March 24, 2011MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 24, 2011
Council Chambers, West Elgin Municipal Building
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MINUTES (A1 Al2)
*February 17, 2011 B.I.A. Public Meeting
*February 24, 2011 Council
*February 24, 2011 Public Meeting Rezoning (Part Lot 5, Concession 2)
*February 24, 2011 Court of Revision Newtens Drain
DELEGATIONS:
9:30 a.m. Steve Evans (County of Elgin) Mark Stone (Meridian Planning Consultants)
re: County of Elgin Official Plan
10:00 a.m. Bill Bradshaw re: rezoning (El)
1:30 p.m. WESA Annual Report (D7d D7e)
2:00 p.m. Laura Bowles re: Clearing Cleaning of Land By -law (D7b)
2:30 p.m. Robert White re: MPoWER (under separate cover)
3:00 p.m. Erica Annette re: Healthy Communities Partnership (B1)
PLANNING: (C1 -05)
(see also correspondence items #3, #4)
1.* Community Improvement Plan update
2.* Port Glasgow Pier Extension and Reconstruction Project update
3. Establishment of BIA (D7c)
4. Appeal to OMB Official Plan (E2)
5.* New Zoning By -law update
March 24/11 Page 2
REPORTS: (D1 -D8)
1. ROADS
a) *Report re: Authorization to proceed to tender
2. RECREATION
3. BUILDING
4. WATER
a) *Report re: Water Department Vehicles
5. BY -LAW ENFORCEMENT
6. DRAINS
a) Tender for drain maintenance contractor
7. WEST ELGIN PRIMARY SYSTEM
8. ADMINISTRATION
a) *Report re: Cattle Running At Large
b) *Report re: Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
c) *Report re: Establishment of B.I.A.
d) *WESA 2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report
e) *WESA 2011 Site Monitoring and Operations Proposal
f) *Spriet Associates Rodney Pumping Station (under separate cover)
g) Appointment of Weed Inspector
ACCOUNTS
CORRESPONDENCE: (E1 -El 0)
1.* Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. rezoning application
2.* Patton Cormier Associates Notice of Appeal Official Plan
March 24/11 Page 3
3.* Ministry of Natural Resources Proposed Habitat Regulation under Endangered Species
Act, 2007 for Eastern Flowering Dogwood
4.* Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee Notice under O.Reg
287/07
5.* Port Glasgow Yacht Club Havens Lake Road closure proposal
6. Elgin County Land Division Committee notice of decision Quintyn
7.* Elgin County Land Division Committee application for consent to sever —Lot. 9 10,
Concession 14 (Quintyn)
8.* Elgin County Land Division Committee application for consent to sever Lot 10,
Concession Broken Front (Newport)
9.* Elgin County Land Division Committee application for consent to sever Lot 9,
Concession 11 (571419 Ontario Limited)
10.* Elgin County Land Division Committee application for consent to sever Lot 9,
Concession 1 (Beauregard)
BY -LAWS:
By -law No. 2011 -19
By -law No. 201 1 -23
By -law No. 2011 -24
By -law No. 2011 -25
OTHER BUSINESS: (F1 -F2)
1. Request for Municipal Solicitor attend future council meeting re: Havens Lake Road
closure
2. Closed session by -law infraction
*Information enclosed
CONFIRMING BY -LAW
ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETINGS
March 28, 2011
April 7, 2011
April 14, 2011
April 21, 2011
April 28, 2011
Rezoning Johnston Bros.
Amend By -law 2011 -04 Employee Remuneration By -law
Animal Care and Impoundment By -law
Appoint Poundkeeper and designate pound
Tri County Management Committee, 7:00 p.m.
Tour water treatment plant, sewage treatment plants,
9:00 a.m.
Council
Special Council Budget
Council
MINUTES
OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
B.I.A. PUBLIC MEETING
RODNEY FIRE HALL TRAINING ROOM
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Bernie Wiehle, Deputy Mayor Mary Bodnar
Councillors: Dug Aldred, Richard Leatham, Norm Miller
STAFF PRESENT: Joanne Groch Administrator /Treasurer /Deputy
Clerk
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Ted Halwa Planning Consultant
SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
Also in attendance: Peter Hack, Steve Speller, Cindy Sura, Ursula Redman, Judy
Gangle, Serge Lebedz, Drew Lebedz, Bill Denning, John Bakker, Marg Toth, Paul
Barrett, Josh Davey, Dave Dixon, Julie Scafe, Jeff Teresa Knight, Shaun Dowling,
Tim Blain, Caren Emery, Steve Emery, Paul Gangle, Frank Deeley, John Dianne
Sleets, Iris Keith Fretter, Ed Markham, Debra White, Gail Hack, Wade Davey, Mike
VanRaes, Cindy Sutton (32)
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The Planner noted that this is a Public Meeting regarding the formation of a Business
Improvement Area. It is not required under legislation to have a public meeting. He
presented a slide show starting with the CIP, which was adopted by Council in 2009.
The priority areas for revitalization are the town centres of Rodney and West Lorne. One
of the key initiatives in revitalization of the town centres is a BIA. Some of the points
mentioned were streetscape improvements, building facades, farmers market, heritage
conservation district, beautification and promotion. A joint BIA is a stronger organization
and voice.
The Mayor asked for questions /comments from the floor:
Cha:,, Tier was asked to prepare another report and nothing has been done.
There is a Task Force report on the by -law and budget budget of $5,000 not
high enough. Council should establish a cost sharing of the budget with the
property owners 50/50, 75/25 and 100/0.
why levy commercial properties over and above what's already paid? Commercial
properties are already paying more. Where will the budget end? Why do we need
a by -law? Should the municipality pay all of the costs or should they be shared.
There is recognition that businesses should contribute. Not every town has a BIA.
It's up to the membership to decide on a budget.
�-a
Feb 17/11...Page 2 of 3
who made the map and why are some areas in others not discrimination.
-the focus was on the downtown areas
1/3 of the businesses not agreeing when the downtown prospers then everyone
does. Properties north of the tracks in West Lorne will benefit.
what is the money used for? sidewalks? The members of the BIA decide. There
is some support from the municipality. Grants can be applied for through the BIA.
The budget goes to flowers, Xmas decorations etc.
we can't afford another tax. It is on the agenda for the Province to get evened
out. West Elgin is in the top 25% tax rates.
there should be a lower tax for commercial properties
is there a list of what council spends budget process is advertised
can't afford another tax -have to charge customers. Tell him something that will
improve his business. He spends more on promotion than anyone else. The
Horticultural Club does the flowers.
disparity of rates between the commercial and residential properties Taxes are
too high. Just coming out of recession barely making it. How are the taxes set.
the ratios are set at the County level and the rates are set by the West Elgin
Council
the BIA would work with Council to get grants eg. Trillium funding. Can't apply for
these grants as individuals.
are you going to raise taxes if the buildings are improved
if the BIA goes to Trillium to get funds why is there a levy the BIA decides on
priorities
if 2/3 of owners approve and the BIA goes ahead can it be dissolved -Yes there
is a procedure
CIP for 2009 budget to do beautification. Why is it the BIA that has to pay. It
seems like it is all on the BIA. The funding comes from a number of sources
plans are underway for the streetscape. It is premature to guess at
doesn't the Chamber of Commerce represent the businesses BIA would focus
on the downtown
need to work together
Rodney has nice flowers etc. people don't come to look at flowers -we need
people
levies are different in London versus Pt Stanley in Pt Stanley there is a
minimum /maximum levy, London has no minimum or maximum
if opposed must send in letter within 60 days by March 20
if owners not local and tenants occupy building how can they put in letters
must contact owners
downtowns in need of revitalization could it be started with no money- try for a
year with no fees small grant from municipality
something needs to be done to get started
want to see businesses grow why can't you take some money to advertise all
together 1 of the vehicles to build downtown
run the BIA with zero budget forum of people who share ideas there is no
obligation t.:,-have a budget but there are incidental costs
what's the difference between a BIA and the Chamber the Chamber cannot
levy against the membership the Chamber objectives are broader, the BIA has
a narrower focus, the Chamber focus is not only on downtown
don't want an open ended cheque, not against the idea of a group but they don't
want a levy general membership approves the budget
industrial lands shouldn't be part of the BIA some of the industrial uses are
winding down, because of proximity they were included in the area to look into
Feb 17/11... Page 3 of 3
why can you only have 1 vote if you have more than 1 property it's legislation
want names of owners can't be given out
taxes too high can't afford more taxes
if 1/3 of the owners with 1/3 of the assessment are against then doesn't proceed
SUBJECT: ADJOURNMENT
The Public Meeting concerning a proposed Business Improvement Area adjourned at
9:10 p.m.
These minutes were adopted on the 24 day of March, 2011.
MAYOR CLERK
g3
MINUTES
OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
WEST ELGIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 24, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Bernie Wiehle, Deputy Mayor Mary Bodnar
Councillors: Norm Miller, Dug Aldred, Richard Leatham
STAFF PRESENT: Joanne Groch Administrator/Treasurer
Deputy Clerk
ALSO PRESENT: Ted Halwa Planning Consultant
DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST:
None
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
RES. NO. 1 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that the Council of the Municipality of West Elgin approves
the agenda for February 24, 2011 as printed and circulated.
DISPOSITION: Carried
Council recessed to hold a public meeting on a zoning amendment (Johnston Brothers
(Bothwell) Ltd) and resumed their meeting thereafter.
SUBJECT: JOHNSTON BROTHERS (BOTHWELL) LTD REZONING APPLICATION
RES. NO. 2 Moved by Miller
Seconded by Leatham
RESOLVED that the report from Community Planners dated February 22,
2011 re: Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) Ltd. to rezone Part of Lot 5,
Concession 2 be received.
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: APPLICATION'- OR CONSENT TO SEVER
LOTS 9 10, CONCESSION 14 (QUINTYN)
Michelle Quintyn was available by phone for discussion on the conditions of severance
tree preservation and enhancement plan. She advised that her intent is to preserve
and to enhance the property. See correspondence Item #1.
RES. NO. 3 Moved by Bodnar
Seconded by Aldred
RESOLVED that the report from Community Planners dated February 22,
2011 re: Applications for Consent E64110 to E66/10 be received.
DISPOSITION: Carried
February 24111... Pg 2 of 5
SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN APPROVAL
Councillor Miller declared a Conflict of Interest with Modification #48 as he owns land on
Gray Line in the area. He did not participate in the discussion.
The Planner advised that the Official Plan was approved on February 7, 2011. The last
date for appeal is March 7, 2011. The Plan was approved with 48 Modifications. He
advised that he and the Clerk had been meeting with MMAH to resolve issues. The
Planner reviewed specifically the unresolved issues:
#40 section 7.5 future development in the area shown as Port Glasgow on
Figure 6 will require a Secondary Plan through an Official Plan Amendment
#46 section 10.4 creation of lots by consent may only be granted for up to four
(4) parcels exclusive of the retained parcel (four severed and 1 retained)
#48 the Lakeshore Area on the north side of Gray Line is replaced with the
Agricultural designation
Council further discussed the decision and agreed not to appeal.
SUBJECT: WEST ELGIN VARIETY STORE SITE PLAN
The Planner reviewed his report dated February 22, 2011. He will report back on the
rear fence, dumpster, u -haul parking and the curb and whether the site Plan agreement
needs to be amended.
RES. NO. 4 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that the report from Community Planners dated February 22,
2011 re: West Elgin Variety Store site Plan Agreement at 263 Graham
Road be received.
DISPOSITION: Carried
The Planner left the meeting.
SUBJECT: PORT GLASGOW TRAILER PARK 2011 BUDGET
Also in attendance: Jim Simpson Manager, Tim Marie Marsh, Bob Betty Swatuk,
Jack Joyce Welch, Lloyd Ilene Hyatt, Bob Doreen Pickles, Reno Jean
VanRaes, Omer Rita Benoite, Wesley Marion Colby, Livia Arsenijevic, Robbie
McNaughton, Stephen Hanna.
The Treasurer presented the 2010 Budget, 2010 Actual and 2011 Budget for the Port
Glasgow Trailer Park. She explained that in 2010 the fees were increased by $350 per
site and $2.00 per day for transient fees to pay for a new sewage system. A separate
outline was reviewed. It is estimated to take 10 years to pay for the upgrades. No
increase in fees was proposed. There was discussion on the capital projects for the
year and on the loss of 10 sites due to the new sewage system. Jim is to come back
with a plan to review with the Engineer /Council.
SUBJECT: COURT OF REVISION NEWTENS DRAIN
RES. NO. 5 Moved by Miller
Seconded by Leatham
RESOLVED that the members of the Court of Revision on the Newtens
Drain be as follows:
Chairman: Bernie Wiehle
Members: Mary Bodnar, Dug Aldred, Richard Leatham, Norm Miller
DISPOSITION: Carried
February 24/11... Pg 3 of 5
Council recessed to hold a Court of Revision under the Drainage Act on the Newtens
Drain and resumed their meeting thereafter.
DELEGATION: WEST ELGIN NATURE CLUB TREE POLICY
In Attendance: Bill Prieksaitis, Terry Eckersley, Peter Jocius, Paul VanVaerenbergh, Rd
Supt.
Terry Eckersley advised Council that two trees were taken down in front of her property.
She received no notification and wasn't happy that the trees were taken down. The
Road Superintendent reported that Mr. Eckersley had called him to look at the trees and
they had met and agreed what would be done. There was further discussion on this
issue and it was felt that better communications are necessary.
Mr. Prieksaitis and Mr. Jocius questioned as to who determines when a tree will come
down. Paul reported that the services of MEC are used. There is no tree replacement
policy. The Mayor requested that they bring back a policy on tree cutting /replacement
for Council to consider.
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE
1. County of Elgin Land Division Committee Applications for consent (Quintyn)(3)
E64165/66 Part Lots 9 10, Concession 14
Instruction:
RES. NO. 6 Moved by Miller
Seconded by Leathern
RESOLVED that the Council of the Municipality of West Elgin have the
following comments regarding Severance Applications E64/10, E65/10,
E66/10 applied for by Charles Michelle Quintyn.
In accordance with Section 2.7.2 of the Township of Aldborough Official
Plan, Council supports applications E64/10, E65/10, E66/10 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Subject to the provision of an adequate and potable water supply to
the satisfaction of Municipality;
2. Subject to the submission of a soils report to determine suitability
for on -site sanitary waste disposal and conditions thereto;
3. Subject to the removal of winter maintenance restriction on Gray
Line to provide year round access;
4. Subject to design and construction of driveway entrances to the
satisfaction of the Municipal Road Superintendent;
5. Subject to the submission of a general grading plan;
6. Subject to apportionment of municipal drainage assessments (if
required);
7. Subject to lands dedicated for park purposes or cash -in -lieu thereof
in accordance with the Planning Act;
8. Subject to submission by the owners of a tree preservation
enhancement plan by a qualified expert (eg. Arborist and/or
landscape architect) for lands lying along /adjacent to Gray Line.
9. Subject to rezoning (removal of `holding' symbol) for the proposed
building lots;
10. Subject to meeting all other requirements of the Municipality related
to the development of the lands;
11. Subject to the entering into a agreement with the Municipality with
respect to the forgoing matters;
12. Two copies of the deposited reference plan are submitted to the
satisfaction of the Municipality;
13. Taxes to be paid in full.
DISPOSITION: Carried
February 24111... Pg 4 of 5
2. Ministry of Municipal and Housing Approval of Official Plan Notice of Decision
(letter of approval, appeal period, with modifications)
Instruction: File
RES. NO. 7 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that the correspondence be dealt with as per the instructions
of Council as noted.
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: BY -LAW NO. 2011 -18 INTERIM TAX LEVY
RES. NO. 8 Moved by Bodnar
Seconded by Aldred
RESOLVED that the mover be granted leave to introduce a by -law to
provide for an interim tax levy on the whole of the assessment for real
property according to the last revised assessment roll and to provide for
the payment of taxes and this shall be the first and second reading and
provisional adoption thereof.
DISPOSITION: Carried
RES. NO. 9 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that a Bylaw to provide for an interim tax levy on the whole of
the assessment for real property be now read a third time and finally
passed, signed, sealed and numbered. Number 2011 -18 Interim Tax
Levy By -Law.
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: QUOTATION FOR BONN DRAIN MAINTENANCE
Council received the following quotations for Bonn Drain maintenance:
Darrell Dick Excavating
Timmermans Drainage
QUOTE HST
3,774.00 490.62
4,530.00 $588.90
RES. NO. 10 Moved by Leatham
Seconded by Miller
RESOLVED that the Council of the Municipality of West Elgin accepts the
quotation of Darrell Dick Excavating in the amount of 3774.00 plus HST
for the Bonn Drain Maintenance.
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: FUNDAMAENTAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP
Deputy Mayor Bodnar and Councillor Leatham are to attend.
SUBJECT: 2010 COUNCIL REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
RES. NO. 11 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that the report from the Deputy Treasurer re: 2010 Council
Remuneration and Expenses be received.
DISPOSITION: Carried
7
r!u
February 24111... Pg 5 of 5
SUBJECT: SUMMARY REPORT WEST ELGIN DISTI;BUTION SYSTEM
RES. NO. 12 Moved by Miller
Seconded by Leatham
RESOLVED that Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of West
Elgin accepts the Summary Report under Regulation 170/03 for 2010 for
the West Elgin Distribution System.
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: CRINAN ARGYLE CHURCH DRAINAGE
Councillor Bodnar requested a recorded vote
RES. NO. 13 Moved by Leatham
Seconded by Miller
RESOLVED that the water billing to Crinan Presbyterian Church in the
amount of $1,115.00 be paid for by the Water Department.
Aldred Yes Bodnar No Leatham Yes
Miller Yes Wiehle No
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEETING
There will be a Special meeting on March 21, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. to update Council on
water issues.
SUBJECT: CONFIRMATION BY -LAW
RES. NO. 14 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Leathern
RESOLVED that the mover be granted leave to introduce a By -Law to
confirm the proceedings of the meeting of Council held on February 24
2011 and this shall be the first and second reading and provisional
adoption thereof.
DISPOSITION: Carried
RES. NO. 15 Moved by Bodnar
Seconded by Aldred
RESOLVED that a By -law to confirm the proceedings of the meeting of
Council held on February 24' 2011 be now read a third time and finally
passed, signed, sealed and numbered By -law Number 2011-20
Confirming By -law February 24 2011
DISPOSITION: Carried
SUBJECT: ADJOURNMENT
RES. NO. 16 Moved by Miller
Seconded by Leatham
RESOLVED that this Regular Meeting of Council shall adjourn at 5 :04 p.m.
to meet again on March 10, 2011.
DISPOSITION: Carried
These minutes were adopted on 24 day of March, 2011.
MAYOR CLERK
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
SUBJECT: REZONING
MINUTES
OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
PUBLIC MEETING
WEST ELGIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 24, 2011
Mayor Bernie Wiehle, Deputy Mayor Mary Bodnar
Councillors: Norm Miller, Dug Aldred, Richard Leatham
Joanne Groch Administrator /Treasurer
Deputy Clerk
PART LOT 5, CONCESSION 2
JOHNSTON BROTHERS (BOTHWELL) LTD.
Also in attendance: William Bradshaw, Brent Welch, Chris Oliver, Randy Reiss
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. The Deputy Clerk informed those
present that notice of this meeting had been given under Section 34(12) of the Planning
Act first class mail to all assessed owners within 150 metres of the subject property as
well as provincial agencies and ministries as prescribed by regulation. Correspondence
was received from the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, which indicated no
objection.
The proposed amendment would change the zoning of the lands lying on the north side
of Johnston Line (County Road No. 6) east of Black's Road, comprising part of Lot 5,
Concession 2, from the Agricultural (A1) Zone to the Extractive Industrial (M3). The
amendment would permit the establishment of a new gravel pit by Johnston Brothers
(Bothwell) Limited.
The lands proposed to be rezoned Extractive Industrial (M3) comprise an area of 20.1
hectares (49.6 acres), a frontage of 296 metres (971 ft) on Johnston Line (County Road
No. 6), and a depth and flankage of 650 metres (2,133 ft) on Blacks Road. The parcel is
without buildings or structures and has been extensively cleared for agricultural
purposes. Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) Limited are in the process of applying to the
Ministry of Natural Resources for a Category 1, Class A Aggregate License to permit the
extraction of aggregate material from above and below the established ground water
table. Extraction would occrr on 17.4 hectares (43 acres) of the subject lands. The
maximum extraction per year would be in the order of 300,000 tonnes, with the life
expectancy of the proposed pit anticipated at four years. Final rehabilitation to
agriculture and natural environment is proposed.
Permitted uses of the Extractive Industrial (M3) Zone include a pit, wayside pit,
agricultural uses and forestry uses. Accessory buildings and structures are permitted
provided they are not used for human habitation.
The subject lands are designated 'Aggregate Resources' in the Township of Aldborough
Official Plan.
A 9
Of
February 24/11 Pg 2 of 2
Mr. Bradshaw presented a Summary Statement for the Ferguson West Pit that he had
prepared dated January 2011. He outlined the various reports required Hydro
geological Report, Natural Environment Level 1 2 Report, Environmental Noise
Feasibility Report, Cultural Heritage Report and a Geotechnical Investigation. He
advised of the 45 -day public notification period and consultation period of a further 2 -3
weeks. There are no buildings proposed. Plans are in place to mitigate the noise factors.
The same access and same equipment is being used as on the existing pit. The
perimeters will be farmed and the rehabilitation is natural.
Mr. Welch had concerns re the water table, as did Mr. Oliver. Mr. Bradshaw advised that
there is no dewatering and the water table will not be affected. Mr. Oliver had concerns
about the noise and the plans indicating a "possible" berm. The berm is usually dealt
with under the licensing. MNR monitor the pit and compliance with the licensing. The
depth of the pond will be 2 -3 meters to clay.
Mr. Bradshaw is to discuss having a berm at the south end with Johnston Brothers and
provide a letter to the municipality on the berm and how it will be maintained.
SUBJECT: ADJOURNMENT
RES. NO. 1 Moved by Bodnar
Seconded by Aldred
RESOLVED that the public meeting for Lot 5, Concession 2 be adjourned.
DISPOSITION: Carried
These minutes were adopted on this 24 day of March, 2011.
MAYOR CLERK
MINUTES
OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
COURT OF REVISION
WEST ELGIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 24, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman: Bernie Wiehle
Members: Mary Bodnar, Dug Aldred,
Richard Leathern, Norm Miller
STAFF PRESENT: Joanne Groch Administrator/Treasurer
Deputy Clerk
SUBJECT: COURT OF REVISION NEWTENS DRAIN
Also in attendance: Adam Sullo, Engineer, John Ungar, Drainage
Superintendent, R. Lupsor, P. Lupsor, J. Tacij, Z. Sabo, R. Sabo, B. Schweitzer,
Andy Kieraszewicz, A. Vandenbrink, P. Johnston.
RES. NO. 1 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that the Court of Revision for the Newtens Drain be
convened.
DISPOSITION: Carried
The Deputy Clerk informed the Court that written appeals had been received
from:
Tim Blain total cost and repairs are very excessive
Alan VandenbrinklMaria Wilson drain should be repaired reduce costs
if work started on south side of Queens Line
Peggy Johnston objects to her share of the cost
Zoly and Rosemary Sabo cost of the drain is too expensive
The Engineer addressed the appeals stating the costs are based on area and
frontage. At the second meeting May 18 2010 the costs excluded pipe bedding
but the increase in costs are due to pipe bedding. Everyone's assessment is up
by 20 Mr. Blain went from $8,000 to $11,000.
RES. NO. 2 Moved by Bodnar
Seconded by Aldred
RESOLVED that the Court of Revision agrees to hear the verbal
appeal from Roger Paul Lupsor.
DISPOSITION: Carried
The Lupsors stated that their property at the bottom end is assessed too high.
The Engineer said he can look at that.
Discussion centred on the following points:
Andy Kieraszewicz stated that there is 2 feet of water ponding at top end
of drain
Attempt to fix in 1993 doesn't drain now
Blair Schweitzer his water gets away
Top end of drain undersized
Upper section cost $53,000
February 24111... Pg 2 of 2
hydraulically undersized and 10" is under road bed
don't do the top end can save $20 $25,000
if all done together cost savings
the 1965 section is at 1/3" capacity, this report will bring it up to 1.5"
capacity
why do we need the bedding type of soil
there have been washouts
advantage of plastic versus concrete longer sections, flexible, fewer
joints, life cycle same
Council discussed not proceeding with the report
They would have to pick up the costs to date
The Administrator advised that they have a petition from a ratepayer to
proceed, there is an Engineer's Report indicating that work has to be done
and there are liability issues if the report isn't proceeded with and water
damage results.
The Engineer stated that he couldn't recommend not replacing the drain. It does
not meet today's standards.
RES. NO. 3 Moved by Miller
Seconl by Leatham
RESOVVED that the Engineers Report be referred back to the
Engineer for reconsideration as per Section 57 of the Drainage Act.
DISPOSITION: Carried
RES. NO. 4 Moved by Aldred
Seconded by Bodnar
RESOLVED that there being no further business, the Court of
Revision on the Newtens Drain be adjourned.
DISPOSITION: Carried
These minutes were adopted on the 24 day of March, 2011.
MAYOR CLERK
'31
1-- ea[tky Communities
What LS this initiative about? Health units from across the Province have been asked by the Ministry of Health
Promotion and Sport to take the lead on the Healthy Communities Partnership. This project includes creating a
committee /partnership that will work on creating healthy public policy locally. rr f f I
What do we mean when we talk about a healthy community? We!!, research tells us that a
community is healthy when:
The physical supports (programs) and policies are in place to make the healthy choices also an easier
choice.
i t The built environment is conductive to healthy living. Some examples include:
o access to healthy food options;
o access to safe affordable housing;
o preservation of natural surroundings and wildlife;
o easily accessible services;
o social gathering areas;
o green spaces that are easily accessible by foot, bicycle, wheelchair or buggy; and
o building of safe communities for the prevention of injury and violence
o safe, compact and walkable communities;
i r Specifically, within St. Thomas -Elgin there were priorities identified by community members, research, and local
experts that include:
o Availability of healthy foods and improving knowledge of food preparation
o Sidewalk maintenance and availability policies
o Supports for Active Transportation
o Examine minimum set -backs for smoking near municipal facilities
Who is involved in the initiative? Elgin -St Thomas Healthy Communities Partnership
developed for this initiative includes representatives from the City of 5t. Thomas, County of Elgin, Doug Tarry Ltd,
community members and the Town of Aylmer. The Partnership is also looking to establish a political advisory
committee for this initiative.
What is the role of the Political Advisory Committee? This committee will act in an advisory capacity
It will be an additional method of capturing the community voice, priority and support for healthy public policy.
What kind of time commitment would be required lf 1 decided to join the Partnership
During this initial phase (December 2010- March2011) the committee will be meeting monthly in order to meet
the Ministry requirements beyond March 2011 the number of meetings will be determined by the project(s) the
Partnership takes on. However,there will likely be six meetings annually.
What's in it for you and your organization?
e Access to grant money
e Make a difference to the health and well being of Elgin- St. Thomas residents
e Chance to network
e Access to resources and training opportunities
How can you and your organization get involved? The Partnership is still looking for staff level members from
the lower tier municipalities and members for the Political Advisory Committee. If you are interested in participating or
hearing more please contact Erica Arnett at 519- 631 -3159 ext 247 or via email at earnett@elginhealth.on.ca
ELGIN 57. THOMAS
P■ 6LIC MC.ILTH
21 March, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of Council
Municipality of West Elgin
FROM: Ted Halwa
RE: Community Improvement Plana Up -date
#0217/20_10
The following status report is being provided to up -date Council on the progress being made on the
initiatives set out in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the town centres of Rodney and West
Lorne. The CIP was adopted by Council under the provisions of the Planning Act on September 10
2009. There were no appeals and the Plan is deemed to be in effect.
1. Establishment of Joint BIA
public meeting of March 15, 2011
status report on objections received(reter separate report prepared by Norma Bryant)
options available and course of action
2. Streetscape Plans /Concepts
proposed plans ready for presentation to Design Review Committee
presentation to Council anticipated on 28 April 2011
3. Farmers' Market
attempting to firm up on preferred site in Rodney core
finalization of interim report of Task Force pending
4. Heritage Conservation District (HCD)
Graham Road between Munroe Street and Main Street
c
Community Improvement Plan
Municipality of West Elgin
21 March, 2011
page 2
(original signed by)
/et to be initiated
5. Business Recruitment and Expansion Program
-1st report of Task Force submitted
further research and analysis required
-need to reconvene Task Force
6. Facade Improvement Plan
program yet to established
requires municipal funding equipment
logically follows implementation of Streetscape Plan
7. Rodney -West Lorne Trail
-along former railway lands
designed to strengthen connection between two town centres
streetscape plans include focal /gathering points at both ends
discussions with owner Orford Sand and Gravel
-offer to purchase Municipality of Chatham -Kent
8. 2011 Budget
-2010 allocation: $32,000
costs -to -date: Joint BIA $2500.
Task Forces $7450
Streetscape Plans $20,000
HCD Plan 1050
Total $31,000
Ted L. Halwa, MCIP, RPP
#0217/2010
-to ensure protection of existing heritage buildings
-to ensure sympathetic design with respect to new buildings, exterior alterations and
additions
21 March, 2011
MEMORANDUM #009911675
TO: Members of Council
Municipality of West Elgin
FROM: Ted Halwa
RE: Port Glasgow Pier Extension and Reconstruction Project Up -date
The following up -date is provided for Council's consideration and direction, as need be:
1. Phased Approach
to facilitate project implementation
Phase 1 —West Pier Extension and Breakwater
Phase 2 —East Pier Re- alignment and Breakwater
estimated cost —Phase I $1.5 M (excluding HST) clarification pending
2. Permits and Approvals
Transport Canada received
Oceans and Fisheries Canada (DFO) in process
Ministry of Natural Resources awaiting DFO approval
Lower Thames Conservation Authority received
3. Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN)
additional consultation offered at urging of MOE
letter forwarded on 11 March 2011 response pending
4. Funding
contribution from PGYC $300,000 (previous commitment)
c a
Port Glasgow Pier Extensions
Status Report
Municipality of West Elgin
21 March, 2011
page 2
(original signed by)
contribution from West Elgin to be determined
Development Charges study in process
local sources e.g. Seaside Waterfronts Development Inc., corporate donors
Ports of Elgin County County tourism initiative
Ontario South Coast Tourism Alliance
Ted L. Halwa, MCIP, RPP
#0099/1675
21 March, 2011
MEMORANDUM #030011675
TO: Members of Council
Municipality of West Elgin
FROM: Ted Halwa
RE: New Zoning By-law Up -date
With the approval of the new Official Plan for Wet Elgin, it is timely to return to the preparation of the new
comprehensive Zoning By -law for West Elgin, Currently, the use of land and the erection of buildings and
structures in West Elgin are governed by the following zoning by -laws as amended from time to time.
i) Village of Rodney Zoning By -law NO. 89 -10 adopted 1989
11) Village of West Lorne Zoning By -law NO. 89 -20 adopted 1989
iii) Township of Aldborough Zoning By -law No. 90 -50 adopted 1990
A first complete draft of the by -law which would be both a consolidation and an up -date of the three
above -noted zoning by -laws currently in effect was prepared during the period 2003 -2009 before work
generally came to a close due to unresolved issues with the Official Plan with respect to the boundaries of
settlement areas and polices governing development in areas designated `Rural Residential' and
'Lakeshore'. Costs incurred to date and invoiced amount to $27,500.
A limited amount of work would appear to be required to up -date the draft by -law prior to it being ready for
review by staff, revised as necessary and tabled with Council for its review and comments. Once Council
is satisfied with the proposed by -law, the next logical steps would be to convene a public open house and
public meeting.
At least one statutory public meeting must be held with proper notice given in the manner prescribed by
c
New Zoning By law
Status Report
Municipality of West Elgin
21 March, 2011
page 2
(original signed by)
Ted L. Halwa, MCIP, RPP
#0300/1675
the Planning Act. Following input from landowners and the general public as well as from public agencies,
the input received or submissions made would be considered by Council and directions given as to any
iecessary or desirable changes.
A budget in the amount of $25,000 would be our `best guest' to complete the final version of the draft by-
law to the point of adoption by Council. The work is capable of being completed in the current calendar
year.
TO: COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
FROM: Paul Van Vaerenbergh
DATE: March 24, 2011
RE: AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED TO TENDER
INTRODUCTION:
The Municipalities commitment to ongoing Dust Control, Re- gravelling, and
Asphalt paving programs have been in place for a number of years now.
Quantities for the programs are traditionally the same year after year..
The expected quantities for this year are approximately unchanged and early
season tendering would be beneficial in obtaining good prices.
DISCUSSION:
Due to predicted increases in the near future, and the fact that council has
supported these programs over the past years an early tender could possibly
fetch a better price for the upcoming year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since these programs have long been beneficial and well supported by this and
past councils it is recommend that Council approves an Authorization to Proceed
to Tender for these materials in order for us to take advantage of early season
pricing and avoid expected increases.
TO: COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
FROM; Mike Kalita
DATE: March 24,2011
RE: Vehicle Replacement
INTRODUCTION:
The Water Department has two vehicles, which are getting up there in age
and should be replaced.
DISCUSSION:
The first of the two vehicles is a 1999 Ford F- 150.It was purchased used
from the Road Department in approx 2004.It now has just over 300 000km
on it, and is really starting to show it. The body is starting to go on it, and
the rear end feels as if it may fall out any day. There was $5000 spent on this
truck on one occasion last year that probably could have served better if used
elsewhere. Second is a 2002 Ford van with 150 000km on it. The body on it
is rusting along the bottom panels, and there is a hole rotted through the
wheel well. There has been an ongoing issue with the rear end in this van as
well. If we were to fix everything on these two vehicles it would be a costly
venture that may never pay off.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since repairing these older vehicles has been, and will continue to be costly
It is recommended that the two older vehicles be replaced with one new
utility truck.
0 it (0
TI .egt k i
TO: COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
FROM: NORMA BRYANT, CLERK
DATE: MARCH 24, 2011
RE: CATTLE RUNNING AT LARGE
INTRODUCTION:
After receiving complaints from a number of ratepayers about cattle running at
large, it is appropriate to revisit the need for a poundkeeper and pound for
livestock purposes.
BACKGROUND:
In 2007 Council enacted a by -law requiring property owners to properly fence
their land to prevent livestock from trespassing on other properties. Even though
on one instance a contravention has been taken to court, no action has been
taken regarding the required fence. Cattle are running at Large and another
option needs to be considered; that of appointing a poundkeeper and designating
a pound.
DISCUSSION:
Our solicitor has prepared an "Animal Care and Impoundment By -Law" (copy
attached) to address the issue. Further, a by -law has been prepared to appoint a
pound keeper and designate a pound (see attached).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the "Animal Care and Impoundment By -Law" be adopted.
2. That the By -law "to appoint a poundkeeper and designate a
pound" be adopted.
•z=-'&
Norma I. Bryant
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOL 200 Tel: (519) 785 -0560 Fax: (519) 785 -0644
i'Ca-)
DEFINITIONS
1. In this By -Law,
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
BY -LAW 201I-
(ANIMAL CARE AND IMPOUND ENT BY -LAW)
WHEREAS sections 9 to 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended
(hereinafter referred to as "Municipal Act confer the power to pass by -laws regulating or
prohibiting animals to a lower tier municipality;
AND WHEREAS section 103 of the Municipal Act confers the power upon a
municipality to pass a by -law to provide for seizure and impounding of animals being at large or
trespassing and the sale of impounded animals under certain conditions;
AND WHEREAS section 391 of the Municipal Act enables a municipality to pass by-
laws imposing fees or charges on any identifiable class of persons for services or activities
provided to or done by or on behalf of the persons within such identifiable class;
AND WHEREAS Council for The Corporation of the West Elgin deems it expedient to
ensure that animals are kept and treated in a humane manner and that the owners of animals
provide good quality care and security to those animals;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
"animal" means any member of the animal kingdom, other than human, as defined in the
Municipal Act;
"animal enclosure" means an enclosed place for the keeping of animals, but the yard of a
property where fencing has been erected on or along the property lines for the purposes
of enclosing, in whole or in part, the yard itself, shall not be deemed to be an animal
enclosure;
"Animal Control Officer" means the person or company, or their employees, under
contract with the Municipality to enforce the requirements of this By -Law, or an
employee of the Municipality of West Elgin employed to administer and enforce the
requirements of this By -Law;
"at large" or "trespass" means an animal being at any place other than the premises of the
owner of the animal and not under the control of the owner or a person acting on behalf
of the owner;
"Corporation" means The Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin;
"Council" means the Council of The Corporation of the Municip .ty of West Elgin;
"impounded" shall mean seized, delivered, received, or taken into the pound or any other
suitable location and facility, including any authorized vehicle operated by or under the
direction of an officer for purposes of transporting of such animal pursuant to the
authority provided by the provisions of this By -Law;
"keep" means to have temporary or permanent control or possession of an animal;
"Municipality" means the Municipality of West Elgin;
"officer" is the Animal Control Officer or pound keeper designated by the Council, a
Municipal By -Law Enforcement Officer designated by the said Council, and/or a Police
Officer providing police services to the Municipality;
"owner" means a person who keeps, harbours, or has custody of an animal, and, in the
case of a minor, "owner" means the person responsible for the custody of the minor;
provided that, if there is more than one owner of an animal, there are jointly and severally
"owner
"person" means an individual, partnership, association, firm, or corporation;
"pound" means those premises permanently or temporarily designated by the Corporation
for the detention, maintenance, or disposal of animals that have been impounded by an
officer pursuant to the provisions of this By -Law and shall include any building or
buildings and/or enclosures maintained on behalf of the Corporation by any person or
organization as is duly authorized to do so for the purposes of carrying out the provisions
of this By -Law and shall also include any premises privately owned by another person
who has agreed to accept animals on behalf of the Corporation for purposes of temporary
impoundment;
"pound keeper" means the person or organization responsible for maintaining a pound
utilized by the Corporation for the purpose of enforcing and carrying out the provisions
of this By -Law;
"sanitary condition" means a condition that does not result in an accumulation of fecal
matter, odour, insect infestation, or rodent attractants which endanger the health, comfort,
or convenience of any person or animals.
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
2. The Animal Control Officer shall be responsible for the administration of this By -Law
and the said Animal Control Officer, a By -Law Enforcement Officer, and/or Police
Officer providing police services to the Corporation shall be responsible for the
enforcement of and may enforce this By -Law.
KEEPING OF ANIMALS
3. Every owner of an animal shall treat the animal in a humane manner, including but not
limited to the provision of:
a) A shelter for the animal that is waterproof and that protects the animal from exposure
to the elements;
b) A shelter for the animal that is adequate for its size and breed;
c) Adequate amounts of potable water for the animal; and
d) Food of a type and in amounts nutritionally adequate for the animal.
4. No person shall keep an animal in an unsanitary condition.
5. Sections 3 and 4 and do not apply to:
a) An animal hospital or clinic that is lawfully operated and supervised by a veterinarian
licensed by the Ontario Veterinary Association;
b) A pound or shelter lawfully operated by the Corporation or the Ontario Society For
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA);
c) Any organization permitted by law to provide protection and humane treatment for
animals;
d) Any person rendering emergency treatment to an injured or abandoned animal;
e) The Corporation or other governmental authority while lawfully operating a public
park, exhibition, zoological garden, and the maintaining animals therein;
f) Persons operating premises registered as research facilities under the Animals for
Research Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. A -22, as amended, or the persons in charge, or the
employees thereof, during the course of their duties.
ANIMAL ENCLOSURES
6. Every owner of an anima] shall ensure that the animal enclosure provided for the animal
meets the following requirements, regardless of whether the animal enclosure is located
indoors or outdoors:
a) The animal enclosure shall be of a size and in a condition such that the animal may:
i) Extend its legs, wings, and body to the full natural extent;
ii) Stand;
iii) Sit; or
iv) Perch.
b) Every reptile, fish, and amphibian shall be provided with an enclosed space adequate
for the needs of the species.
c) The enclosure is of such a nature and condition that the animal contained therein
would not be harmed and its health would not be negatively affected by reason of
being placed in such an animal enclosure.
d) Every animal contained therein may be readily observable unless the natural habits of
the animal require otherwise.
e) The animal enclosure is kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
f) The animal enclosure is kept free of offensive odours.
g) The animal enclosure is escape proof.
7. Compliance with the requirements under this section of this By -Law does not exempt any
person from compliance with other applicable laws and by -laws, including but not
limited to the Building Code Act, 1992, as amended, and the Municipal By -Law
requiring the fencing of livestock.
8. Every owner shall allow any officer to carry out an inspection of the premises where an
animal or animals of the owner are kept or to make inquiries deemed necessary for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with this By -Law.
ANIMALS AT LARGE
9. No owner shall cause or permit an animal to be at large.
SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT
10. Any animal found to be at large contrary to this By -Law may be seized by an officer.
11. An officer may take possession of an animal for the purpose of providing protective care
to it at any time when the officer deems it necessary to provide protective care to the
animal.
12. Any animal seized under this By -Law shall be impounded for a period of five (5) days,
exclusive of the day in which the animal was impounded and any intervening statutory
holidays and Sundays, unless:
a) The animal is redeemed by the owner during this period of impoundment in
accordance with the provisions of this By -Law;
b) In the opinion of the officer, the animal should be euthanized or should receive
veterinary care immediately.
13. The owner of an animal impounded pursuant to this By -Law may redeem the animal
upon payment of the appropriate seizure and impoundment and maintenance fees and
associated charges for the time of the impoundment, including original seizure, as set
forth in Schedule "A" to this By -Law.
14. If an animal is not redeemed within the time period specified in this By -Law, the animal
shall become the property of the Corporation and may be:
a) Sold, privately, by auction, or by other commercially reasonable means; or
b) Euthanized at the direction of the Animal Control Officer.
15. An Animal Control Officer, pound keeper, or By -Law Enforcement Officer, after
consultation of and/or examination of such animal by a veterinarian, if available, may
euthanizc an animal without delay without permitting any person to redeem it if:
a) The animal seized and impounded under this By -Law is seriously injured or ill and
should be euthanized without delay for humane reasons;
b) Euthanasia of the animal seized and impounded under this By -Law as necessary for
the safety of persons.
16. Where, in the opinion of the Animal Control Officer, pound keeper, or By -Law
Enforcement Officer, an animal seized and impounded under this By -Law is injured and
requires the services of a veterinarian or veterinary surgeon, the said Animal Control
Officer, pound keeper, or By -Law Enforcement Officer shall arrange for such services
and, in addition to any amount charged under this section of the By -Law and pursuant to
Schedule "A" hereto, the Corporation is entitled to charge the owner of the animal the
cost of the veterinary care invoiced to the Corporation at the direction of the Animal
Control Officer.
17. In the event that any animal impounded pursuant to this By -Law and for which
impoundment and maintenance charges and reimbursement of any veterinary services
becomes chargeable to the owner, the Corporation may deem such charges as property
taxes and thereafter add same to the tax roll accruing to any property of the owner located
within the Municipality and thereafter collect those charges from the said owner in the
same manner as property taxes.
QUARANTINE OF ANIMALS
18. If, in the opinion of the local Health Unit or an officer, an animal shall be put in
quarantine, the owner of the animal shall:
a) Comply with the quarantine order of the Health Unit or officer; and
b) Be responsible for the costs associated with the quarantine, including the costs of any
veterinary care required for the animal and any other applicable fees.
19. In the event that the owner of the animal fails or refuses to pay the costs associated with
the quarantine as set forth in s. 18 b) above, then the Corporation may arrange for such
quarantine and, in addition to any amount charged under this section of the By -Law and
pursuant to Schedule "A" hereto, the Corporation may deem such costs and charges as
property taxes and thereafter add same to the tax roll accruing to any property of the
owner located within the Municipality and thereafter collect those costs from the said
owner in the same manner as property taxes.
PAYMENT OF CHARGESII'OSTS
20. Every person responsible for the payment of any charges, costs, and expenses incurred
under this By -Law shall make such payment in full upon demand by the Corporation.
21. The payment of any fees and charges as required under this By -Law does not constitute
partial or full payment of any fines imposed by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
offence committed under this By -Law or any other By -Laws.
OFFENCE
22. Every person who contravenes any provision of this By -Law is guilty of an offence and is
liable to a fine and other penalties imposed pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act,
1990, c. P -33, as amended.
VALIDITY
21 If a Court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision or provisions, or part thereof,
of this By -Law as invalid, it is the intention of Council that the remainder of the By -Law
shall continue to be in force.
CONFLICT
24. In the event of conflict between the provisions and effect of this By -Law and any other
By -Law of the Municipality, including but not limited to By -Law 2002 -15 as relating to
the licensing and regulating of the keeping of dogs and prohibiting the running at large of
dogs within the limits of the Municipality, the provisions and effect of such other By-
Law shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE
25. This By -Law shall come into full force and effect on the day of its final passing thereof.
SHORT TITLE
26. This By -Law shall be referred to as the "Animal Care and Impoundment By- Law
READ A FIRST TIME this day of March, 2011.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of March, 2011.
READ A THIRD TIME and FINALLY PASSED in OPEN COUNCIL this day of March,
2011,
MAYOR CLERK
Charges
1. Seizure Fee
2. Impound/Maintenance /Quarantine Fees
SCHEDULE "A"
$150.00 per animal plus travel fees
charged by seizing person or agency
to a maximum of $1.00 per kilometer
10.00 per day per animal or as
charged by third party supplier of
pound/quarantine facilities,
whichever is greater (exclusive of
any associated veterinary charges/
expenses)
3. Administrative Fee 5 percent of all fees chargeable as
set forth above.
Note: In addition to fees and charges set forth above, any and all applicable taxes shall
also be charged.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
BY -LAW NO. 2011-.25
A BY -LAW TO APPOINT A POUNDKEEPER AND DESIGNATE A POUND.
WHEREAS Section 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as
amended, provides that a lower -tier municipality may pass by -laws respecting
matters within the spheres of jurisdiction including but not limited to animals;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient to appoint a poundkeeper
and designate a pound;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of West
Elgin enacts as follows:
1) That the following person is hereby appointed poundkeeper:
Earl Foster
2) That the following location be designated as a pound for the purposes of
livestock:
434 Petrolia Line, RR7, Alvinston, Ontario NOL 1A0
3) Every person who contravenes any provision of this By -law is guilty of an
offence and is liable to a fine and other penalties pursuant to the
Provincial Offences Act, 1990, c.P.33, as amended.
4) This by -law shall come into force upon the final passing thereof.
READ a FIRST and SECOND time this day of 2011.
Read a THIRD time and finally passed this day of 2011.
MAYOR CLERK
INTRODUCTION:
D gai)
Thie of .eof lagin
TO: COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
FROM: NORMA BRYANT, CLERK
DATE: MARCH 24, 2011
RE: CLEANING CLEARING OF LAND BY -LAW
Council requested a review of the Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law and
procedure used.
BACKGROUND:
By -law No. 2004 -68 enacted the Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law on
September 23, 2004. The purpose of this by -law was to separate the property
issues that relate to the outside of the buildings from those related to the
buildings themselves. By -law 99 -09 provides a "Property Standards By -law" that
relates to building and structural issues. Under By -law 99 -09 the owner may
request a hearing before the Property Standards Committee. This does not
apply to By -law No. 2004 -68.
DISCUSSION:
By -law No. 2004 -68 is attached for your reference. The By -law Enforcement
Officer and myself have reviewed the by -law and are not recommending any
changes. I have contacted Dutton /Dunwich and Southwest Middlesex regarding
their by -law and found that their by -laws are essentially the same as ours.
Procedures:
Presently, the municipality acts on written complaints only. This is the same
procedure as other municipalities. The advantage of written complaints is facts
and location is given which assists the By -law Enforcement Officer in the
investigation. The Clerk keeps these forms confidential and the ratepayer is so
advised.
There has been an issue with recurring complaints on the same property. This
has been both frustrating for staff as well as the neighbours. We are
recommending that after review of the by -law that the municipality request
authorization for set fines. The procedure would be amended to fine the property
owner on the second complaint in the last five -year period for the same owner.
First complaint would be issued an order, This could be implemented for grass
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOL 2C0 Tel: (519) 785 -0560 Fax: (519) 785 -0644
Page 2 of 2
complaints as well and on the third complaint the municipality would hire a
contactor to cut the grass.
The following is a summary of the procedures used:
1. Written complaint received by Clerk
2. Copy forwarded to By -law Enforcement Officer for investigation.
3. By -law Enforcement Officer inspects the property photographs are
taken, report completed
4. The By -law Enforcement Officer will discuss the complaint with the
owner.
5. If no action taken in the timeline discussed an order issued (does not
apply to grass), sent by registered mail. Two weeks notice for grass,
one month for everything else.
6. Second inspection on date specified in #5.
Municipal staff have always tried to work with the property owners and have
given extensions if some progress is being made. The alternative is for the
municipality to rectify the situation immediately. When it comes to the point, that
the municipality must take action, Council is advised. Quotes for clean -up are
received and final written notice provided to the property owner.
Public Notice
Since the original by -law was passed in 2004, it may be appropriate to place an
ad in the paper explaining the by -law after set fines have been established.
Contract
The agreement with Commissionaires was entered into on April 1, 2008. There
is an option to extend for year 4 and 5 at the previous year's rate plus CPI or 2%
(which ever is greater). The previous rate is $14.55 per hour, $21.83 overtime
rate and $36.38 statutory holiday rate. Mileage is at 0.495 per km and $20.00
per month for cell phone. We have primarily used Commissionaires staff for
Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law infractions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That set fines be implemented for By -law No. 2004 -68.
2. That complaints on recurring properties be issued a set fine for
the second occurrence and thereafter.
3. That in the case of grass complaints, on the third occurrence the
municipality will contract for the grass to be cut.
4. That the option in the contract with Commissionaires be
authorized for year 4 and 5.
Norma 1. Bryant
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
BY -LAW No. 2004 -68
CLEANING CLEARING OF LAND BY LAW
being a By -law for requiring and regulating, in the Municipality of West Elgin:
the cleaning and clearing of land;
the clearing of refuse or debris from lands;
prohibiting the depositing of refuse or debris on land.
WHEREAS under Section 127 of the Municipal Act S.O., 2001 as amended, a local
municipality may:
i) require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land, not including
buildings, or to clear refuse or debris from the land, not including buildings;
regulate when and how matters required under clause i) shall be done;
iii) prohibit the depositing of refuse or debris on Land without the consent of the
owner or occupant of the land; and
iv) define "refuse" for the purpose of this section.
AND WHEREAS under Section 130 of the Municipal Act 5.0., 2001 as amended, a
municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or any other
Act for purposes related to the health, safety and well -being of the inhabitants of the
municipality;
AND WHEREAS zoning by -laws are in effect in the Municipality of West Elgin applying
to lands formerly in the Township of Aldborough, the Village of West Lorne and the
Village of Rodney to regulate the use of land and the erection, location and use of
buildings and structures;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin
enacts as follows:
ii 1. Short Title
This By law may be cited as the Cleaning and Clearing of Land By -law.
2. Definitions
2,1 Built -Up Area, shall mean:
the former Village of Rodney and adjacent lands as shown on Scheduie "A"
to this By -law;
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 1
the former Village of West Lorne and adjacent lands as shown on Schedule
"B" to this By -law;
ill) lands zoned Hamlet Residentiai (HR), Lakeshore Residential (LR), Rural
Residential One (RR1) and Rural Residential Two (RR2) in the former
Township of Aldborough Zoning By -law No. 90 -50, as amended from time
to time.
2.2 By -law Enforcement Officer, shall mean the person appointed, by by -law, by
the Municipality for the purposes of administering and enforcing the provisions of
this By -law.
2.3 Cleared, shall mean the removal of weeds or grass more than 20 centimetres in
height and the removal of stockpiles of soil or other earthen material not required
for lawn or garden related purposes or to complete the grading of the lot on
which the stockpile is located.
2.4 Domestic Refuse, shall mean any article, thing, matter or effluent belonging to,
or associated with a place of residence that appears to be waste material, and
includes, but is not limited to:
i) grass clippings, tree cuttings, brush, leaves and garden refuse;
ii) paper, cardboard packaging and wrapping;
iii) kitchen and table waste, of animal or vegetable origin resulting from the
preparation or consumption of foods;
iv) cans, glass, plastic containers, dishes;
v) new or used material resulting from or for the purpose of construction,
alteration, repair or demolition of any building or structure;
vi) refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, freezers or other appliances and
furniture;
vii) bathroom fixtures and plumbing parts and materials;
viii) furnaces, furnace parts, pipes, fittings to pipes, water or fuel tanks;
ix) derelict or abandoned motor vehicles; motor vehicle parts and
accessories;
x) tires;
x) derelict machinery and equipment;
xi) rubble and inert fill;
xii) sewage.
2.5 Excavation, shall mean any man -made opening or depression in the ground, but
shall not include a pit licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act, an
abandoned pit, a farm or irrigation pond, a fish pond or a water garden.
2,6 Farm or Irrigation Pond, shall mean a body of water situated outdoors,
contained by natural or artificial means and designed, used, or intended for
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 2
agricultural purposes including irrigation and watering for livestock but not for
recreational purposes.
2.7 Fence, shall mean a wall (other than the wall of a building), gate or other barrier
constructed of wood, masonry, metal, vinyl, plastic or other manufactured
material, or combination thereof, which is continuous throughout its entire length
where required, save and except where access areas and lines of sight are
required for safety purposes.
2.8 industrial Refuse, shall mean any article, thing, matter or effluent belonging to,
or associated with, industry or commerce or concerning or relating to any
manufacturing process or concerning or relating to any trade, business, calling or
occupation that appears to be waste material and includes, but is not limited to:
i) pipes, tubes, conduits, cable, fittings or adjuncts thereof;
ii) containers or any size, type or composition;
iii) rubble and inert fill;
iv) derelict or abandoned motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and
accessories
v) tires;
vi) derelict machinery and equipment
v) articles, things, matter, effluent which is whole or in part or fragments
thereof are derived from or are constituted from or consist of agricultural,
animal, vegetable, papers, lumber or wood products; or mineral, metal or
chemical products whether or not the products are manufactured or
otherwise processed;
vi) bones, feathers, furs, hides;
vii) paper, cardboard packaging and wrapping;
viii) material resulting from, or as part of, construction or demolition;
ix) sewage.
2.9 Land, shall mean grounds, property, yards, or vacant lots or any part of a lot
which is not beneath a building.
2.10 Landscaped Open Space, shall mean the area of a lot which is used for the
growth and maintenance of grass, flowers, shrubbery and other landscaping
materials, both natural and artificial, and includes any surfaced walk, patio, or
similar area, but does not include any access driveway or ramp, parking lot, deck
or any space beneath or within any building or structure.
2.11 Motor Vehicle, shall mean an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle
and any other vehicle propelled or driven other than by muscular power.
2.12 Motor Vehicle, Derelict or Abandoned, shall mean a motor vehicle that is in a
state of advanced disrepair having missing or damaged parts or deteriorated
body conditions which renders it inoperative and may include a motor vehicle
that has been evidently abandoned by its owner and left in a place or state of
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 3
apparent disuse or disinterest by the owner regardless of whether it is either
operable or inoperable or licensed or unlicensed for operation
2.13 Motor Vehicle, Restorable, shall mean a motor vehicle of such an age, or other
unique quality or category, that the owner thereof can demonstrate and has
demonstrated a credible intention to restore same to its original or comparable
condition and, further thereto, the said motor vehicle is being stored in a manner
in keeping with the said intention to restore same.
2.14 Municipality, shall mean the Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin.
2.15 Owner, shalt mean the person or legal entity who or which holds legal title to
land.
2.16 Rubble shall mean broken concrete, bricks, broken asphalt, patio or sidewalk
slabs or combination thereof.
2.17 Sewage, shall mean any waste containing animal, human, vegetable or mineral
matter, waste that is in suspension whether domestic or industrial or any other
waste whether in suspension or precipitated, but does not include roof water or
stormwater run -off.
2.18 Sight Triangle, shall mean the triangular space formed by the street lines of a
corner lot where such lot is located at the intersection of two or more streets and
a line drawn from a point in one street line to a point in the other street line, each
such point being six (6.0) metres from the point of intersection of the street lines
measured along the said street lines, and where the two street lines do not
intersect at a point, the point of intersection of the street lines shall be deemed to
be the intersection of the projected tangents of the street lines drawn through the
extremities of the interior lot lines.
2.19 Yard shall mean the land around and appurtenant to the whole or any part of a
building and used or intended to be used, or capable of being used in connection
with that building and notwithstanding the foregoing, shall mean and as defined
herein.
3. Prohibited Matters
3.1 No owner shall, unless otherwise exempted by this By -law, fail to clear land of
domestic refuse and or industrial refuse.
3.2 No owner shall, unless otherwise exempted by this By -law, fail to enclose an
excavation in accordance with Section 4.
3.3 No owner shall, unless otherwise exempted by this By -law, fail to drain an
accumulation of water exceeding 30 centimetres in depth.
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 4
3.4 No person shall, unless otherwise exempted by this By -law, deposit domestic
waste or industrial waste on land without consent of the owner.
4. Ponds and Excavations
4.1 Every owner shall fill in any excavation to adjacent grade with non contaminated
fill unless:
i) the excavation is enclosed completely by a fence having a minimum height
of one and one -half (1.5) metres, and;
ii) construction is proceeding for which a valid building permit has been
issued.
4.2 Every owner shall drain land of accumulations of water that exceed 30
centimetres in depth unless the water:
1) is completely enclosed by a barrier of at least 1.0 metres in height; or
ii) constitutes a storm water management pond approved by the Municipality;
or
iii) constitutes a natural body of water or results from the periodic flooding of a
natural watercourse; or
iv) constitutes a farm pond or irrigation pond; or
v) constitutes a water garden or fish pond; or
vi) constitutes a private drain or a municipal drain; or
vii) constitutes a lawfully maintained swimming pool.
5. Drainage
5.1 Stormwater runoff from any downspout or any impervious surface shall be
directed away from neighbouring lands. Lands shall be graded and maintained to
prevent ponding or the entry of water into a basement or cellar.
5.2 Ditcf 2s, private drains, swales and watercourses shall be maintained to facilitate
the unimpeded flow of water and prevent ponding.
5.3 No stormwater or roof water shall be discharged onto a sidewalk, walkway,
steps, porch or other pedestrian access which may be hazardous or result in a
potential safety risk.
5.4 No weeping tile, foundation drain, roof drain, or land drain shall be connected or
discharged into any sanitary sewage system or public storm drainage system.
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 5
6. Waste On Land
6 1 Every owner shall keep his land cleaned, cleared and free from domestic refuse
and industrial refuse unless:
i) the land is zoned for the purposes of outdoor storage of domestic refuse
and industrial refuse; or
ii) the land is owned, licensed and used by the Municipality or the County of
Elgin for the purposes of dumping or disposing domestic refuse and/or
industrial refuse.
6.2 Notwithstanding Section 6.1 to the contrary, lands may be used for the sale and
display of household goods, furnishings, apparel and similar articles provided
such sale and display is limited to not more than three days in any calendar year
with the exception of home made articles, crafts, things or goods made by those
residing on the premises provided the sale and display does not exceed 35% of
the front yard or exterior side yard.
6.3 Leaves, twigs, branches, grass clippings, plants and other biodegradable matter
may be composted on land provided such composting is confined to a rear yard,
is situated at least one (1.0) metre from a property line and is undertaken a
manner which prevents any noxious odour emitting therefrom or is otherwise
disposed of in accordance with the standards and regulations of the Municipality.
7. Derelict or Abandoned Motor Vehicles and Similar Items
7.1 Lands shall be kept free and clear of derelict or abandoned motor vehicles,
railway cars, trailers, boats and street car bodies unless such land:
i) is licensed as a salvage yard by the Municipality; or
ii) constitutes a waste disposal site for which a Certificate of Approval or a
provisional Certificate of Approval has been issued under the
Environmental Protection Act; or
iii) constitutes a permitted use and is in conformity with the Zoning By -law, or
otherwise constitutes a legal non conforming use under the Planning Act.
7.2 Lands shall be kept free and clear of disused or in- operative farm equipment and
machinery unless such land is zoned Agricultural (A1) or Special Agricultural
(A2) in the Township of Aldborough Zoning By -law No. 90 -50, as amended, and
unless such equipment and machinery is maintained in a neat and tidy fashion
and confined to an area not exceeding 100 square metres in an Al zone and to
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 6
an area not exceeding 50 square metres in an A2 zone and situated in a rear
yard.
8. Built -Up Areas
In addition to all other requirements of this By -law, the following regulations shall
apply to built -up areas as defined or as otherwise shown on Schedule "A" and
Schedule "B" to this By -law.
8.1 Weeds and grass shall not be permitted to grow or stand greater than 20
centimetres in height.
8.2 Hedges and trees adjacent to a public sidewalk or road shall be cut and trimmed
so as to permit safe and unhindered passage.
8.3 Yards shall be kept free from undergrowth or underbrush, and from dead,
decayed or damaged trees, and branches and limbs which may create an
unkempt or unsafe condition, including a potential fire hazard, or harbour pests
or vermin.
8.4 Yards shall be maintained as landscaped open space except where otherwise
occupied by buildings and structures, driveways, fences, and /or patios or decks.
8.5 Within a sight triangle, no shrubs or foliage shall be planted or maintained and
no fence, other than a chain link or similar type fence, shall be erected or
maintained between a height of 0.6 metres and 3.0 metres above the centreline
grade of the intersecting streets.
8.6 All sidewalks, driveways, parking areas and loading areas shall be maintained in
good condition, so as to afford safe passage under normal use and weather
conditions.
8.7 All fences shall be maintained in a safe and structurally sound condition and
reasonably plumb unless specifically designed to be other than vertical. Wood
fences shall be protected by preservative, paint or other weather resistant
material unless cullstructed from pressure treated lumber.
8.8 All lands shall be kept free of rodents, vermin, termites and other injurious
insects and pests.
8.9 A maximum of one (1) restorable motor vehicle may be parked in a driveway in a
built -up area.
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 7
9. inspections and Notice
9:1
10. Default
The By -law Enforcement Officer may enter onto land and/or inspect any land for
the purpose of determining whether the land complies with the provisions of this
By -law.
9.2 The By -law Enforcement Officer may, by prepaid first class mail send to an
owner, require the owner, within the time specified by the notice, take such
actions that may be necessary to bring such lands into compliance with the
terms, conditions and requirements of this By -law. Every notice given by the By-
law Enforcement Officer shall identify the land and describe the conditions which
contravene the provisions of this By -law.
9.3 Every notice given by the By -law Enforcement Officer to an owner shall be sent,
by registered mail, to the address shown an the last revised assessment roll or to
the last known address.
9 4 The By -law Enforcement Officer may, upon such further notice as he deems
appropriate, undertake such measures or actions as may be necessary to
ensure compliance with the By -law at the expense of the owner of the lands
affected and where the expenses incurred by the Municipality are not paid within
a reasonable period of time, the Municipality may recover same in like manner
as taxes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.
101 Where the owner is in default of doing a matter or thing required to be done
under this By -law, the By -law Enforcement Officer may, upon such notice as the
By -law Enforcement Officer deems suitable, take such actions and complete
such works as may be necessary to remedy the owner's default and bring the
land into compliance with the terms, conditions and requirements of this By -law.
10.2 Where any of the matters or things so removed are removed in accordance with
Section 10.1, the matters or things may be immediately disposed of by the
Municipality.
10.3 The Municipality shall ,cover all expenses incurred in an undertaking any
removal referred to in Section 10.1 herein by action in a court of competent
jurisdiction or, otherwise in like means as municipal taxes.
11. Offence
11.1 Every person who contravenes any provision of this By -law is guilty of an offence
and liable upon conviction to a penalty under the Provincial Offences Act.
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of Land By -law
page 8
11.2 Upon conviction, the court in which the conviction has been entered and any
court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may make an order prohibiting the
continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted and such order
shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person convicted.
12. Gender
12.1 All references to the masculine gender shall, where appropriate include
references to the feminine gender and elf references to the singular shall. where
appropriate, include references to the plural.
13. Severabilitv
13.1 If any section or sections of this By -law or parts thereof be found by any court to
be illegal or beyond the power of the Municipality to enact, such section or
sections or parts thereof shall be deemed to be severable and all other sections
or parts of this By -law shall be deemed to be separate and independent and
continue in full force and effect unless and until similarly found and this By -law
shall be enacted as such.
14. Effective Date
14.1 This By -law shah come into force on the date of passing thereof.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME ON THIS 23` DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
2004.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED ON THIS 23 DAY OF
SEPTEMBER, 2004,
Municipality of West Elgin Cleaning Clearing of !.and By -law
page 9
CLERK
DOWILE LINE
z an
1
ma Er
-NI
•m
Mr.
MIN
tej
This is Schedule "A" to
passed th o73"'
Village of RODNEY
and Adjacent Lands
4 \1°. °4194 2004. 9
Mayor
Clerk
4j
leo H.
Municipality of WEST ELGIN
SCHEDULE "A"
Village of WEST LORNE
and Adjacent Lands
rm.
Municipality of WEST ELGIN
SCHEDULE "B"
This is Schedule "B" to By -law No -ooW -b F
passed this a3' lay of 5 g/06- 2004.
a rc
)j' ciE rK (by'or
!ti^Qyor efefk
41
TO: COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
FROM: NORMA BRYANT, CLERK
DATE: MARCH 24, 2011
RE: PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A BIA
INTRODUCTION:
In accordance with legislation, notices were mailed on January 20, 2011 to each
property owner in the proposed area for the Business Improvement Area. They
were advised that written objections must be received within 60 days of mailing of
the notice; being March 21 A public meeting was held on February 17 th
DISCUSSION:
Council shall not pass the proposed by -law if:
a) objections are signed by at least one -third of the business property/tenants
b) the objectors are responsible for at Ieast one -third of the taxes levied.
To date (March 18), the following number of objections to the proposed by -law
have been received:
by village %of village ass %total %total ass.
Rodney 36.1 35.8
West Lorne 24.5 36.2
Total 33.7 36.0
RECOMMENDATION:
Council direction requested.
Norma 1. Bryant
}4irnirpa1itg af ELin
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOL 200 Tef: (519) 785 -0560 l=ax: (519) 785 -0644
Ref 84718 -08 Annual repd. doc
DRAFT
2010 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
A Better Environment For Business
WESA Inc.
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5
March 2011
Project No. W- B4718 -08
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 LIMITING CONDITIONS 1
1.2 BACKGROUND AND SITE UP -DATE 1
1.3 SITE SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON CRITERIA 4
2. 2010 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 8
2.2.4 Groundwater Quality 8
2.2.4.1 Background Groundwater Chemistry and Reasonable Use Calculations 9
2.2.4.2 Leachate Indicator Parameters 9
2.2.5 Site Groundwater Quality 11
2.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL LEACHATE IMPACTS ON WETLAND 14
2.3.1 Quality Assessment and Quality Control (QA /QC) 15
2.3.1.1 Summary 15
3. ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 16
3.1 HISTORICAL SITE OPERATIONS 16
3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 17
3.3 WASTE DISPOSAL 18
3.4 FINAL CONTOURS AND SITE CAPACITY 20
3.5 2010 SITE OPERATIONS 20
3.6 CHANGES TO OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 21
4. RECOMMENDATIONS 21
4.1 ANNUAL SITE MONITORING AND REPORTING 22
4.2 ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT 22
5. CONTAMINANT ATTENUATION ZONE 23
6. REFERENCES 26
WESA
i N::',tf 1'rcina��3i nI f�3r 9!c r
Page i
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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:
Appendix A:
Appendix 13:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
WESA
tkser 1i:141330W 3 For llavae.
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 2010
Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions November 2010
Groundwater Chemistry May 2010
Groundwater Chemistry November 2010
Final Contours
Revised Landfill Layout
Extent of Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ)
LIST OF APPENDICES
(Not included in Draft Report)
Certificate of Approval
Borehole Logs
Monitoring Well UTM Coordinates
Time Series Plots for Monitoring Wells
Laboratory Reports of Groundwater Chemical Analyses
Landfill Inspection Forms
Page ii
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
1. INTRODUCTION
WESA Inc. (WESA) was retained by The Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin
(Municipality of West Elgin) to complete the 2010 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 2010 environmental monitoring program and
site operations.
1.1 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 Ontario Ministry of the Environment. No other party may use
or rely upon this report or any portion thereof without the express written consent of WESA.
1.2 BACKGROUND AND SITE UP DATE
WESA was retained by the Municipality of West Elgin 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 of West Elgin to complete a
subsurface investigation and leachate delineation study for the site (WESA, 2007b).
WESA
5 &Elef! Ii r evtcs� 1�3r ll;os�,u.c
Page 1
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
The subsurface investigation and leachate 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) and the need for the
establishment of a Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ). Details pertaining to the CAZ and
additional information are provided in Section 5 of this report.
The following actions have been taken by the Municipality of West Elgin, to date, to establish the
recommended CAZ to the south (50 m):
In the spring of 2009 the municipality hired Contract Land Services to negotiate with Mr.
Crane, the property owner to the south. The purpose was to purchase his property to
fulfill the requirements of the CAZ as recommended by WESA (WESA, 2007).
From April to June, 2009 Contract Land Services negotiated with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Crane did not accept any offer presented to him during the negotiations.
Mr. Crane proposed a purchase price and conditions.
On June 19th, 2009 a proposal from Mr. Crane was presented to Council. Council did not
accept this offer.
No further action was taken at that time.
Donald Prendergast, acting on behalf of Mr. Crane, wrote the municipality on August
10th, 2010 attaching two real estate opinions on the value of the land. No action was
directed.
September 29th, 2010 Mr. Prendergast again wrote the municipality requesting a response
to his correspondence.
October 21rt, 2010 correspondence was sent to Mr. Prendergast advising that Council
agreed that the municipality was not going to purchase the subjects lands at the quoted
price.
Upon request from the MOE, the actions and time lines detailed above were
communicated to the MOE in a letter from the Municipality on November 12th, 2010. No
response has been received at this time.
On January 14th, 2011 a subsequent letter was received by the Municipality of West Elgin from
Donald Prendergast, acting on behalf of Mr. Crane requesting further action on the issue. The
letter details Mr. Crane's request to have the Municipality undertake an environmental cleanup at
the Municipalities' expense and restore his property to a marketable state or purchase the
contaminated lands at market value.
WESA
1 Rcaer I'�;,hotn�i. n Prr
Page 2
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
Actions to establish the recommended CAZ to the southeast (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 6th, 2009 (WESA, 2009c). A response was
provided by the MOE pertaining to this issue in an e-mail from Mr. John McGlynn on March
18th, 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 RUL guidelines east or the landfill.
To determine compliance to the southeast, an additional monitoring well was installed down
gradient of MW11 (Figure 2). The down gradient well (MW15) was installed as a drive -point
piezometer within a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). It should be noted that there is a
notable topographic relief between the location of MW1I and MW15. Direction to install MW15
within the PSW was provided by the MOE (WESA, 2010a). Analytical data from MW15 was used
to determine the extent of the leachate impacts down gradient of the landfill in a southeasterly
direction.
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 MW1. It was therefore determined that MW1 may not be fully
representative of background conditions for the site (WESA, 2009c).
Waste has continued to be placed closer to MW1 which may account for the presence of
indicator parameters. A new background well (MW14) was installed at the site in May 2010
(Figure 2). The new well was installed in response to MOE comments stating that historic
background well (MW1) is not removed from the effects of the landfill and is therefore not
suitable as a background well. RULs have been calculated for the landfill site using analytical data
from data collected at MW14 in 2010.
In addition, the landfill site was re- surveyed in spring 2010. The survey data allowed for an up-
date to the extent of the landfill foot print including length, width and height which resulted in a
re- assessment of the landfill capacity and estimated life span. The survey data was subsequently
used to up -date the site plan, site cross sections, final contours and the generations of several new
figures for the site (volumetric surfaces and existing contour plan). It should be noted that all
reference elevations for the site, including borehole elevations, monitoring well elevations and
cross sections have been updated based on the spring 2010 landfill re- survey.
WESA
PK Su, r I ^r for 14nv�x..
Page 3
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
1.3 SITE SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON CRITERIA
The MOE Reasonable Use Limits (RUL) 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 RULs were calculated using data
collected up to, and including, the 2010 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. New RULs for the landfill were calculated in 2010 using groundwater
chemistry results from MW14, the new background well at the landfill site. MW14 was installed
northwest of MW1 (historical background location) alongside the landfill access road. The
previous RULs were calculated using analytical results from MW1. Background water quality will
continue to be monitored and RULs will be updated as additional analytical data is obtained
from future monitoring events.
Analytical results are compared to RUL and /or ODWS and /or background conditions where no
RUL has been established.
2. 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL MONTORING PROGRAM
The methods and results of the 2010 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 19th (Spring) and November 9th
(Fall), 2010. Water levels were obtained from each monitoring well 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 GPS survey was
conducted in 2010 and data used to calculate groundwater elevations and flow direction. The
elevations and UTM coordinates for all monitoring wells are included in Appendix C.
WESA
1 6k�rcr llnuon;ucn fur El�uar.<
Page 4
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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) and also
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) as requested by the MOE in their letter dated December 3rd
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.
Clean, disposable nitrlle 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 µm 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 RESULT 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 clay tilt. These are underlain by
lacustrine shallow water deposits consisting of gravel and sand.
WESA
4 tk uc•r };;.irnvm.. a Far lluvar.
Page 5
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 drilling programs (excluding the boreholes completed in the landfill
material) (WESA, 2006) identified an overlying till unit present across the area. A gravel /sand,
grave! 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.
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, and 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
fossiliiferous 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 southeast 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 sand 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).
WESA
F 3;sir Orue, t Fur Ou.i
Page 6
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 2010
Static groundwater elevation data collected on May 19th, 2010 for the monitoring well network is
summarized in Table 1.
The site was re- surveyed by WESA in May 2010 and new groundwater elevations were produced
using the new survey data. All historical groundwater elevation data has been updated using the
new survey data. The groundwater within the shallow flow ranges between 217.47and 218.72 m
above sea level (asl). Groundwater flow is generally towards the east. A mound (an area where
water levels are elevated above the immediate surrounding area) in the groundwater table is
located along the western property boundary between MW5 and MWi. The mound causes a
component of the groundwater flow in the southwestern corner of the site to flow towards the
south (away from MW5 towards MW10). The mounding effect was not noted in the spring of
2010.
A groundwater elevation map indicating the groundwater flow patterns is shown in Figure 7. A
horizontal gradient of 0.01 is present across the landfill towards the southeast. 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 0.25.
Fall 2010
Static groundwater elevation data collected on November 9t", 2010 is summarized in Table 1.
Based on the new survey data collected in 2010, the groundwater within the shallow flow
ranged between 216.83 and 217.82 m as! in the fall of 2010. Groundwater flow is generally
towards the east. As noted during the spring event mounding was not noted in the groundwater
table located along the western property boundary between MW5 /MW10, and MWi in the fall
of 2010.
The high in the groundwater flow is located in MW10, completed in the native material in the
southern portion of the site and the low is in MW15 located just off site to the northeast. A
groundwater elevation map indicating the groundwater flow patterns is shown in Figure 8.
WESA
5 &Alt F:nrinumcnt for li ;Onooi
Page 7
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
A horizontal gradient of 0.01 is present across the landfill towards the southeast. 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 0.77.
2.2.3 M Vapour Concentrations
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 concentrations below the range detectable by LEL
at all well locations during the Spring sampling event. Historically, MW5 has displayed >100%
LEL readings during Spring and Fall monitoring events.
During the Fall sampling event methane concentrations were measured at >100 LEL in MW5
with a 17% by volume methane concentration. Readings were also noted of 19% LEL in MW2
with a 0.5% by volume methane concentration. The well screen was un- saturated in 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 filling operations (MW4 and
MW5).
2.2.4 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality 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. As mentioned earlier in Section 1.3 of this report, new RULs were calculated from
groundwater chemistry data obtained from the new background monitoring well (MW14) at the
site.
Table 4 presents the VOC data and the VOC parameter levels that exceeded ODWS have been
highlighted. Groundwater chemistry results showing ieachate indicator parameters that exceed
the RUL can also be seen in Figures 9 and 10 for the Spring and Fall, respectively. As well,
WESA
1 i3c ss -s riwro anirm For tluc.wc+t
Page 8
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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.
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 MW14 and the ODWS. Calculated RUL values and ODWS are
listed in Table 3. The current RULs have been calculated using the data from MW14 from two
sampling events conducted in May and November 2010.
2.2.4.2 Leachate Indicator Parameters
Upon review of the historical groundwater quality at the background location (MWI) and that of
the landfill (MW2), leachate has been characterized by high concentrations of:
WESA
1 80 t Frsirolmmu forEiaFar»
Ammonia, alkalinity, arsenic, chloride, DOC, iron and sodium
These seven parameters 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 3 2008 (MOE, 2008), DOC has been added to the leachate impact parameter list in
the 2010 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.
Page 9
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
In addition, deforestation activities have occurred on the property adjacent to the southwestern
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.
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
due 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
sometimes 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
leachate 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.
WESA
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.
Page 10
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
As discussed in 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).
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 2010 sampling events:
WESA
€';;;R:r C1Sriroomtrg for itloi!tCa
Page 11
Well Location
Well
Flaw
Regime
Spring RUL
Exceedances
Fali RUL Exceedances
Up- gradient
MWI
Shallow
Ammonia and Alkalinity
Alkalinity
Leachate
MW2
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Chloride, DOC, and Iron
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Arsenic, Chloride, DOC,
Iron, and Sodium
Down- gradient
East
MW3
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Arsenic, Chloride, DOC,
and Iron
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Arsenic, Chloride, DOC,
and Iron
Down gradient
Southeast
MW4
Shallow
Ammonia and Alkalinity
Ammonia, Alkalinity, DOC,
and Iron
Down- gradient-
Southwest
MW5
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
and Iron DOC (QC
over, labeled under)
Ammonia, Alkalinity, DOC
(QC over, labeled under)
and Iron
Down gradient
South, off -site
MW6
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Chloride DOC, and Iron
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Arsenic, DOC, and Iron
Down gradient
East
MW7
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Chloride, and DOC
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Chloride and DOC
Down gradient
East, off -site
MW8
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
and DOC
Ammonia, Alkalinity and
DOC
Down gradient
South, off -site
MW9
Shallow
Ammonia
Ammonia and Alkalinity
Down gradient
West, off -site
MWIO
Shallow
Ammonia and Iron
Down-gradient
East, off -site
MW1I
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
DOC
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
Chloride, DOC, Iron and
Sodium
Down gradient
East, off -site
MW12
Shallow
Ammonia
Ammonia
Leachate Clay
MW2D
Deep
Ammonia and DOC
Ammonia and DOC
Background
MW14
Shallow
Ammonia and DOC
Iron
Down- gradient
East, off -site
MWI5
Shallow
Ammonia, Alkalinity,
and DOC
Insufficient water volume
for sampling
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report
West Elgin Landfill Site
Summary of RUL Exceedances
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
5 EAar, In€In% m,nO Forthr4H,C
DRAFT
Page 12
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
The concentration of ammonia was compared to background levels as measured in MW14. The
results were above the background levels in all wells, with the exception of MW1 and MW14 in
the Fall. In addition it should be noted that although exceedences of the RUL /background were
noted at MW14 the parameters that were exceeded are not indicators of leachate impacts on
their own and could be representative of naturally high concentrations of these parameters in the
groundwater. Concentrations of these parameters and others will continue to be monitored
closely at this location.
The following general trends with respect to the leachate indictor parameters and additional
parameters TDS, manganese, sulphate and boron were noted;
Ammonia concentration in MW5 exhibited a decrease compared to historical
observations where as the concentration in MW9 exhibited an increase in the Fall;
The iron concentration in MW6 exhibited an increase in the Fall;
The sulfate concentration in MW8, MW10 and MW12 exhibited a decrease compared to
historical observation and concentration in MW11 exhibited an increase in the Fall;
Concentrations of TDS were above the RUL for monitoring locations MW1, MW2,
MW2D, MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MWS, MW9, MW10 (Fall only), MW11,
MW12 and MW15 (Fall only);
Boron concentrations were below the RUL at each location monitored in 2010;
In the Spring and Fall, manganese concentrations exceeded the RUL in MW2, MW3,
MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW11, and MW15. Concentrations also exceeded the RUL in
the Fall in MW8 and MW9.
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 ieachate
indicator parameter DOC and the ammonia concentration was reported above background
concentrations in Spring 2010. DOC concentrations exceeded the RUL and the ammonia
concentration was reported above background conditions in the Fall of 2010. As in the
background well (MW14) concentrations of these parameters are not necessarily indicative of
leachate impacts. It should be noted however that due to the thickness of the day 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, if identified at this location would be restricted to the upper
day and it is unlikely that leachate impact would extend to deeper aquifers.
WESA
Y•Co' Frt.ir000l gFor Ilud:�est
Page 13
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
The results of the VOC analyses had concentrations of all parameters measured below the ODWS
in Spring and Fall 2010. 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 2010. 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.
2.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL LEACHATE IMPACTS ON WETLAND
MW15 was installed as a drive -point piezometer into the adjacent wetland to assess the potential
impacts of the leachate on the wetland. Up- gradient groundwater monitoring well MW11 has
notable leachate impacts (exccedences of the RUL for Ammonia, Alkalinity and DOC). A
substantial topographic relief (decrease by 5m) is noted between ground surface at MW11 and
MW15.
Water levels in MW15, and therefore within the wetland, are within range of those seen in the
groundwater monitoring wells on -site and therefore are representative of groundwater
discharging conditions within the wetland at the time monitoring was completed. Seasonal
monitoring data is not available for this location at this time so general trends can't be
established. MW15 was not sampled in Fall 2010 due to insufficient water volume in the well. In
addition to water level data, the consistent concentration of hardness within the background
groundwater (MW14) and wetland (MW15) also confirms groundwater discharging conditions.
To assess any impacts, the water quality sample collected from MW15 in May 2010 was
compared to background groundwater quality and leachate characteristics for the site. The
sample had high concentrations of ammonia, alkalinity and DOC (above the site RUL) as well as
concentrations of iron and chloride above background groundwater concentrations and low
concentrations of sulphate and nitrate.
The presence of chloride within the water sample collected from MW15 in Spring 2010 indicates
that leachate is reaching the wetland. Background groundwater concentrations of chloride (4
mg/L at MW14) were reported but no notable other possible sources of chloride (no road salt,
septic systems etc.) were identified and therefore there are low levels of naturally occurring
chloride in the groundwater on -site. Concentration of chloride in MW11 was reported at 124
mg/L in the spring of 2010 and 80 mg/L of chloride was reported in MW15. Chloride is
conservative and therefore is not remediated or attenuated along the groundwater flow path.
The reduced concentration at MW15 can be attributed to dilution within the wetland.
WESA
&nu I F:esinntnncm fin tlnanic'+c
Page 14
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
Within the wetland, high levels of DOC can be attributed to rotting plant matter and not a direct
result of leachate. High ammonia concentrations are indicative of anaerobic activity within the
wetland that is further supported by low sulphate, low nitrate and high iron concentrations. In
comparing concentration trends between MW15 and up- gradient well MW11 the following is
noted; ammonia is higher in MW15 than MW11, sulphate is much lower in MW15 than MW11
and iron higher in MW15 than MW11 (below laboratory detection limits).
As noted above some dilution of leachate reaching the wetland is occurring but based on chloride
concentrations the dilution is not sufficient to reach background groundwater conditions. The
water chemistry in the wetland (MW15) is indicative of an anerobic reducing system with
enhanced de- nitrification potential /conditions and therefore acts to provide natural treatment of
leachate.
2.3.1 Quality Assessment and Quality Control (QA/QC)
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).
2.3.1.1 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. Trends similar to those seen in MW2
can be seen with the concentrations over time at MW4 and MW5, down gradient wells to the
southeast and southwest, respectively indicating a component of groundwater flow in that
direction resulting in minor leachate impacts at the monitoring locations. The former background
location MW1 indicates that there may be minor leachate impacts at this location. Evidence is
noted based on the increase in chloride concentrations in Spring 2009 as well as other parameter
concentrations at this location. MW14 was installed as a new background well in May 2010.
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, with the
exception of an iron concentration above the RUL in MW10 Fall 2010. The wells located down
gradient and to the east (MW7 (on- site), MW8, MW11 and MWI2) again all show similar
concentration trends over time to each other.
WESA
4 Y 1 t Frsin»3mc nt For Ha inc,,
Page 15
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 remaining 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. 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
16th, 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 21 2005 (Appendix A). A
Hydrogeologicat Investigation and Design and Operations Report was completed by WESA and
submitted to the Director of the MOE for approval on September 1St, 2006 (WESA, 2006).
WESA
Rokr Fur iluvne.:
Page 16
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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.
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 southwest.
General topography, surface water drainage, and the hydrogeological 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 Sam to 5pm on Wednesday and Friday, and 9am to 4 pm on
Saturday. From December to March the operating hours change to loam to 5pm on Wednesday
and Friday, and 9am to 4 pm on Saturday.
WESA
t Ikurr ht,inm3mco for IiutiEi,
Page 17
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 2010 are included in
Appendix F.
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 2010, 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 load 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 kg and the
assumed number of bags per car, truck, and van is 3.4, 3.2, and 3.4, 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 2010 was approximately 206 tonnes.
WESA
11kn -r F.! irtU4ltIt Forfit <h
Page 18
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
Domestic waste represents greater than an estimated 9Q% 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:
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 6% of the waste generated in the
municipality. Commercial waste is 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 159 tonnes of material in 2010. The municipality diverted
approximately 43.5% of the total material the landfill received in 2010.
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 2010):
WESA
Paper and cardboard
Restaurant kitchen waste
Scrap metal
Plastics
Fklivr 1 ,lnuio;t=.11 For jEl'E:IF.1
Mixed household garbage
Plastic
Glass
Aluminum and tin cans
Scrap metal
Roof shingles
Newspapers
Scrap metal, 70.9 tonnes
Glass, 22.5 tonnes
Paper, 25.3 tonnes
Plastic, 32.2 tonnes
Aluminum and steel cans, 13.2 tonnes
Cardboard, 12.9 tonnes
Page 19
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 fi nal 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 as up-
dated based on the 2010 survey data, the total site capacity is 106,110 m
Using this site capacity and based on the May 2010 contours at the site, the estimated quantity of
in -place waste is 79,403 m
Based on an estimated annual waste input rate of 206 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 515 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 25 years from December 2010 (that is, until
December 2035). Beyond 25 years additional landfill capacity up to a further 24 years or 2055
maybe available but is dependent on current landfill operations and growth rate. The estimated
remaining site capacity as of December 2010 is 26,191.70 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.
WESA
5 €'fmr0 11,1 6t� ±inc a
Page 20
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
In 2010, 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 2010, daily soil cover was
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 2010 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.
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 2010. 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 tog for 2010.
3.6 CHANGES TO OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
There were no changes to operational procedures or infrastructure.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations derived from 2010 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.
WESA
Nsift Ft•51 far 111!0k..
Page 21
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
4.1 ANNUAL SITE MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. A new monitoring well (MW14) was installed to the north of the landfill prior to the Spring
2010 sampling event to establish background groundwater conditions for the site (Figure 2).
Background water quality analyses should continue to be conducted at MW14 for the
purpose of updating the RULs for the site.
2. The site groundwater monitoring network should be sampled in the Spring and Fall 2011 for
a full set of parameters, as listed in Tables 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, 2012, 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.
4.2 ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. Bins used to collect recyclables must be kept in good condition without leaks as per
Condition 24 of the Amended C of A.
5. A layout of recycling collection bins and burn pile sorting area has been developed and is
shown in Figure 11.
WESA
P.rl,r IEr i k,:t F6rtSUR$r, M1t
Page 22
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
6. 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 studies have allowed for
delineation of leachate impacts down gradient of the landfill. The studies 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.
To the southeast and south impacts are limited to within <20 m of the property line (MW6 and
MW8). Impacts towards the southeast are less of a concern due to the wetland but are a concern
to the south. The impacts to the southwest (MW10) are localized effect of metal storage on -site
and can be mitigated over time.
To fulfill the requirements of the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUL) (B -7) and the 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 studies 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 southwest
(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 southeast 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.
WESA
I Fig Our Fr,,iroamtra for 11usi�FC.�
Page 23
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
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 MW11. The
assessment of potential impacts off -site towards the east and southeast 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 were not anticipated at
this distance from the landfill foot print (because only minor impacts are noted in the clay
beneath the landfill foot print). Spring 2010 sampling of MW15 shows that the presence of
chloride within the water sample collected from MW15 indicates that leachate is reaching the
wetland. Background groundwater concentrations of chloride (4 mg/L at MW14) were reported
but no notable other possible sources of chloride (no road salt, septic systems etc.) were
identified and therefore there are low levels of naturally occurring chloride in the groundwater
on -site. Concentration of chloride in MW11 was reported at 124 mg/L in the spring of 2010 and
80 mg/L of chloride was reported in MW15. Chloride is conservative and therefore is not
remediated or attenuated along the groundwater flow path. The reduced concentration at
MW15 can be attributed to dilution within the wetland.
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 Fail 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 southeast 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 (MW11) 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.
WE
SA
P.chl fomrosneil.t for (Siw 4
Page 24
2010 Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report DRAFT
West Elgin Landfill Site
Analytical data from MW15, a drivepoint piezometer installed in the wetland east of the landfill,
indicates that the wetland east of the landfill is not removed from the effects of leachate coming
from the landfill. This location will continue to be monitored at all future sampling events.
Respectfully submitted,
WESA Inc.
DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only
Karen Greer, MSc. P.Geo
Project Hydrogeologist
DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only
Geoff Moroz, B.Sc.
Environmental Consultant
WESA
5 Iiiaer Cw•tmmni,:A F r1ki':c
Ian Macdonald, M.Sc., P.Geo
Principal /Senior Hydrogeologist
Page 25
WESA
1 Better I;nrironrnent 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 2011 Site Monitoring and Operations Proposal
Dear Mrs. Bryant:
WESA Inc. (WESA) is pleased to provide a work plan and cost estimate to complete the 2011 site
monitoring program at the West Elgin Landfill Site. The work plan was 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 215 2005. The work plan is further described below.
The work plan and costs may be subject to change if and when comments are received from the
MOE with respect to the 2010 report Annual Site Monitoring and Operations Report clue to the
MOE in April 2011.
The work plan is further described below.
WORK PLAN
Task 1 Spring 2011 Environmental Monitoring Program
Task 2 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results
Task 3 Fall 2011 Environmental Monitoring Program
Task 4 Interim Assessment of Monitoring Results
Task 5 Annual Analysis and Reporting
Task 6 Meeting Attendance
February 17th, 2011
Project Number W- B4718 -09
D
g(e)
WESA Inc.
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 5C5
Tel: 519.742.6685 Fax: 519- 742 -9810
Email: wesakw @wesa.ca www.wesa.ca
Calgary Gatineau Kingston Kitchener Montreal Ottawa San Salvador Sudbury Toronto Yellowknife
Well
Sampling Frequency
Analytical parameters
All monitoring wells (MWI. MW2, MW2D,
MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8,
MW9, MW10, MWI1, MW12, MW 14, MW
15) 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 and 3 Spring and Fall 2011 Environmental Monitoring Program
The on -site groundwater monitoring network is composed of fifteen (15) monitoring wells and
one (1) stand point well in the adjacent wetland. Groundwater sampling in the Spring and Fall
2011 will take place in accordance with the bi- annual sampling schedule for the site as outlined in
the table below. (It should be noted that there is no MW13 on- site).
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, 13, 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 2011 monitoring program, methane concentrations will also be measured in the
Spring and Fall of 2011 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.
2
Tasks 2 and 4 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 frea;'encies will be re-
evaluated at that time.
Task 5 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, 2012 based on the
information collected in 2011.
This report will present the findings of the two preceding monitoring events (Spring and Fall
2011) 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 6 Meeting Attendance
WESA personnel look forward to continuing to work 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.
3
Task
Description
Professional
Fees
Expenses
Laboratory
Expenses
Totals
1 3
Groundwater Monitoring
$7,040
$1,782
$8,589
$17,411
2 4
Interim Assessment of
Monitoring Results
$1,490
$0
$0
$1,490
5
Annual Analysis and
Reporting
$5,580
$50
$0
$6,630
6
Meeting Attendance
$1,720
$160
$0
$1,880
Totals
$15,830
$2,012
$8,589
$27,251
Table '1
Project Costs
Disbursements
The estimated total upset budget for this project is $27,251. 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 not include the HST.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Ali 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.
4
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 2011 site
monitoring program.
If you have any questions, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned at (613) 839 -3053 x 249.
Sincerely,
WESA Inc.
Karen Greer, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Project Manager/ Hydrogeologist
i
G
Geoff oz. BSc., G
Envir ental Consultant
Encl.
Ref 84718 092011 Proposal revised.doc
r<'
il
it
Ian Macdo d, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Principal /Senior Hydrogeologist
5
23 1 8l2011 10:57 519 -693 -7024
March 15, 2011
JOHNSTON BROTHERS
Wardsvilie 693 -4383 Dungannon 529 -7947 Komoka 471 -3059 Erleau 676 0771
FAX 519 -693 -7024
ofitat on r &o Wogw �t
Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line
1.a. Box 490
Rodney, Ontario
AWL ICO
SAND, GRAVEL, STONE CONTRACTORS
P.O.13Ox 220
13OTHWELL, ONTARIO
NOP 100
Attention: Mayor, Deputy Mayer and Council
RE: Johnston Broths (Botliwall) Ltd.
'New Gravel Pit Licence Application
Part Lot 5, Concession 2, (Aldbarough)
M the Public Meeting under the Planning At for the application 10 amend the zoning bylaw
to allow for aggregate a ccra.ctitfn Qn tho above noted site, a neighbour to the south, Mr. Chris
Oliver, raised co ems with tho proposed Or If at tome point in the furum he should decide to
construct a =idence. At the melting Mr. Olivet accepted the suggestion that building a burin
adjacent to the south boundary of the proposed pit would be acceptable to him.
Tlxis ietux is being written to confirm to the Municipality that with respect to constructing a
bctm adjacont to the south boundary, lahnstan Brothers (Bothwell) Ltd. shall construct a
berm when a house is constructed by Mr, Ostia Qliuor on the northerly .part of the rural lot
across the road Lot 3, Cancel:den 3. Aldborough).
The berm shall be 2,5 metres high h and shall be graded and maintained until such lime as the
topsoil is required to complete final rehabilitation as reqUired required by Ministry of Natural
Resources regulations. The berm is already shown on the Operational Plan as a possible berm.
We look forward up Council awing tho proposed bylaw amendment at their March 24,
2011 mooting_ Thank you. for your time in this matter.
Eugo or Doug, position
Johnston 9rotl (Bothwell) Ltd,
E l
PAGE 0101
PATTON CORMIE
LAWYERS
1.
6T ASSOCIATES
Abn R. Patton, B.A., LLB, Elizabeth K. Corniier, B.A., LLB.
Analee J,M, Fernandez, B.A., LL.B l Arti Sanichara, Hons. B.E,S., LL.B.
March 7, 2011
File No. 32291
via courier and fax: 519-873-4018
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Municipal Services Office Western
659 Exeter Road, 2' Floor
London, ON N6E 1 L3
Attention; Tammie RyaII, Planner
The appeals are:
Received
MAR 072011
MSS W
Re: Notice of Appeal, s. 17(36), Planning Act
Official Plan Amendment By -Iaw No. 2008 -13, File No. 34 -OP -4035
We are the solicitors for Seaside Waterfronts Inc. and Lighthouse Waterfronts Inc., the owners of land
in the Port Glasgow area of West Elgin, being Part of Lot 5 and Part of Lot 6, Concession 14.
Pursuant to s. 17(36), Planning Act, our clients appeal the approval of the Official Plan for the
Municipality of West Elgin, adopted by By -Iaw No. 2008 -13 and as modified by the Minister.
The deletion by the Minister of section 7.5 of the Plan, as it was adopted, and its replacement
with Modification #40. Port Glasgow is a settlement area serviced with municipal water,
containing dwellings, camp grounds, and a variety of recreational activities centered around the
beach and marina. Port Glasgow offers a range of important land use opportunities. The
requirement for a Secondary Plan to be prepared for development greater than five (5) lots or
units is unnecessary and inappropriate. This policy would unnecessarily hinder and delay small
commercial developments, small residential developments, as well as small mixed use
developments even when such developments are clearly appropriate and compatible. Further,
the Modification is unclear as to whether there would be a land requirement justification
component of a Secondary Plan, a requirement which would be unfair and inappropriate.
2. Section 5.1(a) of the Plan as adopted and approved.
This section should be amended to recognize that additional residential and commercial growth,
for a different segment of West Elgin's planned population growth, will locate in Lakeshore
areas. Similarly, section 7.1, Goals and Objectives for the Lakeshore area should state that
seasonal residential and year round residential development is a goal for all of the Lakeshore
area but particularly so for the area of Port Glasgow.
1512 140 Fullartan Street, London, ON N6A 5P2 tel: 519.432.8282 fax: 519.432,7285
Patton Cormier Si. Associates
File No, 32291
Page 2
3. Given matters such as proximity and efficiency, the Port Glasgow "black hatched line" should
include all of Lot 5 on Figure 5, Map 2.
4. Such further and other reasons as Counsel may advise,
Enclosed herewith is our firm cheque in the amount of $125.00 and the required appeal form.
Yours truly
PATTON CORMIER ASSOCIATES
Alan R. Patton
ARP /phldr
cc: Seaside Waterfronts Inc.
Lighthouse Waterfronts Inc.
Kirkness Consulting
Ron Koudys, Landscape Architect
1512 -140 Fillarton Street, London, ON N6A 5P2 tel: 519.432.8282 fax: 519.432.7285
SUBJECT OF APPEAL
TYPE OF APPEAL
PLANNING ACT
REFERENCE
(SECTION)
Minor Variance
Appeal a decision
Appeal a decision
45(12)
53(x9)
Consent/Severance
Appeal conditions imposed
I Appeal changed conditions
53(27)
Failed to make a decision on the application within 90 days
53(14)
Zoning By -law or
Zoning By law Amendment
Appeal the passing of a Zoning By -law
34(19) 1
34(11)
r Application for an amendment to the Zoning By -law failed to
make a decision on the application within 120 days
Application for an amendment to the Zoning By -law refused by the
municipality
Interim Control By
Appeal the passing of an Interim Control By -law
38(4)
1
Official Pian or
Official Plan Amendment
WI
Appeal a decision
17(24) or 17(35)
r Failed to make a decision an the plan within 180 days
17(40)
Application for an amendment to the Official Plan failed to make a
decision on the application within 180 days
22(7)
Application for an amendment to the Official Plan refused by the
municipality
Plan of Subdivision
Appeal a decision
51(39)
Appeal conditions imposed
51(43) or 51(48)
r Failed to make a decision on the application within 180 days
51(34)
Onteri6
Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario APPELLANT FORM (A1)
Ontario Municipal Board
655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E5
TEL: (416) 212-6349 or Toll Free: 1- 866- 448 -2248
FAX: (416) 326 -5370
www. elto.gov.on.ca
Dale Stamp Appeal Received by Municipality
Part: Appeal Type (Please check only one box)
Part 2' Location Information
PART LOT 5 AND PART LOT 6, CONCESSION 14
Address and/or Legal Description of property subject to the appeal:
Municipality /Upper tier: MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN, COUNTY OF ELGIN
Al Revised April 2010
PLANNING ACT
SUBMIT COMPLETED FORM
TO MUNICIPALITY /APPROVAL AUTHORITY
Receipt Number (OMB Office Use Only)
Page 2 of 5
Oft 3 AOPPIta nt information
First Name:
LIGHTHOUSE WATERFRONTS INC., SEASIDE WATERFRONTS INC.
Company Name or Association Name (Association must be incorporated include copy of letter of incorporation)
Professional Title (if applicable):
E -mail Address:
Daytime Telephone Alternate Telephone
Fax tt:
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 952 62 ONTARIO ROAD MITCHELL
Street Address Apt/Suite /Unit# City/Town
Signature of Appellant:
First Name: ALAN
Professional Title: LAWYER
Fax 519- 432 -7285
Signature of Appellant:
Last Name:
By providing an e address you agree to receive communications from the OMB by e
ONTARIO
Province
Please note: You muse notify the Ontario Municipal Board of any change of address or telephone number in writing. Please
quote your OMB Reference Number(s) after they have been assigned.
Personal information requested on this form is collected under the provisions of the Planning Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended,
and the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 28 as amended. After an appeal is filed, all information relating to this appeal
may become available to the public.
pa
4 Representative Information (if appficable)
I hereby authorize the named company and /or individual(s) to represent me:
Company Name: PATTON CORMIER ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address: 140 FULLAATON STREET
Street Address
Country (if not Canada)
(Signature not required if the appeal is submitted by a taw office.)
Last Name: PATTON
SUITE 1512
Apt/Suite /Unit#
N0}< I NO
Postal Code
Date:
E -mail Address: apattonl Oattoncormier.ca
By providing an a -mail address you agree lo receive cammunlcatlons tram the OMB by e-mail.
Daytime Telephone 519 432 -8282 Alternate Telephone it:
LONDON
City/Town
ONTARIO N6A 5P2
Province Country (if not Canada) Postal Code
Date: March 7, 201 1
Please note. If you are representing the appellant and are NOT a solicitor, please confirm that you have written authorization, as
required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, to act on behalf of the appellant. Please confirm this by checking the box
below.
I certify that I have written authorization from the appellant to act as a representative with respect to this appeal on his or her
behalf and I understand that I may be asked to produce this authorization at any time.
Al Revised April 2010 Page 3 of 5
La glis 0. anti Accessibility
Please choose preferred language. r English French
We are committed to providing services as set out in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Ac`, 2005. If you have
any accessibility needs, please contact our Accessibility Coordinator as soon as possible.
peal S pectfi information
1. Provide specific information about what you are appealing. For example: Municipal File Number(s), By -law
Number(s), Official Plan Number(s) or Subdivision Number(s):
(Please print)
FILE NO. 34 -OP- 4035, MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
BY -LAW NO. 2008-13
2. Outline the nature of your appeal and the reasons for your appeal. Be specific and provide land -use planning reasons
(for example: the specific provisions, sections and/or policies of the Official Plan or By -law which are the subject of
your appeal if applicable). **If more space is required, please continue in Part 9 or attach a separate page.
(Please print)
SEE ATTACHED
THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS (a &b) APPLY ONLY TO APPEALS OF ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENTS UNDER
SECTION 34(11) OF THE PLANNING ACT.
a) DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO MUNICIPALITY:
(If application submitted before January 1, 2007 please use the 01 'pre Bill 51' form.)
b) Provide a brief explanatory note regarding the proposal, which includes the existing zoning category, desired zoning
category, the purpose of the desired zoning by -law change, and a description of the lands under appeal:
If more space is required, please continue in Part 9 or attach a separate page.
Part 7 Related Matters: (if known)
Are there other appeals not yet filed with the Municipality?
(Please print)
Al Revised April 2010
YES
NO f�
NO r
Are there other planning matters related to this appeal? YES r
(For example.: A consent application connected to a variance application)
If yes, please provide OMB Reference Number(s) and/or Municipal File Number(s) in the box below:
Page 4 of 5
Part 8 ScF edul rig Infortnation
How many days do you estimate are needed for hearing this appeal? r half day r 1 day 2 days 3 days
4 days 1 week More than 1 week please specify number of days.
How many expert witnesses and other witnesses do you expect to have at the hearing providing evidence/testimony?
THREE_ (3)_
Describe expert witness(es)' area of expertise (For example: land use planner, architect, engineer, etc,):
LAND USE PLANNER; CIVIL ENGINEER; LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Do you believe this matter would benefit from mediation? YES NO r
(Mediation is generally scheduled only when all parties agree to participate)
Do you believe this matter would benefit from a prehearing conference? YES NO r
(Preheating conferences are generally not scheduled for variances or consents)
If yes, why? To scope issues and determine if resolution possible on modifications made by the Minister.
Part::9 Other Applicable Information *Attach a separate_page if more space 15 required
Part 10: e tiired Fee
Total Fee Submitted: 125.00
Payment Method:
o The payment must be in Canadian funds, payable to the Minister of Finance.
6 Do not send cash.
PLEASE ATTACH THE CERTIFIED CHEQUE /MONEY ORDER TO THE FRONT OF THIS FORM.
Al Revised April 2010
Certified cheque Money Order Solicitor's general or trust account cheque
Page 5 of 5
Ministry of
Natural Resources
615 John Street North
Aylmer ON N5H 2S8
Tel: 519 773 -9241
Fax: 519- 773 -9014
Ministere des
Richesses naturolles
615, rue John Nord
Aylmer ON N5H 2S8
Tel: 519- 773 -9241
Telec: 519- 773 -9014
March 2, 2011
Attention: Norma Bryant, Clerk, Municipality of West Elgin
Dear Norma,
a 20 -metre radius around eastern flowering dogwood;
ft Ontario
Subject: Proposed Habitat Regulation under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for
Eastern Flowering Dogwood
Ontario is home to more than 30,000 species. Most have stable populations, but some
plants and animals are disappearing and some are already extinct. Currently, more
than 200 species in Ontario are considered "at risk" because of habitat loss, pollution,
competition from invasive species, climate change and over harvesting. The loss of a
single species can have an effect on the entire ecosystem. If we all work to conserve
Ontario's biodiversity, we can protect the Tong -term health of our province, and improve
the quality of life for ail living things in Ontario.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is working with people across the province to
protect and recover Ontario's at -risk plants and animals. That is the aim of the
Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), which came into force in June 2008.
This letter is sent to inform you that the MNR is contacting specific landowners and land
managers within your municipal boundaries who may have habitat for eastern flowering
dogwood on or in the vicinity of their properties. Eastern flowering dogwood is an
endangered tree found in open woods, forest edges and fencerows in southwestern
Ontario. The MNR is developing a regulation that explains what the protected habitat is
for eastern flowering dogwood, and we are currently seeking input on the content of the
proposed regulation.
MNR is proposing that the following types of areas be protected in a habitat regulation
for eastern flowering dogwood:
the area that supports the growth of eastern flowering dogwood (for example part
of a forested area that supplies the shade, soil or moisture conditions necessary
for dogwood to grow);
cultivated varieties of eastern flowering dogwood would be excluded unless they
were developed from disease- resistant eastern flowering dogwood plants that
are native to Ontario or an adjacent state.
The proposed habitat regulation under the ESA for eastern flowering dogwood is
currently available on the Environmental Registry for public comment at
www.ebr.gov.on.ca [Registry 011 2471]. Comments may be made online through
the Environmental Registry or you can submit them in writing to:
Glenn Desy,
Species at Risk Habitat Biologist, MNR,
300 Water Street,
Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5
sar. hab itat @ontario. ca
Comments may also be sent by fax to (705) 755-566 by April 4, 2011.
if you have questions or should you receive questions from landowners or land
managers within your jurisdiction about eastern flowering dogwood, its habitat, and /or
protection under the ESA, please ask them to contact Kate Maclntyre, SAR Biologist of
MNR Aylmer District office at (519 773 -4745 or kate.macintyreontario.ca).
We appreciate your comments on this proposal and hope you share our interest in
Ontario's species at risk. We will contact you again when a habitat regulation has been
approved for this species.
Mitch Wilson
District Manager
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer District
Enclosures: Eastern Flowering Dogwood Fact Sheet
Endangered Species Act 2007 brochure
14 -075
2
Eastern Flowering Dogwood produces
snowy flowers in the spring just as the leaves
begin to develop. Large, white, petal -like
leaves surround the tiny flowers and make
Clem obvious targets for insect pollinators.
i 'a b itat
Eastern Flowering Dogwood grows under taller trees
in mid -age to mature deciduous or mixed forests, It
most commonly grows on floodplains, slopes, bluffs
and in ravines, and is also sometimes found along
roadsides and fencerows.
1 greats
Protection
Eastern Flowering Dogwood is a fairly common
species in the core of its range in the middle and
southern United States. In Canada, it can only be
found in southern Ontario in the Carolinian Zone (the
small area of Ontario southwest of Toronto to Sarnia
down to the shores of Lake Erie).
Dogwood anthracnose fungus is the primary threat to
the species. This fungus first attacks the leaves of the
tree, then spreads through the twigs and trunk.
Mortality of infected trees usually ranges from
25 -75% and has had a devastating impact on Eastern
Flowering Dogwood populations. Habitat loss and
fragmentation (when habitat is broken into smaller
segments) are also serious threats to the species.
Eastern Flowering Dogwood and its habitat are
protected under Ontario's Endangered Species Act.
For more information on legislation that helps protect
Ontario's species at risk visit ontario.ca /speciesatrisk.
Provincial Status: Endangered
The Ministry of Natural Resources tracks species at
risk such as Eastern Flowering Dogwood. You can
use a handy online form to report your sightings
to the Natural Heritage Information Centre.
Photographs with specific locations or mapping
coordinates are always helpful!
nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca
Report any illegal activity related to plants and
wildlife to 1- 877 TIPS -MNR (847 7667).
Volunteer with your local nature club, stewardship
council or provincial park to participate in surveys
or stewardship work focused on species at risk.
www.ontariostewardship.org
Populations of many insects that pollinate plants
are declining around the world. For information
on how you can easily give insect pollinators a
helping hand visit: www.seeds.ca /proj /poll.
The bright red fruit of this tree Is poisonous to
humans but can be eaten by ovar 50 species of bid's
and small mammals. These animals help distribute
Eastern Flowering Dogwood seeds throughout
forests.
Eastern Flowering Dogwood can look similar to the
more common Alternate- leaved Dogwood. Don't be
fooled! As its name suggests, the Alternate- leaved
Dogwood has leaves occurring singly along the
branch (an arrangement ref erred to as 'alternate')
whereas Eastern Flowering Dogwood has leaves
arranged in pairs ('opposite' leaf arrangement} and
also has distinguishing bright red, shiny berries.
Aboriginal people used Eastern Flowering Dogwood
for medicinal purposes and used the wood for
carving and making tools. Early settlers also sought
after the tree's dense, fine grained wood.
For additional information:
Visit the species at risk website at
o nta ri o ca /spec i e satri sk
Contact your MNR district office
Contact the Natural Resources Information Centre
1 -800- 667 -1940
TTY 1- 866 686 -6072
mnr.nric.mnr@ontario.ca
ontario.ca /mnr
Queen's Printer for Ontario 2010
'99RSERVATiOR A91N9RITY
DRINKING WATER,-
SOURCE PROTECTION
AC7 FOR CLEAN WATER
March 7, 2011
Municipality of West Elgin
P.0 Box 490
22413 Hoskin Line
Rodney, ON NOL 2C0
Norma Bryant, Clerk
Re: Notice Under 0. Reg. 287/07 Source Protection Plan Preparation for Drinking Water Source
Protection in the Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region.
This letter provides notice, as is required by the Clean Water Act, Ontario Regulation 287/07 Section 19,
that the Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee is commencing with the
development of Source Protection Plans for the St. Clair Region, Lower Thames Valley and Upper
Thames River Source Protection Areas. These plans must address activities that are defined by the Act as
Significant Drinking Water Threats to ensure that a specific activity does not pose a significant risk to the
municipal drinking water. Source Protection Plans will build on the science of the Assessment Reports,
which identify vulnerable areas where drinking water sources might be at risk of contamination or
depletion.
There are many tools available to reduce threats to drinking water. Some threats could be reduced
through voluntary action by landowners or with assistance from subsidy and cost -share programs. Other
threats can be addressed through an education and outreach effort. Some threats may be addressed
through regulatory tools. Existing regulatory processes (such as permits, approvals, orders, zoning
bylaws, official plans and provincial instruments) will be used where possible. A Risk Management Plan
is a new tool that allows the municipality's risk management official and the landowner to negotiate a
risk reduction which satisfies the Source Protection Plan.
Over the next year and a half, the Source Protection Committee will be developing the Plan with
extensive public and stakeholder input. Municipalities are being invited to participate in a Source
Protection Municipal Advisory Committee. Municipalities who are identified in the Source Protection
Plan as having implementation responsibilities will be engaged during pre consultation on policies.
Further, municipalities will have an opportunity to comment on the draft proposed and proposed Source
Protection Plans. The committee values early stakeholder involvement in the development of the Source
Protection Plan.
Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority
100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario,
N7L 2Y8
phone 519 -354 -7310, fax 519 352 -3435
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
205 Mill Pond Cres., Strathroy, Ontario,
N7G 3P9
phone 519 245 -3710, fax. 519 245 -3348
http://www.sourcewaterprotection.on.cal
MIJNICO LITY OF WEST ELGIN
F+c i:IYIR c
i in.
o .a 1 13 2011
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
1424 Clarke Road, London, ON
N5V 5B9
phone 519- 451 -2800, fax 519 -451 -1188
COi1SEFYAT104 AOTPOPITY
e DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER
Letters are being sent to all landowners that may be engaging in activities which could be a significant
threat to municipal drinking water sources (as identified in the Assessment Reports) notifying them of
the commencement of the development of Source Protection Plans for the region. A copy of the letter
is attached.
If you have any questions, please contact Chris Tasker, Program Manager at 519 451 -2800 ext. 238 or by
email at taskerc @thamesriver.on.ca
Sincerely,
ft/f-iffr
Bob Bedggood, Chair
Thames Sydenham and
Region Source Protection Committee
Lower Thames valley Conservation Authority
100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario,
N7L 2Y8
phone 519- 354 -7310, fax 519- 352 -3435
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
205 Mill Pond Gres., Strathroy, Ontario,
N7G 3P9
phone 519 245 -3710, fax. 519- 245 -3348
http:// www .sourcewaterprotection.on.ca/
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
1424 Clarke Road, London, ON
N5V 5B9
phone 519- 451 -2800, fax 519 -451 -1188
CONSERVATION AL'7N0E1T?!
1 DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER
Letter to Landowner
Dear:
This letter serves the following purpose:
1. Provides notice that the process for developing Source Protection Plans is commencing
2. Indicates ways for you to become involved in reviewing future discussion papers
3. Includes information on stewardship grant programs
4. Requests information about actions on your property already being done as part of
existing regulations that may address the potential significant drinking water threat
This letter provides notice, as is required by the Clean Water Act, Ontario Regulation 287/07
Section 19, that the Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee is
commencing the development of Source Protection Plans for the St. Clair Region, Lower
Thames Valley and Upper Thames River Source Protection Areas. These plans must address
activities that are defined by the Act as Significant Drinking Water Threats to ensure that a
specific activity does not pose a significant risk to the municipal drinking water. Source
Protection Plans will build on the science of the Assessment Reports, which identify vulnerable
areas where drinking water sources might be at risk of contamination or depletion.
The Committee is notifying landowners that may be engaging in activities which could be a
significant threat to municipal drinking water sources, as identified in the Assessment Report
developed in 2010. Therefore you are receiving this notification because the Source
Protection Committee believes that there could be activities on your property that appear to
be a "significant" threat to drinking water.
Landowners with "significant threat" activities on their property will be required to follow
Source Protection Plan policies. The process for developing these policies is starting and the
Clean Water Act requires that the Source Protection Committee notify you now that we are
entering the Plan development stage.
Examples of things that could be a "significant threat" in a highly vulnerable area include septic
systems, fuel storage, manure spreading, handling or storage of road salt or application of
pesticides. In Attachment #1 you will find a table of significant threats believed to be occurring
in this wellhead protection area. Source Protection Plans are required to contain policies that
manage significant threats to municipal supplies of drinking water and ensure that no new
significant threats can occur.
Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority
100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario,
N7L 2Y8
phone 519- 354 -7310, fax 519 352 -3435
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
205 Mill Pond Cres., Strathroy, Ontario,
N7G 3P9
phone 519 245 -3710, fax. 519 -245 -3348
http:// www .sourcewaterprotection.on.ca/
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
1424 Clarke Road, London, ON
N5V 5B9
phone 519- 451 -2800, fax 519- 451 -1188
1
SOURCE PROTECT DRINKING WATER
-ON
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER
Over the course of the next year, the Source Protection Committee will be working to develop
discussion papers which outline policy options for the Source Protection Plans. The Committee
will use these as a base in writing the Source Protection Plans. We invite you to join us to
review the draft proposed policies during the later part of 2011. If interested please complete
and return the attached form.
There are many tools available to reduce threats to drinking water. Some threats could be
reduced through voluntary action by landowners or with assistance from subsidy and cost -share
programs. Information about the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Early Response Grant
Program has been included in this package.
Other threats can be addressed through an education and outreach effort. Some threats may
be addressed through regulatory took. Existing regulatory processes (such as permits,
approvals, orders, zoning bylaws, official plans and provincial instruments) will be used where
possible. A Risk Management Plan is a new tool that allows the municipality's risk management
official and the landowner to negotiate a risk reduction which satisfies the Source Protection
Plan.
It is important to note that the policies developed in the plan may affect activities on property
that you own as they relate to the significant risk(s) identified (Attachment #1). If your property
is being used by another individual or group, please pass this information on to them and or
notify us with the correct contact information and we will be pleased to send it along.
The Source Protection Committee is required to ask if you are engaged in an activity that is
regulated by a provincial instrument (permit, certificate or license issued by the province)
prescribed by the regulation. Please see Attachment #2 for a list of the relevant provincial
instruments. Please fill out and return the bottom of this form so that we are aware of your
existing efforts to manage these risks. It is to your advantage to fill out the form. Public input
enhances the development of the Source Protection Plan.
Over the next year and a half, the Source Protection Committee will be developing the Plan with
extensive public and stakeholder input. If you have any questions about this letter, or source
protection planning policy development, please contact Teresa Hollingsworth at 519- 451 -2800
ext. 226.
ft/fairx
Bob Bedggood Chair,
Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee
Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority
100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario,
N7L 2Y8
phone 519- 354 -7310, fax 519 352 -3435
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
205 Mill Pond Cres., Strathroy, Ontario,
N7G 3P9
phone 519 -245 -3710, fax. 519 -245 -3348
http:// www .sourcewaterprotection.on.ca/
FIPTVMMIU
COASEHVATIOV AUEHOA3 {Y
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
1424 Clarke Road, London, ON
N5V 589
phone 519- 451 -2800, fax 519 -451 -1188
L
P C. Box 3 15, Rodney, ON NOL ?CO
March 9, 2011
Mayor and Members. of Council
C/o Ms. Norma Bryant, Clerk
The Municipality of West Elgin
22413 -T7oskins Line, Box 490
Rodney, Ontario NOL 2C0
Dear Mayor Wiehle and. Council:
Mayor Wiehle has requested we document our concerns about the potential
new development project at Port Glasgow.
At this time first and foremost is our objection to the proceedings that the
Municipality of West Elgin has undertaken in declaring municipal lands surplus
along Havens Lake Road:
There will be opportunities up coming to comment on actual Seaside
Development's plans at a later date.
This letter is a follow up to the binder all council received on around March
3rd, 2011. The issue is that on September 3, 2010 the municipal council of the day
forged ahead declaring certain lands along Havens Lake Road Surplus, with the
intent of transferring this land to Seaside Developments to be used for commercial
purposes.
The Port Glasgow Yacht Club (PGYC) has provided to the Municipality of
West Elgin (the municipality) many facts by the way of a letter, presentations, and
personal communications as to why this land is not surplus and should remain the
ownership of the municipality, at least the land on the east and west side of the
Havens Lake Road from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill.
The PGYC has provided a copy of the binder to the municipality. It contains
some of the various correspondences that identify many of the concerns. The land
on the east side of the road could be utilized for car, truck, and trailer parking and
be incorporated into the design for the new development but still remain in the
municipalities ownership.
The municipality has a moral (and faith) obligation as well as a legal
obligation to the PGYC.
The Moral Responsibility: We will summarize again these points
As per the township of Aldborough letter Sept 21, 1995; THE LAND
OBTAINED FROM THE HAVENS FAMILY WAS CONTRIBUTED FORA NEW ROAD
AND MARINA TO ENHANCE TOURISM AND RECREATION AT PORT GLASGOW. The
Havens family did not donate this land only to have it sold by the municipality for
commercial purposes!
MUTT P LITY OF WEST F. 310. j
frAP 9 2611
_C,04h fc
THE LAND (FORMER BEATTIE ACCESS PROVINCIAL PARK) OBTA INED.
FROM THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO WAS TO BE COMBINED WITH THE LAND FROM
THE HAVENS ESTATE. As per the June 15, 1994 letter from Brian Hallas, Marketing
co- ordinator of Real Estate Branch, Province of Ontario. It states "The intent of the
transfer is to consolidate the holding to hIl a significant gap or holes in the property
IMPROVING IT'S UTILITY AS A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT." In the actual agreement
with the province on page 3 under Restrictive Covenant it states, "The purchaser
agrees that the land shall be used for free public access to Lake Erie and for
municipal parks and recreation purposes only."
The PGYC entered into an agreement with the Municipality to repay
approximately $250 000. The club had basically no legal responsibility to repay
these monies if they could justify using the money elsewhere on the property. The
PGYC at times had to forego certain things, but they made sure the money was there
for the municipality. They were dealing in good faith.
We understand the Municipality of West Elfin adopted a new Official Plan
that came into effect on February 7, 2011. It states, "It is the one area along the
lakeshore within West Elgin where public access to the lake and views of the lake
are greatest.'
As you can see the Municipality got everyone involved to make Port Glasgow
what it is today at virtually no cost to the Municipality. Many of the deals were done
in good faith. In the Township of Aldborough letter on Sept. 21, 1995 they stated,
We do not believe that the days of good faith and handshakes are gone Here you
have the Province of Ontario Real Estate Branch, the Havens family, the Port
Glasgow Yacht Club all stating the lands received should be used for parks and
recreation purposes only! Even the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
recognizing how important the view in itself is.
Why did the council not heed all these requests on Sept. 23, 2010? They did
not even follow the Sept. 23, 2010 staff report prepared by clerk Norma Bryant and
treasurer /administrator Joanne Groch. The municipality should be ashamed of
itself!
Now we get into the legal responsibility. As you know the PGYC and
Municipality have this agreement from Dec. 1994. In this agreement the
Municipality agreed to a "First Right of Refusal" clause, see 16.3. We all know the
agreement was to deal with all land obtained from the MNR, but as per the letter
from Brian Hallas on June 15, 1994 the property from Havens and the MNR was to
be consolidated to be all one and dealt with as all one. Also in the agreement on page
1 with the PGYC the Township property is described as "and whereas the township
corporation owns certain lands in the Township which abut the lands owned by the
Yacht Club and intends to acquire others
We all were aware the deal with the Havens family is basically done
otherwise why would anyone spend over $500 000 on a marina with questionable
access? The proof that the Havens land was going to be transferred and part of the
agreement is in schedule C in the agreement. It shows the word "new" on the right
side of the page some diagonal lines and four oval areas. On schedule C you can not
read the description of these two areas. Recently a plan was located that is very
clear. It was produced by the Municipal planner Ted Halwa and Associates,
Communities, Planners Inc. London, Ontario. The plan is the last page in the binder
provided. This plan is very legible. It says "new traveled road It also states on the
east side of the new traveled road 17 car and trailer parking and 55 car and trailer
parking on the west side of the new traveled road. This plan was produced for the
building of the new marina.
Someone stated the land for the road was obtained well after the MNR land
and should not be part of the agreement. This new information clearly shows it was
planned all along as one and it is all covered under the agreement)
Basically we understand the Municipality has considered selling or trading
parts of the land donated by the Havens family and obtained from the Province, to
Seaside.
1. The Municipality should be retaining those lands from the top of the
hill on both sides to the bottom of the hill as they were intended for
municipal parks and recreation purposes. As stated earlier the land
on the east side, from the top of the-hill down, could be
incorporated into Seaside's development in the form of parking if
all parties could agree.
2. If the Municipality insists on selling these two parcels (which is not
desired by the PGYC) the PGYC has the first right of refusal.
The new information in Mr. Hallas's letter and the clear evidence in the
recently found plan by Ted Hawla (Community Planners Inc.) proved this land is
covered by the agreement with the PGYC.
Therefore -the Municipality should cease moving forward with the process to
transfer any of this property out of municipal ownership.
Furthermore, the Municipality has a moral and legal responsibility to rescind
the surplus land declaration in light of this new evidence.
Until a suitable agreement can be reached with the Yacht Club the land
should continue to be owned by the Municipality!
Thank you,
Terry Foulis
President PGYC
cc. Mayor Bernie WiehlebwiehlePsympatico.ca
Mary Bodnar marybodnar @porchlight.ca
Dug Aldred, dugjudy @xplornet.com
Richard Leatham jr.leatham @hotmail.com
Norm Miller norm.milIer@hotmail.com
Ken Strong strong @municipallawyers.ca
Elg y
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT 20II
r• e5
APPLICATION NO. E 67/10
PART LOTS 9 10, CONCESSION 14, MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
TAKE NOTICE that an application has been made by CHARLES AND MICHELLE QUINTYN,
800 Waterloo Street, LONDON, Ontario, N6A 3W4, for a consent pursuant to Section 53 of the
Planning Act, 1990, as amended, to sever lands municipally known as 23011 Gray Line, legally
described as Part Lots 9 10, Concession 14, Municipality of West Elgin.
The applicants propose to sever a lot with a frontage of 70 metres along Gray Line by a depth of
399.8 metres (west lot line), Area 2.8 hectares, proposed to create one residential building lot.
The owners are retaining 17.6 hectares containing one house (east retained parcel) and 4.8
hectares (west retained parcel), proposed to remain in residential use,
The location of the property is shown on the Key Map below:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding the application is available for inspection daily, Monday
to Friday, between 9:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M., at the County Municipal Offices, 450 Sunset Drive,
St, Thomas or at a Public Hearing to be held on:
THURSDAY APRIL 28, 2011, at 10:00A.M.
in Committee (ORIGINALLY Room #2, County Municipal FEBRUARY fices, u et Drivve St. Thomas.
Any person or public body may attend the Public Hearing and /or make written or verbal
representation either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed consent.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Land Division Committee in respect of the
proposed co,..sent, you must submit a written request to the Land Division Committee. This will
also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the
successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Land Division Committee
decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Applicant or another member of
the public.
If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Land Division Committee in
respect of the proposed consent does not make written submission to the Land Division
Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board
may dismiss the appeal,
Dated at the Municipality of Central Elgin this 31 day of March 2011.
KEY MAP: (not to scale)
tie. vuo
r, L
r: JICINAL!TY OF WEST °_L _iV
nn PJE C
Susan D. Galloway
Secretary- Treasurer
Land Division Committee
450 Sunset Drive
St, Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Ctunty of Elgin
Engineering serviCe6
45O Sunset Drive
St Tnoma9, On N5R 5V1
Phone; 516- 831 -145o
www,elgncaunryon.ce
Piro ressive b
Mar. 11. all 9: UUAM
rag
No. 0863 P. 3
Elgin County
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT
APPLICATION NO. E 25/11
PART LOT 10, CONCESSION BROKEN FRONT, MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
TAKE NOTICE that an application has been made by EVA MINNIE IRENE NEWPORT,
22085 Gibb Line, R.R. #1, WARDSVILLE, Ontario, NOL 2N0, for a consent pursuant to Section
53 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, to sever lands legally described as Part Lot 10,
Concession Broken Front, Municipality of West Elgin.
The applicant proposes to sever a parcel of land with a width of 697.379 metres along unopened
road allowance by a depth of 450.356 metres (south lot line), Area 23.66 hectares, proposed to
create one new lot for agricultural use. The owner is retaining 20.68 hectares, proposed to
remain in agricultural use.
The location of the property is shown on the Key Map below:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding the application is available for inspection daily, Monday
to Friday, between 8:30 A.M. and 1 :30 P.M., at the County Municipal Offices, 450 Sunset Drive,
St. Thomas or at a Public Hearing to be held on:
-MUNICIPALITY Wit. '<VEST ELC IF'
in Committee Room #2,
THURSDAY APRIL 28, at County Municipal Off
Offices, c 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas.
Any person or public body may attend the Public Hearing and/or make written or verbal
representation either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed consent.
if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Land Division Committee in respect of the
proposed consent, you must submit a written request to the Land Division Committee. This will
also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the
successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Land Division Committee
decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Applicant or another member of
the public.
If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Land Division Committee in
respect of the proposed consent does not make written submission to the Land Division
Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board
may dismiss the appeal.
Dated at the Municipality of Central Elgin this 31 day of March 2011.
KEY MAP: (not to scale)
Susan D. Galloway
Secretary- Treasurer
Land Division Committee
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
County of Elgin
Engineering Services
466 Sunset Drive
SL Thomas. OA 1 15 1 15v1
Phone: 51D- 631 -1460
www.eigin{eurtp-. on,oa
u L 1 L V I I 7 V 1 x1111
ElginCounty
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN :'.IiNICIPRSI7Y h' S1 ELGIN
9_CEIVcC
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT E 701
APPLICATION NO. E 26/11
PART LOT 9, CONCESSION 11, MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
TAKE NOTICE that an application has been made by 571419 ONTARIO LIMITED,
22887 Silver Clay Line, R.R. #3, RODNEY, Ontario, NOL 2CO for a consent pursuant to Section
53 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, to sever lands municipally known as 22744 Silver
Clay Line, legally described as Part Lot 9, Concession 11, Municipality of West Elgin,
The applicant proposes to sever a lot with a frontage of 102 metres along Silver Clay Line by a
depth of 76 metres (east lot line) to 13 metres (west lot line), Area 4452 square metres containing
one house and one garage, proposed to create one new lot surplus to the needs of the applicant.
The owner is retaining 18 hectares, proposed to remain in agricultural use.
The location of the property is shown on the Key Map below:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding the application is available for inspection daily, Monday
to Friday, between 8 :30 A.M. and 1:30 P,M., at the County Municipal Offices, 450 Sunset Drive,
St. Thomas or at a Public Hearing to be held on:
in Committee Room #2, County Municipal Offices, 450 Su set Drive, St. Thomas.
Any person or public body may attend the Public Hearing and/or make written or verbal
representation either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed consent.
if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Land Division Committee in respect of the
proposed consent, you must submit a written request to the Land Division Committee. This will
also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the
successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Land Division Committee
decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Applicant or another member of
the public.
If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Land Division Committee in
respect of the proposed consent does not make written submission to the Land Division
Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board
may dismiss the appeal,
Dated at the Municipality of Central Elgin this 31 SE day of March 2011,
KEY MAP: not to cale
No. 0863 P. 4
Susan D. Galloway
Secretary- Treasurer
Land Division Committee
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
County of Elgin
Engineering Services
450 Svnaet Drive
St Thomas, On N5R 5V1
phone; 519. 631.1460
WI.M.eIgin countyon,ce
rlai. LI. LUII Y;V H4YI
LANDS
N5R 5V1
No. 0863 P, 5
7 ■:46: 1 S:
ElginCoun
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT
APPLICATION NO. E 28111
PART LOT 9, CONCESSION 1 WESTERN DIVISION, MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
TAKE NOTICE that an application has been made by GEORGE AND JOAN BEAUREGARD,
(Victor Matos Purchaser), 22102 Gibb Line, WARDSVILLE, Ontario, NOL 2N0, for a consent
pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, to sever lends municipally known
as 22102 Gibb Line, WARDSVILLE, Ontario, NOL 2N0, legally described as Part Lot 9,
Concession 1 Western Division, Municipality of West Elgin.
The applicants propose to sever a lot with a frontage of 70 metres along Gibb Line by a depth of
275 metres, Area 4.75 acres containing one house and three metal sheds, proposed to create
one new lot for rural residential use. The owners are retaining 45 acres, proposed to remain in
agricultural use.
The location of the property is shown an the Key Map below:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding the application is available for inspection daily, Monday
to Friday, between 8:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M., at the County Municipal Offices, 450 Sunset Drive,
St. Thomas or at a Public Hearing to be held on:
E.UNiCIPALITY OF WEST ELG N
eA 'T 2Ui
in Committee Room #2, County Municipal Offices, 460 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas.
Any person or public body may attend the Public Hearing and/or make written or verbal
representatici either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed consent.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Land Division Committee in respect of the
proposed consent, you must submit a written request to the Land Division Committee. This will
also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the
successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Land Division Committee
decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Applicant or another member of
the public.
If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Land Division Committee in
respect of the proposed consent does not make written submission to the Land Division
Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board
may dismiss the appeal.
Dated at the Municipality of Central Elgin this 31 day of March 2011.
KEY MAP: not to scale)
Susan D. Galloway
Secretary Treasurer
SUBJECT Land Division Committee
O 450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
County of Elgin
Engineering Services
450 Sunset Drive
St Tomas. On N5P 5V1
Phone: 519- 691 -ia6O
www. e l g i n.co un ry. o n.f, e