measured within the riser pipe at each location. 2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2.2.1 Site Geology The surficial geology in the area of the site is classified into three units. The upper unit is a lacustrine deep water deposit consisting of sand, silt and day till. These are underlain by lacustrine shallow water deposits consisting of gravel and sand. The gravel and sand unit in the area overlies a well laminated to massive clayey silt till. Drift thickness of the gravel and sand units are upwards of 10 m in the area (P.Map, 1973). Observations during the test drilling program (excluding the boreholes completed in the landfill material) (WESA, 2006) identified an overlying till unit present across the area. A gravel /sand, gravel or sand unit that was up to 2.5 m thick was beneath the till and overlying a clay unit. In places throughout the landfill, some or all the units overlying the clay had been removed and replaced with landfill material. WESA 1 1 iq Page 5 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Boreholes were not advanced more than 2 m into the clay and therefore the full depth of the clay is not known. Based on MOE wells records for the area the clay extends to the top of bedrock that is approximately 55 to 70 m below ground surface (bgs). The distribution of units can be seen in two cross sections that were constructed north- south and east west across the site. The location of the cross sections is outlined in Figure 4 the cross sections are included as Figures 5 and 6. The additional off -site investigation confirms the geology in the area (WESA, 2007b). The bedrock geology in the subject area is described as an inter- bedded limestone and shale with fossilliferous zones. Bedrock in the area is part of the Dundee formation and is Middle Devonian in age (P.2544). 2.2.2 Hydrogeology Historical hydrogeological information for the area suggests that the direction of regional groundwater flow is generally from the northwest to the south east towards Lake Erie (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Shallow groundwater flow has been characterized by wells completed within the landfill material or the native sand and gravel units (with the exception of MW2D). Monitoring well MW2D is completed within the clay layer that underlies the landfill and is therefore not part of the shallow groundwater flow system. Based on the historical site operations as a former sand and gravel pit, it was determined during the initial hydrogeological investigation on -site where areas of native and and gravel remained. These areas were identified along the property boundaries as preferential pathway for leachate migration (WESA, 2006). The areas were confirmed in 2007 to continue off -site (WESA, 2007a and b). The results of the initial hydrogeological investigation (WESA, 2006) concluded that the hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel unit (1.0 x 10 m /s) is two orders of magnitude higher than that of the landfill material (1.5 x 10 m /s) tested and therefore could act as a preferential pathway for leachate impacted groundwater to migrate off -site. The clay that is present around the area has a measured hydraulic conductivity (1.0 x 10 m /s) that is two to three orders of magnitude less than the overlaying units and therefore will help to restrict water and leachate movement. Spring 2009 1-4-14.1 I u „r. elan no b a Rn iii... Page 6 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Static groundwater elevation data collected on May 12th, 2009 for the monitoring well network is summarized in Table 1. The groundwater within the shallow flow ranges between 95.33 and 96.69 meters above sea level (m asl). Groundwater flow is generally towards the east. There is a mound (an area where water levels are elevated above the immediate surrounding area) in the groundwater table located along the western property boundary between MW5 and MW1. The mound causes a component of the groundwater flow in the south western corner of the site to flow towards the south (away from MW5 towards MW10). A groundwater elevation map indicating the groundwater flow patterns is shown in Figure 6. A horizontal gradient is present across the landfill towards the south east at approximately 0.01. These results are consistent with historical observations (WESA, 2007a, 2008 and 2009a). Vertical flow between the landfill material, measured in MW2 and clay unit, measured in MW2D was downward at a gradient of 0.19. Fail 2009 Static groundwater elevation data collected on September 16th, 2009 is summarized in Table 1. The groundwater within the shallow flow ranges between 94.73 and 95.88 m asl. Groundwater flow is generally towards the east. As noted during the spring event a mound was noted in the groundwater table located along the western property boundary between MW5 and MW1. The mound causes a component of the groundwater flow in the south western corner of the site to flow towards the south (away from MW5 towards MW]0). The high in the groundwater flow is located in MW5, completed in the native material in the southern portion of the site and the low is in MW12 located just off site to the northeast. A groundwater elevation map indicating the groundwater flow patterns is shown in Figure 8. A horizontal gradient is present across the landfill towards the south east at approximately 0.01. These results are consistent with historical observations (WESA, 2007a, 2008 and 2009a). Vertical flow between the landfill material, measured in MW2 and clay unit, measured in MW2D is downward at a gradient of 0.37, slightly higher than historical calculations. 2.2.3 Methane Vapour Concentrations WESA 1I #J,:1nnrr. -Ink iIr0 ICnmr.. Page 7 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Methane vapour survey results from each monitoring location are presented in Table 2, along with an indication of whether the well screen was saturated or not during the time of survey. Methane concentrations were measured at >100% LEL and 21.5% by volume methane concentration in MW5 and 1% LEL and no measurable methane in MW4 during the Spring sampling event. The well screens at both locations were unsaturated at the time the monitoring was completed. During the Fall sampling event methane concentrations were measured at >100 LEL in MW5 with a 4% by volume methane concentration. Readings were also noted of 2% and 1% LEL in MW2D and MW4, respectively with no measureable by volume of methane. Well screens were un- saturated in MW4 and MW5 at the time the monitoring was completed. The high methane readings were noted in wells located within or below landfill material (MW2 and MW2D) or in close proximity to historical and /or current land tilling operations (MW4 and MW5). 2.2.4 Groundwater Quality The results of the groundwater quality analyses are presented and discussed below. Results are discussed based on background groundwater chemistry, leachate characterization and groundwater quality. The groundwater quality within the shallow flow and the clay unit are summarized in Table 3 with RUL and the background groundwater quality established for the site. The parameters that exceeded the RUL and /or background have been highlighted. Table 4 presents the VOC data and the VOC parameter levels that exceeded ODWS have been highlighted. Groundwater chemistry results showing leachate indicator parameters that exceed the RUL can also be seen in Figures 9 and 10 for the Spring and Fall, respectively. As well, Appendix D provides time series plots of leachate indicator parameters for all monitoring wells (please note that the plots are not at the same scale). Complete analytical results are presented in the original laboratory certificates of analyses provided in Appendix E. WESA I lt.=,11 Iniii Page 8 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only 2.2.4.1 Background Groundwater Chemistry and Reasonable Use Calculations The groundwater quality at the site was compared to calculated RUL based on the background conditions on -site, as measured in MW1 and the ODWS. Calculated RUL values and ODWS are listed in Table 3. As noted above MW1 may not be fully representative of background conditions and MW1 will continue to be used to assess background groundwater quality for the purpose of this report (calculations of RUL) with the caution that it may not be fully representative of background conditions. Once a new location representative of background conditions is established conditions will be re- assessed. 2.2.4.2 Leachate Indicator Parameters Upon review of the historical groundwater quality at the background location (MW1) and that of the landfill (MW2), leachate has been characterized by high concentrations of: Ammonia, alkalinity, arsenic, chloride, DOC, iron and sodium The seven parameters as outlined above, have historically defined the leachate indicator parameters for the site (WESA, 2006). In 2007, the additional investigations and the historical analytical results were reviewed and the list of leachate indicator parameters re- assessed. The off- site groundwater quality, the natural features located off -site (wetlands) and the surrounding properties' current and historical operations were used in this review. Based on this information DOC and iron are not believed to be solely representative of leachate impacts originating from the landfill and therefore were removed from the definitive leachate indicator parameters and were not used to delineate leachate impacts off -site. However, as requested by the MOE in their letter dated December 3rd, 2008 (MOE, 2008), DOC has been added to the leachate impact parameter list in the 2009 analysis. The landfill is positioned adjacent to a series of wetlands (northwest property boundary) and provincially significant wetlands (east property boundary). As a result of the wetlands in close proximity to the landfill and the groundwater monitoring wells, the DOC reported in the wells could be attributed to secondary sources and not just from leachate. In addition, deforestation activates have occurred on the property adjacent to the south western property boundary (MW9). Deforestation could also attribute elevated DOC within the groundwater (MW9). Further evaluation of DOC concentrations are required to determine if DOC is in fact indicative of leachate impacts at this landfill. WESA li,i.rrir Page 9 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Iron concentrations are variable across the site. Higher concentrations have been noted in down gradient wells (MW3, MW10 and MW11) than in wells completed within the landfill material (MW2) and wells with known leachate impacts (MW6 and MW7). Given this trend iron concentrations cannot be fully attributed to landfill activities but maybe signs of localized impacts clue to metal storage on -site. On its own iron is not representative of leachate impacts but in conjunction with other parameters, such as chloride it can be an indicator for leachate impacts. Organic Nitrogen concentrations are often used to assess the impacts of leachate and are often preferred over just using ammonia concentrations for groundwater. The concentration of Organic Nitrogen is based on a calculation using the concentrations of ammonia and TKN reported in a sample. Organic Nitrogen will be used in conjunction with ammonia to assess Ieachate impacts. Based on the information presented above, a revised list of leachate indicator parameters has been prepared. The revised parameter list is believed to be representative of leachate impacts associated with the site. Ammonia/ Organic Nitrogen, alkalinity, arsenic, chloride, DOC, iron, and sodium The leachate indicator parameters are used to assess the quality of groundwater and will be used to monitor changes in groundwater chemistry at each sampling location. It should be noted that although certain parameters (i.e. iron) are leachate indicator parameters for the site, they often occur naturally (i.e. at non impacted wells) at concentrations above RUL and /or ODWS. Therefore, concentrations of leachate indicator parameters are compared to background concentrations to assess leachate impact. Upon comparison of the groundwater chemistry at one or more monitoring locations to calculated RULs, ODWS and background conditions several parameters exceed the set value. Although exceedences were noted, the parameters are not considered leachate indicator parameters for this site. The parameters include colour, hardness, TDS, fluoride, sulphate, boron, and manganese. As discussed in the previous reports (WESA 2006, 2007a and b), the natural occurrence of these parameters provide evidence that they are not necessarily indicative of leachate impact. A discussion with respect to TDS, manganese, sulphate and boron parameters within the groundwater is provided below for completeness, as per MOE request (MOE, 2009a). WESA Page 10 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only It is recognized that chloride represents the most mobile of the contaminant indicator parameters encountered and would be expected to be the first contaminant indicator parameter to reach a monitoring location if leachate migration was occurring. Concentrations of chloride will be monitored closely to evaluate the migration of leachate impacts off site. 2.2.5 Site Groundwater Quality The analytical results observed during the monitoring events are, in general, consistent with those historically observed and reported for the site. The following table summarizes exceedences of the RUL for the established leachate indicator parameters for the 2009 sampling events: it WESA N. r, I n„i «1 Page 11 Well Location Well Flow Regime Spring RUL' Exceedances Fall RUL Exceedances Background MW1 Shallow Alkalinity Alkalinity, DOC Leachate MW2 Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, Chloride, DOC, Iron, and Sodium Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, DOC, and iron Down gradient East MW3 Shallow Ammonia. Alkalinity, Arsenic, Chloride, DOC, and Iron Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, DOC, and Iron Down gradient South east MW4 Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, DOC, and Iron Ammonia, Alkalinity, DOC, and Iron Down- gradient- South west MW5 Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic (duplicated only), DOC, and Iron Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, and DOC Down gradient South, off -site MM. Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, DOC, and Iron Ammonia, Alkalinity, Arsenic, DOC, and Iron Down gradient East MW7 Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, Chloride, and DOC Ammonia, Alkalinity, Chloride, DOC, and Sodium Down- gradient East, off -site MW$ Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, and DOC Ammonia, Alkalinity, Chloride, DOC, and Sodium Down gradient South, off -site MW9 Shallow Ammonia Down gradient West, off -site MW10 Shallow DOC Down gradient East, off -site MW11 Shallow Ammonia, Alkalinity, Chloride, DOC, and Sodium Ammonia, Alkalinity. Chloride, DOC, and Sodium Down gradient East, off -site MW12 Shallow DOC Leachate Clay MW2D Deep Ammonia, DOC Ammonia, DOC 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report West Elgin Landfill Site Summary of RUL Exceedances Preliminary Draft For Discussion Purposes Only Please note that there is no RUL for the leachate parameter ammonia: therefore ammonia is compared to average value calculated in the background well. WESA 14 011.11 1 I.1. I41.11.11 Page 12 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only The following general trends were noted; An increase in DOC concentrations (a leachate indicator parameter) were noted in monitoring wells MW1, MW5, MW10 and MW12 in the Fall; Nitrite concentration increased in MW3 in the Fall; The colour detections in MW4 also exhibited an increase over historical observations. Sulfate concentrations were above the RUL in MW1 (current background well) and MW2; Concentrations of TDS were above the RUL for monitoring locations MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4 (Fall only), MW5, MW7, MW8, MW9 (Fall only) and MW11; Boron concentrations were below the RUL at each location monitored in 2009; In the Spring and Fall manganese concentrations exceeded the RUL in MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7 and MW11. Concentrations also exceeded the RUL in the Fall in MW8, MW9 and MW10. It should be noted that TDS, sulphate, boron, and manganese are not considered leachate indicator parameters but concentrations of these parameters will continue to be monitored to assess their potential impacts on the site. Monitoring well MW2D, located within the landfill material was completed within the clay to see the effects of the landfill activities on the clay layer. The RUL was exceeded for leachate indicator parameter DOC and the ammonia concentration was reported above background concentrations in Spring 2009. DOC and iron concentrations exceeded the RUL in the Fall of 2009. Due to the thickness of the clay unit beneath the landfill (55 to 70 m based on MOE well records) and the tested hydraulic conductivity (see Section 2.2.2), the leachate impact would be restricted to the upper clay and it is unlikely that leachate impact would extend to deeper aquifers. The results of the VOC analyses had concentrations of all parameters measured below the ODWS in Spring and Fall 2009. A few parameters were detected above the laboratory detection limit but below the ODWS and followed historical trends. Benzene was noted in MW4 and MW5 in Spring and Fall 2009. Benzene has been noted in MW4 and MW5 since May 2006. Chlorobenzene was noted in MW5 as was noted historically. These parameters will continue to be monitored to assess their impacts on the site. 2.2.5.1 Quality Assessment and Quality Control (QA/QC) WESA fit I .f I: i.iii... Page 13 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only For QA /QC purposes a duplicate field sample was collected for the general chemistry parameters, metals and VOCs from MW5 in the spring and a field blank was collected for VOCs in the fall. The analytical results indicated good correlation between samples (Table 3 and 4). 2.2.6 Summary Based on the concentration trends of the leachate indicator parameters (as seen in the hydrographs provided in Appendix D) trends can be noted and conclusions made with respect to the leach characterization for the site. The leachate is characterized by monitoring location MW2. Similar trends can be seen with the concentrations over time at MW4 and MW5, down gradient wells to the south east and south west, respectively indicating a component of groundwater flow in that direction resulting in minor leachate impacts at the monitoring locations. Background location MW1 indicates that there may be minor leachate impacts at this location, as detailed above. Evidence is noted based on the increase in chloride concentrations in Spring 2009 as well as other parameter concentrations at this location. Concentration trends in MW9 (down- gradient and off -site to the south) and MW10 (down gradient and off -site to the west) have similar trends to that seen in the background well with concentrations of chloride well below the RUL and no leachate impacts noted. The wells located down gradient and to the east (MW7 (on- site), MW8, MW11 and MW12) again all show similar concentration trends over time to each other. The monitoring well locations have various degrees of leachate impact with impacts at MW7, MW8 and MW11 and no impacts at MW12, with the exception of a DOC exceedance in Fall 2009. Concentration trends in the reaming wells, MW3 and MW6 do not follow the groups of trends at other locations but show leachate impacts. The down gradient boundary wells that are currently used to assess compliance with the reasonable use policy include MW3, MW4 and MW7. Based on the Reasonable Use Guideline (MOE Guideline B -7) the wells used to assess compliance must be located on -site and therefore until the CAZ for the site can be established (as per the steps detailed above) off —site wells (MW6, MW8, MW9, MW11 and MW12) cannot be used to assess the compliance of the site with the Guideline. WESA 1 II, r. i II I, .3•i:: -iii I.n IYi.iii� Page 14 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only In summary, exceedances of RULs for leachate indicator parameters were noted in the compliance wells (MW3, MW4 and MW7) and therefore the site is currently not in compliance with the Reasonable Use Guideline at the property boundaries. In addition, off -site impacts were noted with exceedances of RULs for leachate indicator parameters reported in off -site down gradient wells (MW6, MW8 and MW11). Based on the actions detailed in Section 1.1 steps are being taken to establish a CAZ for the site. Once the CAZ has been established for the site, adjustments to the reasonable use assessment will be made and a contingency plan put in place to insure compliance with the reasonable use policy. 3. ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 3.1 HISTORICAL SITE OPERATIONS The West Elgin Landfill site has been in operation since 1971. A Provisional Certificate of Approval (A051101) was first issued in 1971 and reissued in 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1976. On July 16' 1980 the MOE reissued a Provisional Certificate of Approval (C of A) to the Village of Rodney. The MOE issued an amendment to the C of A on December 21nd, 2005 (Appendix A). A Hydrogeological Investigation and Design and Operations Report was completed by WESA and submitted to the Director of the MOE for approval on September 15', 2006 (WESA, 2006). 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The West Elgin Landfill site is owned by the Municipality of West Elgin, and operated and maintained under contract from the Municipality by a company operated by Mr. Sam Kirschner. The site is located on Lot B, Concession 7 former Township of Aldborough, West Elgin Municipality, County of Elgin (Figure 1). The landfill services the entire Municipality of West Elgin. The population served is approximately 5,500 which is estimated to increase to approximately 6,000 during the summer months. 'l WESA IL i I u� �r�i iii•_ ni 1 ••r IV,nirii Page 15 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Adjacent land uses to the site include a low lying wood lot, wetlands and agricultural fields to the northwest, an aggregate (sand and gravel pit) to the northeast, a wood lot and low lying wetlands to the southeast, and land consisting of grasses, shrubs and trees to the south west. General topography, surface water drainage, and the hydrogeologicai assessment of the site are included in Section 2 of this report. There is one access road entering the site from the northwest at Downie Line. The gate across the access road is locked whenever the landfill is closed or the attendant is not present. The site is bounded at each property boundary by natural forest and marshlands that deters illegal access to the site. A temporary access road is maintained to access the active landfill area. This road will be modified accordingly as waste disposal proceeds. There is one attendant building on -site that is constructed on grade. There are no utilities (electricity, gas, water, sanitary sewers, or phone) to the site. The site operator has a cell phone in case of emergencies. Existing signs include an entrance sign and signs denoting bins for recyclable material. As per Condition 16 of the Amended C of A, the entrance sign states the owner's name and hours of operation, the operator's name, the Provisional Certificate of Approval No., the type of waste accepted, and a contact telephone number to call with complaints or in the event of an emergency. Landfill operating hours are from 8am to 5pm on Wednesday and Friday, and 9am to 4 pm on Saturday. From December to March the operating hours change to 10am to 5pm on Wednesday and Friday, and 9am to 4 pm on Saturday. Waste disposal records are kept at the local municipal offices. The Municipality of West Elgin maintains a record of daily site operations, a record of complaints, a record of site inspections, and a record of unacceptable waste as per Conditions 25 through 28 of the C of A, at the local municipal offices. During the environmental monitoring events, WESA completes a landfill inspection and maintenance record to determine if any adjustments are required for the operation of the West Elgin Landfill. The completed inspection records for Spring and Fall 2009 are included in Appendix F. WESA 4 B i!rr 1:1,14■.. Page 16 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only 3.3 WASTE DISPOSAL The West Elgin Landfill site is currently licensed for the disposal of domestic and commercial waste. No waste surveys were conducted in 2009, however surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 identify the source of the waste and recyclable materials, and the number of bags disposed of each day. All surveys conducted have consistently confirmed the types of wastes and recyclables collected at the West Elgin Landfill. In May 2007, WESA conducted a one -day waste audit to provide an approximate average weight per bag of waste, as well as per car, truck, and van Toad accepted at the West Elgin Landfill. In addition, the number of bags of waste collected from residential versus commercial sources was counted during the survey. Based on the May 2007 waste survey, the assumed average weight per bag is 5.2 kg and the assumed number of bags per car, truck, and van is 3.3, 33, and 3, respectively. The measured weight for pick -up runs from the residential areas has also been used to calculate the total amount of waste coming into the landfill. As part of the daily records, the Municipality tracks the number of cars, trucks, and vans entering the facility to drop off waste. In addition, they also track the pick -ups from local residential communities and trailer parks. Based on the average weight per bag, per car, per truck and per van, as well as the total brought in for commercial and residential pick -ups, the total waste brought for deposit in the West Elgin Landfill in 2009 was approximately 390 tonnes. Domestic waste represents greater than an estimated 90% of the waste entering the landfill. The domestic waste was delivered by commercial hauler or individual drop -off and is typically comprised of the following: Mixed household garbage Plastic Glass Aluminum and tin cans Scrap metal Roof shingles Newspapers WESA l Iling i.i: li' fi Page 17 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Large items such as discarded appliances, furniture, and mattresses, are collected by the haulers or delivered to the waste disposal site for recycling, re -use or deposition at the landfill. Clean wood and brush are collected in a pile to the west of the approved waste limits and burned. Commercial waste represents less than an estimated 5% of the waste generated in the municipality. Commercial waste k delivered by commercial hauler and includes: Based on the information supplied to WESA by the municipality, the West Elgin Landfill recycled a combined estimated average total of 105 tonnes of material in 2009. The municipality diverts approximately 30% of the total material the landfill received in 2009. The following is a breakdown of the recycled material received at the site, on an average annual basis (average calculated from estimated quantities of recyclables in 2004 through 2009): 3.4 FINAL CONTOURS AND SITE CAPACITY The final contours plan is shown in Figure 10. The Municipality of West Elgin has placed cement blocks to delineate the limit of the landfill in adherence to Figure 11. The final contours are based on the local topography of the site and the estimated footprint area of 1.42 hectares. All side slopes will be constructed to a maximum 25% grade. The crown of the landfill will be constructed to a minimum 5% grade to promote surface water runoff. In 1984, MOE staff estimated the site capacity to be 100,600 m Prior to this time, the site did not have an approved capacity. Based on the final contours plan included in this report, the total site capacity is 134,823 m WESA Paper and cardboard Restaurant kitchen waste Scrap metal Plastics Scrap metal, 25.1 tonnes Glass, 29.1 tonnes Paper, 25.5 tonnes Plastic, 30.5 tonnes Aluminum and steel cans, 15.1 tonnes Cardboard, 13.6 tonnes Page 18 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only Using this site capacity and based on the June 2006 contours at the site, the estimated quantity of in -place waste is 110,884 m (WESA,2006). Based on an estimated annual waste input rate of 330 tonnes, a compaction density of 0.5 tonne /m and a waste to cover ratio of 4:1, the annual air space utilization rate for the site is calculated to be 825 m /annum. Using the estimated quantity of in -place waste, calculated utilization rates, and a projected annual population (ie., waste) growth rate of 0.5% over the next 25 years, the estimated life of the landfill is 23 years from December 2008 (that is, until December 2031). The estimated remaining site capacity as of December 2009 is 20,680 m Note that any estimate of remaining site life is highly sensitive to variations in waste characteristics, waste generation rates, cover material utilization, waste compaction and recycling efforts. The above projection of site life should therefore be interpreted as a rough estimate only, and should be reviewed annually against actual changes in the landfill volumes. 3.5 2010 SITE OPERATIONS The Hydrogeological Investigation and Design and Operations Report prepared by WESA (WESA, 2006) provides a detailed phased development plan for Landfill operations over the site life. In 2009, clay was placed on the edge of the laneway as final cover, however no other final cover was placed on the landfill foot print. Interim cover is placed over the active face on a weekly basis. All locations that are not part of the active face should be covered with 300 mm of intermediate cover material as discussed in the WESA 2006 report. The municipality has placed cement blocks to visually delineate the 30 m buffer area so that the site operator can place waste to the edge of the design area without extending into the buffer area. As per Condition 18 of the Amended C of A, daily cover or suitable alternative must be placed over the entire active face at the end of every operating week. In 2009, daily soil cover is placed on the active face at the end of each operating day. The Hydrogeological investigation and Design and Operations Report prepared by WESA (WESA, 2006) outlines the requirement for active face operations at the landfill. The active face should be kept to a maximum width of 10 m wide. The height of the active face should be the shorter of 1.5 m or the distance to the final waste contour. Site inspections in 2009 indicate that the active face is within the 10 m width requirement and the height is greater than the 1.5 m recommendation. Site inspection forms are provided in Appendix F. WESA 11k -!ii I irrrrr•:riri. ril 1 =v 14i,rrir Page 19 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only The natural surface water drainage at the site is controlled by the low topographic relief. There are no on -site drains and little evidence of surface water ponding or channels were identified during WESA's site visits. The landfill is situated on a local topographic high and therefore surface water run -off has not been a problem. According to the site operator, the site did not have concerns associated with litter, noise, dust, odour, or vectors in 2009. The October site inspections conducted by WESA did note some minor litter beyond the landfill footprint. The site currently maintains a record of complaints received about the site or any environmental emergency situations that occur at the site at the local municipal offices. There were no complaints in the log for 2009. 3.6 CHANGES TO OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE There were no changes to operational procedures or infrastructure. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations derived from 2009 annual site monitoring and operations for the West Elgin Landfill site are outlined below. The recommendations for the Annual Site Monitoring and Reporting and Site Operations are consistent with those from the previous annual reports. Recommendations for the CAZ are detailed in Section 5.0 below. 4.1 ANNUAL SITE MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. A new monitoring well should be installed to the north of the landfill prior to the Spring 2010 sampling event to establish background groundwater conditions for the site (Figure 2). 2. The site groundwater monitoring network should be sampled in the Spring and Fall 2010 for a full set of parameters, as listed in Table 3 and 4 of this report, to establish site conditions. Subsequent monitoring should take place twice per year (spring and fall) for each of the following years. 3. By no later than April 30th, 2010, and by April 30th of every year thereafter a site operation and environmental monitoring report will be prepared and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This recommendation is outlined in the provisional Certificate of Approval for this site. 61WESA Page 20 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only 4.2 ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 1. 2. 3. 4. as per 5. 6. The landfill site should continue to maintain a record of daily site operations, monthly site inspections conducted by a trained person, all occurrences of receipt of unacceptable waste, and complaints received about the site or any environmental emergency situations that occur at the local municipal offices. In order for the landfill site to be in compliance with the Amended C of A, these records containing the information specified in Conditions 25 through 28 must be maintained. It is recommended that the site operator and the Municipality meet on a monthly basis to provide records on waste accepted, quantities recycled, and to review the completed landfill inspections and the inspection results. The site operator should continue to use the delineated landfill footprint to ensure operations adhere to the detailed phased development plan and active face operations as provided in the Hydrogeological Investigation and Design and Operations Report (WESA, 2006). Bins used to collect recyclables must be kept in good condition without leaks Condition 24 of the Amended C of A. A layout of recycling collection bins and burn pile sorting area has been developed and is shown in Figure 11. As per Condition 18 of the Amended C of A, daily cover must be placed over the entire active face with a minimum thickness of 150 mm of soil cover at the end of every operating day. As stated, a tarp can be used as an alternative and the Municipality should continue its efforts in utilizing this tarp. Final cover should be placed over the areas where the waste footprint is within the 30 m buffer area. In addition, it is strongly encouraged that the design and operations recommendations made by WESA as part of the Hydrogeological Investigation and Design and Operations Report (WESA, 2006) be implemented to minimize any additional leachate impacts and the potential need for acquiring additional water rights or property in the future. 5. CONTAMINANT ATTENUATION ZONE The results of the subsurface investigation and leachate delineation study (WESA, 2007b) allowed for delineation of leachate impacts down gradient of the landfill. The study concluded that towards the east the impacts are limited to just beyond the property boundary but are not a concern due to aggregate operations and the wetland. WESA Page 21 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only To the south east and south impacts are limited to within <20 m of the property line (MW6 and MW8). Impacts towards the south east are Tess of a concern due to the wetland but are a concern to the south. The impacts to the south west (MW10) are localized effect of metal storage on -site are can be mitigated over time. To fulfill the requirements of the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUL) (B -7) and the contaminant attenuation zone (CAZ), the Municipality has two recommended options; 1- purchase surrounding property, or, 2- purchase the water rights and obtain land access agreements for the surrounding properties. Based on the conclusions of the study the amount of surrounding property required is outlined in Figure 13. The recommended extent of the CAZ satisfies the current MOE requirements and allows for some additional buffer room if required. At this time no action is needed towards the south west (MW10). The localized effects of the iron impacts in that area can be mitigated with proper storage and management of the metal storage on -site. The extent of the CAZ towards the south east was determined based on the buffer requirements outlined in O.Reg 232/98 Section 7. Based on the conditions in Section 7 (3) a 30 m buffer is acceptable as long as the conditions can be satisfied. Although the distance from the landfill foot print to the current property boundary is greater than 30 m distance and additional 30 m is proposed to fully satisfy the conditions on the subsection. To help assess the potential impacts off -site and to determine the required extent of the CAZ towards the southeast, and extending towards the east the maximum concentration of a particular contaminant permitted in the groundwater below the site (Cm) and the maximum concentration of the particular contaminant permitted to reach the adjacent property (Cw) were calculated for the leachate indicator parameters in exceedence of the RUL at MWII. The assessment of potential impacts off -site towards the east and south east were found not to be useful due to the topography, geology and ecology in those areas. As explained in the Leachate Delineation report (WESA, 2007b) east of MW11 the granular material, down to clay, has been removed due to aggregate operations on the property. Based on -site observations the leachate impacts are restricted to the sand and gravel unit and impacts in the clay are not anticipated at this distance from the landfill foot print (because only minor impacts are noted in the day beneath the landfill foot print). Therefore the minimal leachate migration beyond MW11 would be intercepted by the wetland on the adjacent property and would be naturally attenuated. The low concentrations of leachate migration in that direction would have little to no anticipated impact on the wetland. WESA Page 22 2009 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report Preliminary Draft West Elgin Landfill Site For Discussion Purposes Only To the southeast, leachate impacts have been noted in MW3. Based on the results of the additional investigation in this direction, leachate impacts were found to dissipate towards MW8 (approximately 20 m from the property boundary) with no impacts in MW12, with the exception of DOC in the Fall of 2009 (approximately 40 m from the property boundary). Once again the boundary of the wetland is adjacent to MW12 and therefore any leachate migration beyond that point would be treated by the wetland. Responses from the MOE (MOE, 2009a and b) concurred that the proposed 50 m CAZ to the south -south east of the landfill would be adequate, as monitoring wells (MW9 and MW12) installed within the proposed CAZ have no exceedances of the RUL. The MOE continued to note that the proposed 30 m CAZ to the east of the site may not be sufficient as the most down gradient well (MWI1) within the proposed CAZ would exceed the RUL, therefore the site would be out of compliance with the Reasonable Use Guideline east of the landfill. It was further acknowledged that there will be minimal leachate migration beyond MW11; however, there are no data to support this conclusion and therefore it was recommended that a well be installed down gradient of MW11 that meets the RULs. The location of the new well is showing in Figure 2 and is subject to land access agreements with the property owner. Respectfully submitted, PERLIMINARY DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Karen Greer, M.Sc. P.Geo S'rana Scholes B.A.Sc., P.Eng. Project Hydrogeologist Project Engineer PERLIMINARY DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Ian Macdonald, M.Sc., P.Geo Principal /Senior Hydrogeologist WESA Page 23 WESA Better Environment For Business Mrs. Norma Bryant The Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin 22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490 Rodney, ON NOL 2C0 Re: West Elgin Landfill 2010 Site Monitoring and Operations Proposal Dear Mrs. Bryant: WESA Inc. is pleased to provide a work plan and cost estimate to complete the 2010 site monitoring program at the West Elgin Landfill Site. Task 2 through of 8 the work plan were developed based on recommendations provided in the 2006 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report for the West Elgin Landfill Site prepared by WESA in April 2007 and requirements set out by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in Certificate of Approval (C of A) Number A051101 for the site dated December 21, 2005. An additional task (Task 1) has been added to this work plan based on correspondence with the MOE (WESA, 2009b and c) in response to the Subsurface Investigation and Leachate Delineation Study for the site (WESA, 2007) and the 2008 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report (WESA, 2009a). The work plan is further described below. Work Plan Task 1 Drill New Background Well and Well East of MW11 Task 2 Spring 2010 Environmental Monitoring Program Task 3 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results Task 4 Fall 2010 Environmental Monitoring Program Task 5 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results Task 6 Landfill Re- survey Task 7 Annual Analysis and Reporting Task 8 Meeting Attendance March 19th, 2010 Project Number W- B4718 -08 Burlington Gatineau a Kingston a Kitchener Montreal Ottawa Sudbury Toronto Yellowknife WESA Inc. 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 5C5 TeL 579- 742 -6685 Fax; 519-742-9810 Email: wesakw4vresa.ca www.wesa.ca Well Sampling Frequency Analytical parameters All monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW2D, MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, MW4, MW10, MW11, MW12) New Background Well New Well East of Site QA/QC (1 duplicate for general chemistry and metals parameters and trip blank for VOC) Bi- annually (Spring and Fall) General Chemistry and Metals, and VOC Task 1 Drill New Background Well and Well East of MW11 In response to MOE comments stating that the MW1 is not removed from the affects of the landfill and therefore not suitable as a background well, WESA is providing a cost to install a background well on the property located up- gradient of the site (agricultural Land located on the west side of the access road just north of the landfill boundary). In addition, the most down gradient well (MW11) within the proposed 30 m CAZ to the east o f the site exceeds the RUL; thus, the site would still be out of compliance with Reasonable Use Guideline to the east of the landfill. To ensure compliance an additional monitoring well must be installed east (down- gradient) of MW11. It should be noted that the proposed location of the well by the MOE is within a Provincially Significant Wetland and there is a notable topographic relief present between the current MW11 location and the proposed location. The wetland and the topography may cause logistical difficulties when trying to install the well. In addition, the location of the wells is subject to property access agreements. It is understood that the Municipality is in agreement with this option. It is intended that these wells should be installed prior to or in conjunction with the Spring sampling event for 2010. Task 2 and 4 Spring and Fall 2010 Environmental Monitoring Program The on -site groundwater monitoring network is composed of fourteen (14) monitoring wells. Groundwater sampling in the Spring and Fall 2010 will take place in accordance with the bi- annual sampling schedule for the site as outlined in the table below. Groundwater elevations will be calculated at each location to confirm the direction of groundwater flow. A minimum of three well volumes will be purged or the well will be purged three times dry prior to sampling. Water samples will be collected from each location and submitted for analyses to ALS Laboratory Group of Waterloo, Ontario. Samples will be analyzed for general chemistry parameters (Alkalinity, Ammonia, Colour, Conductivity, DOC, pH, TDS, Turbidity, Nitrate, Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Phosphorus, Sulfate, Chloride, Fluoride, Anion/ Cation Sum, Hardness, Ion Balance, Langelier Index and Saturation pH), a general metals scan (Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, K, Se, Si, Ag, Na, Sr, TI, Sn, Ti, W, U, V, Zn, Zr), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). One field duplicate sample (analyzed for general chemistry parameters and metals) and a trip blank sample (analyzed for VOC) will be collected for Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) purposes. As part of the 2010 monitoring program, methane concentrations will also be measured in the Spring and Fail of 2010 at the groundwater monitoring locations. The measurements will be taken concurrently with the groundwater elevation measurements using a portable Eagle® combustible gas monitor calibrated for methane with a Multi -gas methane sensor. Tasks 3 and 5 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results Following the Spring and Fall sampling events, the groundwater data will be added to the site chemistry database and reviewed. A letter summarizing the results of the groundwater monitoring and highlighting any anomalies will be prepared. The need for additional monitoring events and potential changes to analytical parameters and monitoring frequencies will be re- evaluated at that time. Task 6 Landfill Re survey The last survey of the landfill was completed in 2005. It is recommended that every 3 to 4 years the extent of the landfill foot print including length, width and height be re- surveyed. The updated information will be used to provide a snap shot of how much waste has been placed in the landfill over the time since the last survey and to calculate and confirm the current land fill capacity and estimated life span. Task 7 Annual Analysis and Reporting In accordance with the C of A, a report on the development and operation of the site, including the monitoring program, will be submitted to the MOE by April 30, 2011 based on the information collected in 2010. This report will present the findings of the two preceding monitoring events (Spring and Fall 2010) and will make recommendations for any additional work or actions that may be required during subsequent monitoring periods. Based on the assessment of the results from the previous monitoring period as well as historical data, recommendations will be made for on -going site monitoring with respect to the number of locations, frequency of monitoring and the necessary geochemical parameters for analyses. Any recommended modifications to subsequent monitoring programs will be presented to the Municipality of West Elgin and the MOE for their approval prior to modifying future programs. Task 8 Meeting Attendance WESA personnel look forward to working closely with the Municipality of West Elgin and its Municipal Council. Presentation of annual reports, project updates and the resolution of issues over the course of the project will be addressed through meetings with WESA and the Municipality of West Elgin. One meeting a year has been assumed for budget purposes. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST WESA personnel are available to begin work immediately upon proposal review and acceptance by The Municipality of West Elgin. Our estimate of costs for carrying this proposed work plan is provided below in Table 1. Task Description Professional Fees Expenses Laboratory Expenses Totals 1 New Monitoring Wells $2,024 $6,495 $0 $8,519 2 4 Groundwater Monitoring $6,520 $1,700 $9,903 $18,123 3 5 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results $1,480 $0 $0 $1,480 6 Landfill Re- survey $2,985 $1,040 $0 $4,025 Annual Analysis and Reporting $5,235 $50 $0 $5,285 8 Meeting Attendance $1,560 $160 $0 $1,720 Totals $19,804 $9,445 $9,903 $39,152 TABLE Project Costs CONFIDENTIALITY Disbursements The estimated total upset budget for this project R $39,152. The budget includes Task 1 that was not included in previous year's annual budgets for the site. WESA will not exceed this budget without prior approval from The Municipality of West Elgin. This budget includes all professional fees and disbursements, but does notinclude the GST /HST. All information, data, material, etc. gathered as a part of this study shall be treated as confidential and shall only be discussed with The Municipality of West Elgin unless otherwise directed. No contacts will be made to any third party without your full knowledge and approval. The contents of this proposal are considered confidential information, and as such is to be kept strictly confidential and shall not be disclosed in any form whatsoever to any other person, entity or corporation, without the prior express written permission of WESA. CLOSING If the terms of this proposed work plan are agreeable to you, please sign one copy of the proposal in the knowledge that this constitutes a legal contract between WESA and The Municipality of West Elgin. We are prepared to start work upon receipt of the signed proposal from The Municipality of West Elgin. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this work plan and cost estimate for the 2010 site monitoring program. If you have any questions, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (519) 742 -6685 x 217. Sincerely, Karen Greer, M.Sc., P.Geo. Project Manager/ Hydrogeologist End. Ref 84718 08 2010 Proposal revised doc r r��G� ana Spencer, B.A.Sc., P. Eng. Project Engineer Feb, 18. 2010 3:11PM County of Elg ElginC'c3unty February 18, 2010 Local Partners, Elgin Municipal Councils Via: fax Dear Mayor and Council: Please be advised that Elgin County Council, at its February 16, 2010 meeting, approved recommendations set out by the Elgin County Manager of Planning, Steve Evans, on the rollout of the formation of an Elgin County Official Plan. In addition, Council also appointed the following to represent County Council on the Official Plan steering committee: the Mayor of Malahide, a Central Elgin county councillor and the Mayor of West Elgin. Currently, serving in this capacity are Councillors John Wilson, David Marr and Graham Warwick. A copy of the approved plan is being included in this fax letter. Please include this information on your next council agenda. Thank you. Yours truly, Susan McConnell Administrative Services Coordinator cc Steve Evans, Elgin County Manager of Planning No. 4919 P. 2/10 1f- bvirtp i 8 2010 County of Elgin Administrative Services 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, On NSA 5V1 Phone: 519. 631.1460 www.eigin-county.on.es Feb. 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin E1ginCounty REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL Steve Evans Manager of Planning DATE: February 8, 2010 SUBJECT: Elgin County Official Plan Preliminary Work Plan FROM: No, 4919 P. 3/10 INTRODUCTION: This report will provide an outline of a preliminary work plan that will guide the formulation of the Elgin County Official Plan. DISCUSSION: Municipalities work under a provincially -led planning regime that has changed dramatically over the last 15 years. In 1996 the Planning Act was amended to allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to issue Policy Statements and that same year the first Policy Statement dealing with planning matters was enacted. In March of 2005 the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was amended to include policies about water (in the wake of the Walkerton tragedy), energy and air quality, settlement area expansions, employment areas, etc. The province is currently reviewing the PPS as part of its five -year review process. Section 3 (5) of the Planning Act states: A decision of the Council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, a) shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision; and b) shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be. The reference to provincial plans includes the Greenbelt Plan and proposed Northern Growth Plan Strategy for Northern Ontario. There have been rumours that other provincial plans for Ottawa and London may be in the works in the future. These provincial plans will reinforce the need for County Official Plans that can provide growth and development policies on a more regional basis. The provincial downloading process that started under the Harris Government will continue to create more responsibilities for counties and local municipalities, many of which must be addressed through long term planning. Feb. 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin No. 4919 P. 4/10 Analysis The new Elgin County Official Plan will maintain a focus on countywide issues and help coordinate local municipal planning activities to the extent that direct interaction with the province should be minimized as the county will become the approval authority. Once a new Official Plan is approved for Elgin County, approval authority will be delegated which will permit the county to approve local official plans, official plan amendments, plans of subdivision and condominium and part lot control by -laws. The Planning Act provides the enabling legislation that transfers these powers to the county. Section 17 (4) of the Planning act states: On the day that all or part of a plan that covers an upper -tier municipality comes into effect as the official plan of a municipality, the upper-tier municipality is the approval authority in respect of the approval of a plan as an official plan of a lower-tier municipality. In its approval authority role it will be the responsibility of the county to ensure that local municipal planning documents reflect both provincial and county policies. It shall also be the intent of the Plan to protect the ability of the local municipalities to plan for themselves. Therefore, the new County Official Plan should set out general policy directions and leave detailed land use planning in the hands of local municipalities. The Process In order to fulfil the work program, it is recommended that a number of committees and focus group(s) be established. Although, ultimate authority to adopt the Official Plan rests with County Council, the preparation of the new County Official Plan should be directed by a steering committee. (An organization chart is attached for information). A sub- committee of County Council would be appropriate for this function. It is suggested that three members of Council be appointed, ideally representing east, centre and west. The steering committee would review the various reports prepared by consultants and staff and would provide political input regarding proposed policy directions. This committee would also review submissions from other committees and the public that will be involved in the preparation of the Official Plan. Once the consultant is on board, the steering committee would attend public information meetings and regularly report to County Council with updates and Feb. 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin No.4919 P. 5/10 recommendations for the development of policies for the new County Official Plan. It is anticipated that the steering committee would meet frequently to review reports and draft documents and preside at public information meetings. This activity would occur over a 24 month period approximately. A technical committee is recommended to complement the steering committee in its review and discussions of background research reports and the preparation of draft official plan policies. This committee should comprise county staff, staff from provincial ministries and agencies, local conservation authority staff, as well as staff from the City of St. Thomas. It is also recommended that at least three local municipal CAOs /clerks sit on this committee to provide local input to the process. The technical committee will provide significant input into the background research reports, policy direction and overall implementation of the official plan program. A public focus group(s) is recommended that would represent a diverse cross section of public interests and represent the various geographic areas of Elgin County. The public focus group would be required to review all materials prepared by the consultants and staff and provide feedback. This group would be representative of public opinion in Elgin County but would not replace other methods of public consultation which will be discussed below. It is suggested that a list of 40 to 50 names of community minded individuals be prepared for acceptance by the steering committee. In this regard I will be visiting with all local councils to seek their help in providing those names. Communication Public Consultation The level and intensity of public participation is of significant importance to the Official Plan process. In order to create a plan that reflects interests from across the county, these interests must be expressed by the public. Although gaining complete consensus in a county as geographically diverse as Elgin is not a realistic goal, it is imperative that the public have an opportunity to comment at various stages of the process to ensure that the interests of the general public are reflected in the plan. It is also unrealistic to expect that all residents will choose to provide comments; however, it is important that the residents are aware of the plan process and aware of what the plan will accomplish. In order to provide and receive information, the Official Plan Process should involve a sustained communication strategy which would include media releases, news letters, county web site information and other documentation available to the public. In this regard it is suggested that displays be located in county libraries and other activity centres to inform residents of the Official Plan proceedings. Informal public meetings or open houses should be held to serve Feb, 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin Igo, 4919 P. 6/10 as forums for providing information and receiving comments. The formal public meetings would occur in the later stages of the plan formulation. Stages of the Work Program: Overview The County Official Plan work program should comprise three distinct stages. 1. Stage One should last no longer that one year and would encompass the gathering of base data on population, agriculture, housing, employment, natural environment and the preparation of issues papers. Stage One should culminate with the consolidation of the background data and issues reports that will provide both the technical and policy bases for the creation of the draft Official Plan. 2. Stage Two should be a relatively short stage in the process (three months) focussing on the formulation of the draft Official Plan which will be reviewed first by staff and the committees. Stage Two would end with the completion of the first draft of the Official Plan which should be in a form that is suitable for provincial, county and public review and comment. 3. Stage Three would be the review and consultation stage for the draft Official Plan. As noted earlier, the plan will need to be consistent with the PPS; however, a major objective of the Elgin County Official Plan process should be to ensure that the county's own unique conditions and perspectives on planning and development are supported in the policies of the new plan. This consultation stage will produce subsequent drafts of the plan and at the end of this process the Official Plan should be in a form suitable for adoption by County Council. Statutory public meetings would be scheduled prior to council's formal adoption of the plan. In order to accommodate extensive consultation, the completion of the first draft of the Official Plan should be completed within one year of the initial launch of the project (March /April 2010). It is anticipated that an extended consultation period should expedite and streamline the provincial approval process. Program Initiation The Official Plan prograrn should be initiated by means of a media release which formally announces the beginning of the process. It is anticipated that as the county sets out in this process there will be questions as to the "whys" and "whets" regarding the new Official Plan (i.e. Why is the county preparing a new long term Official Plan and what will the plan accomplish Hiring a Consultant It is the county's intention to engage consultant(s) to prepare the Official Plan and in this regard a detailed "terms of reference" will be prepared and circulated to Feb, 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin No.4919 P. 7/10 area planning consultants. The "terms of reference" document will need to be reviewed by the county's financial services staff and staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It is recommended that the County of Elgin clarify in the "terms of reference" that the consultant shall provide background data required to draft a new County Official Plan but that the steering committee and staff would control the way in which such information is conveyed to County Council, lower tier municipalities and the public. In this way the county maintains control of the program and is able to convey the county's perspective on long -range planning to the public. Time Frame It is expected that the Elgin County Official Plan will be completed and adopted by County Council in the spring of 2012 and submitted to the province for approval. The attached flow chart sets out the preliminary work plan schedule for the completion of the Elgin County Official Plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that three members of County Council be appointed to a steering committee for the County Official Plan Program, preferably representing eastern, central and western Elgin County; It is also recommended that County Council direct the Manager of Planning to carry out the following: Meet with local municipal councils to review the preliminary work plan; Request local councils to put forward names of community- minded individuals to take part in the public focus group(s); Seek volunteers from various ministries and agencies, including local municipal staff, to sit on a technical committee for the County Official Plan Program; To draft a detailed Terms of Reference for the hiring of a consultant to prepare the County of Elgin Official Plan in consultation with the county's purchasing officer and staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing office in London; To report back to County Council on the above prior to seeking direction on engaging a planning consultant to carry out the Elgin County Official Plan project. Feb. 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin All of which is Respectfully Submitted Steve Evans Manager of Planning Approved for Submission No. 4919 P. 8/10 Mark rrai Chief Administrative Officer Feb. 18. 2010 3:12PM County of Elgin No. 4919 P. 9/10 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Feb. 18, 2010 3:13PM County of Elg Z r Z co a co m Ca o 3 3 13 13 cv m m m r 03 M -ry a IS C) o 0 03 -y 9 Z 1 0 0 rn m o) z r O m No.4919 P. 10/10 z D n D O L O z Sincerely, Dear Joanne Groch, 4 triA-P-4 0 se a Kathryn Russell, Tourism Development Coordinator Public Information Meeting Elgin County DRAFT Tourism Signage Policy Wednesday, March 24, 2010 New Sarum Diner, St. Thomas, Ontario (6 :30 p.m.) Thursday, March 25, 2010 Keystone Complex, Shedden, Ontario (6 :30 p.m.) Paz County of Elgin Economic Development 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, On N5R 5V1 Phone: 519631 -1460 www. a Igi ncounty.ca The County of Elgin's Economic Development Department will hold two public meetings to present the DRAFT Tourism Signage Policy and notify former St. Thomas Elgin Tourist Association (STETA) and Canadian TODS tourism directional signage holders of the removal of all tourism related signs within the County of Elgin and the proposed replacement process. To ensure tourism signs are uniform, legible and appropriately located, the DRAFT Tourism Signage Policy defines eligibility, use, design and authority for tourism oriented directional signage on County road right -of -ways. The objectives of the policy include; elevating Elgin County's tourist destination image, informing road users of tourism operations and attractions, providing roadway directions to Elgin County tourism operations and increasing the frequency and quantity of tourism visits. This notice is your formal invitation to attend our Public Information Meetings to be held on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, at the New Sarum Diner in St. Thomas and on Thursday, March 25, 2010 at the Keystone Complex in Shedden, beginning at 6 :30 p.m. Your attendance at an information meeting is not mandatory; however the Public Information Meeting is an opportunity for tourism operators who have specific questions or concerns regarding the DRAFT Tourism Signage Policy to discuss those issues with representatives responsible for administering this policy. The Public information Meeting is also intended for any individual who simply wants to know more about the proposed Elgin County Tourism Signage Policy. To download a copy of the DRAFT Tourism Signage Policy, please visit the Elgin County website at www.progressivebynature.com and click on Tourism. Thank you for your interest and support in this project. Progressive by Nature 1.0 INTRODUCTION County of Elgin Draft Tourism Signage Policy 1.1 PURPOSE OF ELGIN TOURISM SIGNAGE POLICY To define the eligibility, use, design and authority for tourism oriented directional signage on Elgin County road right -of -ways. 1.2 OBJECTIVES 1) Elevate Elgin County's tourist destination image; 2) Inform Elgin County's road users of tourism operations and attractions; 3) Provide roadway directions to Elgin County tourism operations; 4) Increase the frequency and quantity of tourism visits by; i) Providing consistent tourism signage information to road users; ii) Improving the management and delivery of tourism signage to customers; iii) Protecting the safety of road users; iv) Minimizing additional road maintenance costs; v) Recovering program operating costs. 2.0 REGULATIONS 2.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1.1. Applicability The Regulations define the requirements allowing eligible businesses and attractions to obtain tourism signage on County road right -of -ways in approved site locations. Tourism signage shall be located only where sufficient space for signs occurs along a route that will lead motoring tourists to their destination in a reasonably direct manner. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519- 631 -1460 Fax: 519- 633 -7661 www.elgi n- county.on.ca 2.2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION County of Elgin Department of Economic Development and Department of Engineering shall jointly administer and implement the Elgin tourism signage program in the following areas: Department of Economic Development i) Approval or denial of tourism signage applications; ii) Approval of signage symbol and content; iii) Collection of fees and payment terms for tourism signage; iv) Receipt and refund of payment for tourism signage; Department of Engineering v) Approval of signage locations; vi) Supply of tourism- oriented directional signage; vii) Erection and removal of tourism signage along County road rights -of way; viii) Replacement of signage; and ix) Removal of signage not consistent with this policy. 2.3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA The following requirements must be met to be eligible to obtain tourism signage on Elgin County road rights -of -way: 1) Only those tourist -based businesses and facilities listed in Appendix "A" will be permitted to erect tourism signage on County roads. ii) The tourist -based operation and/or facility must be accessible by a road open to the general public. iii) A seasonal tourist operation must be open during a specific season with set days and hours of operation; no indeterminate tourist operation is eligible for tourism signage. iv) The tourist -based operation must have a reception structure such as a controlled gate, staff reception and orientation point or permanent interpretation panels or displays and have adequate off road parking. v) The operation must comply with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws and regulations. vi) The tourism signage must not detract or interfere with other traffic control devices. vii) The signage must not interfere with visibility at intersections or entrances. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 -633 -7661 www. e l gi n -c ou nty. o n. c e 2.4 SIGNAGE CRITERIA 2.4.1 Type of Signage Elgin County tourism operators will have the opportunity to acquire (1) classification of tourism directional signage: Type 1) 2.4.2 Design Size: 240 cm x 60 cm (8' x 2') Location: Along county roads, 0.5m of the road shoulder and not in front of an existing residential land use. The County determines the exact location and will make a conscious effort to prohibit signs in congested areas. Elgin County tourism directional signage will project a consistent design and image that will be easily identifiable by County road users. a) Elgin County tourism directional signage will contain the following design elements: A white reflective header with a full colour engineering grade reflective logo and tagline identifying Elgin County at the top of the sign (applies to first sign only); The principle body of the sign will be a blue background with engineering grade white reflective legend and border; The sign legend will be a maximum of two lines using Highways font, with one symbol as an option; b) The content of the sign legend shall be limited to the identification of the business by its operating name, the mileage to the business and a directional arrow. c) All sign legends are subject to the approval of the Department of Economic Development. d) Standard General Service Symbols and white Recreational Cultural Interest Symbols as displayed in the MUTCD (Manual of Universal Traffic Control Devices), as revised, may be used to indicate a general class of business. When symbols are used, they must be contained entirely within the border of the legend. If a symbol does not exist for the class of business, no symbol will be included on the sign. e) No business logos or trademarks may be used in the tourism signage legend. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin-county.on.ca 5.4 wi�.3•`r'�3 2.5 SIGN AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA a) The location of other official traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location of tourism directional signage. b) The maximum distance allowed to the tourism business from the sign location is 15 km. c) A maximum of 3 tourism signs shall be placed on one post location, with the Elgin County logo, branding sign at the top of the first sign. d) For the direction of traffic when approaching an intersection where more than one tourism directional sign is located, the order of the tourism sign shall be: First, businesses signed for the left direction; Second, businesses signed for the right direction; e) Where the total number of tourism signs to both the left and right are less than the maximum allowed for a double post location, the signs will be accommodated in one location. When tourism signs are located in one location, the order of the signs shall be: Top, businesses signed for the left direction, Bottom, businesses signed for the right direction. f) Position, height and lateral clearance of tourism signage shall be in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and County Signing Standards. Appendix "B" provides illustrative diagrams as follows: Diagram I. Illustrates typical tourism signage layout. Diagram II. Illustrates location of tourism signage. g) The Department of Engineering shall give notice of their intention, then will remove permitted tourism signs in the event of the following: The location of tourism signage is needed to be utilized for roadway purposes or activities including construction, reconstruction or maintenance; The tourism operator is no longer in operation; The tourism operator declines renewal of the signage contract; The location of a tourism sign endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public. h) When a tourism sign is removed and cannot be re- erected at an approved substitute location, the tourism operator shall be entitled to an appropriate pro -rata rebate of that part of paid annual fees applicable to the remainder of the term. i) All installation, removal and maintenance of tourism signage will be performed by the Department of Engineering or an approved contractor. At no time shall the tourism operator enter upon County road right -of ways for such purpose or perform any such activities within the roadway right -of -way. j) The granting of tourism directional signage does not convey any rights, title or interest to the County road rights -of -ways. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519-831-1460 Fax: 519 -633 -7661 www.elgin -cou nty.on.ca .W STS: 2.6 APPLICATION PROCESS 1. Every tourist operator must apply to the Elgin County Department of Economic Development Office for tourism directional signage to be located on County road right of -way. No approval of application or sign installation will occur unless all requirements and criteria for eligibility have been satisfied. 2. Application packages can be obtained from the Department of Economic Development or the Elgin County web site, www.elgincounty.ca. 3. The effective date of applications delivered by mail or facsimile shall be the date and time of receipt by the County Department of Economic Development office rather than the date of mailing or the stated date on the application. Applications will be considered in order of date and time received. 4. The Department of Economic Development will act promptly in the denial or approval of any tourism sign application. The Department of Economic Development office shall deny applications which do not comply with this policy. 5. The Department of Engineering will review the proposed sign location. If the sign location is not approved they will contact the tourism operator with an alternate sign location. 6. The applicant shall provide to the Department of Economic Development office a complete application form. 7. The Department of Economic Development office may reject any application which is incomplete. 8. The approved applicants shall have the right to request a change to their tourism sign during the stated term of agreement, provided that the changes conform to the regulations. Any approval of sign changes will result in the applicant incurring additional expenses related to sign removal, sign production costs and remount. 9. The Department of Engineering office will not accept any signs to be located along local municipal roads, only County roads. 10. If a tourism operator qualifies for tourism directional signage but is observed by County staff that there are existing operational problems created by the business, the applicant will be responsible to correct, at their expense, such problems as a condition of the sign(s) approval. These observed operational problems shall be items such as, but not limited to, the following: 1. Access improvement throat width 2. Radius 3. Relocation of access 4. Reduction in the number of access points 5. Provision of parking prohibitions on an adjacent roadway(s) 11. Upon approval of the tourism signage application, the sign will be installed within 4 -8 weeks. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519. 633 -7661 www.elgin-county.on.ca 'c rF. 1,1giAggA 2.7 EXEMPTION Upon a satisfactory demonstration of submitting proof of being a non profit tourism operation, as listed in Appendix "A" the operation shall be exempt from the signage and renewal fees for up to a maximum of 1 tourism directional sign for each non profit operated tourism attraction. In order to qualify for this exemption the applicant must submit certification showing registration as a non profit entity, and/or provide satisfactory evidence with their application, which, in the determination of the County of Elgin will grant the exemption. A maximum of 20 tourism signs per year for the first 3 years, and 10 signs per year for the next 2 years will qualify for non profit exemption over a 5 year term on a first come first serve basis. After the 5 year term, 3 signs per year will qualify for non -profit exemption. Non profit tourism operations also have the option at any time to enter into the tourism signage fee schedule at the expense of the applicant. 2.8 CONTRACT AND FEE SCHEDULE The Fee Schedule is attached as Appendix "C The Department of Economic Development will only accept payment for tourism directional signage fees in the form of cheques, money orders or certified funds. Payment must accompany the application. The Department of Economic Development shall not accept any payment in the form of cash and shall not be responsible for the transmittal of cash payments. All fees for tourism directional signage are to be based on the cost recovery of administering, supply of new and replacement signs, erecting signs, and maintaining this sign program. The duration of the tourism directional signage agreement between the applicant and the County of Elgin will be 5 years from the time the sign is installed. 2.9 RENEWAL OF CONTRACT The Elgin tourism directional signage term will begin from the installation date. Applications for renewal of Elgin tourism directional signage will be mailed by the Department of Economic Development 60 days prior to the expiry date of the permit/agreement. The tourism operator shall renew their application, accompanied by full payment according to the fee schedule. If the renewal application is not received within 30 days of expiry of the permit/application, the tourism signage will be removed. If an application for renewal is denied, all applicable fees shall be refunded. 450 Sunset Drive St, Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519- 631 -1460 Fax: 519- 633 -7661 www.elgin-county.on.ca 2.10 EXPIRY OF CONTRACT Pending the tourism operators renewal of the Elgin tourism signage application after the 5 year term, the permit/agreement between the applicant and the County of Elgin will remain active for 10 years from the date of sign installation. After the 10 year term the tourism operator signage will be removed. Tourism operators may reapply for signage after the 10 year term, following the same conditions as the initial application. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519- 631 -1460 Fax; 519 -633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca #4 Appendix "A" Tourism Operations Eligible for Directional Signage Antique Dealers Banquet Halls Boat Launches Boat Rentals and Charters (canoes, kayaks, sailboats, rowboats, motorboats) Campgrounds Casinos Conference Centres Craft Centres Cultural Centres Destination accommodations, resorts, and inns Equestrian Facilities Farm -based Tourist Attractions Farmers Market's Fishing Golf Courses (Open to the Public) Hotels Bed Breakfasts Interpretive Centres Live Theatres Major Tourist Attractions Major Sport Facilities Marinas Motor Speedways Raceways Restaurants or Foodservice Establishments Shopping Store Locations Skiing Sports Fields Swimming Pools Transit Terminals Wineries Zoos 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 -631 -1460 Fax; 519- 633 -7661 www.elgin-county.on.ca Appendix "A" continued Non Profit Tourism Operations Eligible for Directional Signage Non commercial (non profit community owned) operated tourism attractions that provide visitors with an experience in Heritage or Historical, Recreational, Entertainment, Natural, Cultural, Education activities. A categorized listing of qualifying non- profit operation types are included below. Archives Arena and Community Centres Churches Conservation Areas Hiking Trails Historic Sites; Historic Heritage Buildings Federal Parks Libraries Murals Museums Parks Public Arts Organizations/Galleries Points of Interest; Plaques Provincial Parks Public Beaches Picnic Areas Scenic Lookouts/Natural Attractions Tourism Information Centres Tourism Related Associations Municipal Airports Note: Signage listed above is exempt from renewal fees for up to a maximum of 1 tourism directional sign for each non profit operated tourism attraction that qualifies for the non profit tourism signage fee exemption. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519- 631 -1460 Fax: 519- 633 -7661 www. a lgi n -c o u nty.o n. c a -4)'777z1 Appendix "C" Contract and Fee Schedule for Directional Signage Type 1) Size: 240 cm x 60 cm (8' x 2') Initial Fee: $600.00 for 5 years applicable taxes Renewal Fee: $600.00 for additional 5 years applicable taxes Note: The sign costs are staff estimates and are subject to change based on actual costs. 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519- 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin•county.on.ca E 0 JNll ATh2dO2:1d Z _0 F- 0 r W V I 0 0