April 26, 2012MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 26, 2012
Council Chambers, West Elgin Municipal Building
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
DELEGATIONS:
9:30 a.m. Amendment to Zoning By -law — Lift holding symbol
Part Lot 17, Concession 13 (Al & B1)
10:00 a.m. Budget — Water Department (to be distributed at meeting)
1:30 p.m. Grace McGartiand — update on Arts & Cookery Bank
2:00 p.m. Rodney Fair Board - track
PLANNING: (B1)
1.* Report re: Removal of Holding (H) symbol — 9302 Furnival Road
REPORTS: (C1 -C7)
1. ROADS
2. RECREATION
3. BUILDING
4. WATER
5. DRAINS
6. WEST ELGIN PRIMARY SYSTEM
April 26/12 Page 2
7. ADMINISTRATION
CORRESPONDENCE: (D1 -D5)
1.* Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal -- Notice of Decision — Talbot Line
Drain
2.* Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal — Notice of Decision -- Kalita- Pfeifer
Drain
3.* Canada Day Committee — request for funding
4.* 1st West Lorne Scouting Family -- "Trout Unlimited Canada's Yellow Fish Road"
5.* Ontario Energy Matrix — proposal for constrained Project - OEM
BY -LAWS:
By -law No. 2012 -28 Rename street (McPherson Road)
By -law No. 2012 -29 Lift holding symbol — Lot 17, Concession 13
OTHER BUSINESS: (E1 -E6)
1. Code of Conduct session — County
2. Dutton Co- operative Child Care Centre — Spring Family Fun Night and Open House
3. Water bill payment
4. Building Services
5. Level of service in villages
6. Closed session, if deemed necessary
*Information enclosed
CONFIRMING BY -LAW
ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETINGS
May 3, 2012 Special Council
10:00 a.m. — Closed Session — Confidential human resources
1:30 p.m. - Budget
May 10, 2012 Council
May 24, 2012 Council
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
NOTICE OF INTENTION
TO REMOVE THE HOLDING (H) SYMBOL
Barry Larson
9302 Furnival Road — New Glasgow
DATE/TIME: 9:30 a.m. Thursday, April 26t ", 2012
LOCATION: West Elgin Municipal Building - 22413 Hoskins Line north of the Village of Rodney.
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Township of Aldborough Zoning By -law to remove the
holding (H) symbol
The proposed Amendment would remove the holding 'H' symbol from the Hamlet Residential — Holding (HR -H) Zone
symbol as it applies to certain lands situated on the east side of Furnival Road (County Road No. 103) south of Talbot
Line (County Road No. 3) in the Hamlet of New Glasgow (refer key map).
The subject lands (Le. from which the H symbol is proposed to be removed) comprise an area of 0.7 hectares (1.8 acres),
a frontage of 77.7 metres (225 feet) on Furnival Road (County Road No. 103) and a depth of 92.8 metres (304.6 feet).
The lands, which comprise part of a larger parcel having an area of 3.9 hectares (9.6 acres), are occupied by a single unit
dwelling and a shed. The owner has requested removal of the 'H' symbol to permit the construction of a shop with
attached lean -to, detached garage and a single unit dwelling. The existing dwelling and shed would be removed.
The subject lands are designated `Hamlet' in the Municipality of West Elgin Official Plan. Removal of the 'H' symbol is
addressed under Section 10.5.6 of the Plan. The requirements of the Plan are satisfied.
ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE is a key map showing the location of the subject lands. The notice is given in accordance
with the Planning Act [Section 36(4)] and Ontario Regulation 545/06 [Section 8].
DATED AT RODNEY, ONTARIO this 18th day of April, 2012.
00-4^- -34 Municipality of West Elgin
Norma Bryant 22413 Hoskins Line
Clerk P.O Box 490
Rodney, Ontario
NOL 2C0
Telephone: (519) 785 -0560
Fax: (519) 785 -0644
Email: nbryant @westeigin.net
APPLICATION FOR A ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT
Barry Larson
9302 Furnival Road, Hamlet of New Glasgow
Part of Lot 7, Concession XIII
Municipality of West Elgin
Municipality of WEST ELGIN
LOT 5
LOT 6
CONCES ION XII
LQT 7
1"°
TALBOT LINE
CONCESSION XIII
Community
Plannerslnc
ZONING
Al AGRICULTURAL
HR HAMLET RESIDENTIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
LANDS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO
REMOVAL OF THE HOLDING 'H' SYMBOL
1:10,000
1:2,000
Metres
0 125 250 375 500
Community
Planners Inc
23 April, 2012
Community Planners Inc.
Middlesex County Building
399 Ridout Street North London, Ontario N6A 2P1
Tel: (519) 963 -1028
Fax: (519) 438 -7770
e -mail: london @communitypianners com
MEMORANDUM #000812160
TO: Norma Bryant
Clerk
Municipality of West Elgin
FROM: Ted L. Halwa
SUBJ: Removal of Holding (H) Symbol — Barry Larson - 9302 Furnival Road
As requested, enclosed herewith is a by -law to remove the holding (H) symbol from the Hamlet
Residential - Holding (HR -H) Zone as it applies to the northerly portion of the abovementioned lands
proposed to be developed for residential purposes. The by -law, if adopted, would permit buildings and
structures to be erected on the subject lands in accordance with the provisions of the Hamlet Residential
(HR) Zone. We understand that Council will be considering adoption of the amendment on April 26, 2012.
The extent of the lands on which the holding symbol would be removed is based on a survey prepared in
2006 by David G. McGeorge Limited, OLS. The survey was not deposited and we have, therefore, based
the description of the subject lands on the PIN reference included on the survey. The dimensions of the
lands are described and shown on Schedule 'A' to the By -law.
Under the Planning Act, there are no appeal provisions with respect to the removal of the Holding (H)
symbol. The By -law comes into effect on the day it is passed
(original signed bV)
Dan Smith
ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT
Barry Larson
9302 Furnival Road, Hamlet of New Glasgow
Part of Lot 7, Concession XIII
Municipality of West Elgin
Municipality of WEST ELGIN
LOT 5
LOT 6
CONCES ION XII
LC;T 7
TALBOT LINE
CONCESSION XIII
LANDS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO
REMOVAL OF THE HOLDING 'H' SYMBOL
1:2,000
Community 1:10,000
Metres
Plannerslnc 0 125 250 375 500
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN
BY -LAW NO.
BEING A BY -LAW TO AMEND BY -LAW NO. 90 -50
Barry Larson
9302 Furnival Road -- New Glasgow
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin deems it advisable to
amend By -law No. 90 -50;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin enacts as follows:
1. THAT Schedule "D" to By -law No. 90 -50, as amended, is hereby amended by changing from
the Hamlet Residential — Holding (HR -H) Zone to the Hamlet Residential (HR) Zone those
lands outlined in heavy solid lines and described as HR on Schedule "A" attached hereto and
forming part of this By -law, and more particularly described as part of PIN 35111 -0157, being
part of Lot 7, Concession XIII in the former Township of Aldborough, now in the Municipality of
West Elgin, in the County of Elgin.
2. THIS By -law comes into force upon the day it is passed hereof.
READ a FIRST and SECOND time this day of , 2012.
READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this day of 2012.
MAYOR CLERK
-- •
LOT 6
E
0
CONCESSION XII
l
El
TALBOT LINE
Hamlet of
NEW GLASGOW
92.8 m
HR
FURNIVAL ROAD
M
O
This is Schedule "A" to By -law No.
Passed this day of , 2012.
Mayor
Clerk
LOT 7
CONCESSION XIII
Municipality of WEST ELGIN
SCHEDULE 'A'
1:2,000
Metres
0 10 20 40 80 80 100
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal
1 Stone Road West
Guelph ON N1G 4Y2
Tel: 519 826 -3433, Fax: 519 826 -4232
Toll Free: 1 888 466 -2372 Ext. 6 -3433
Email: appeals.tribunal.omafra @ontario.ca
Tribunal d'appel de 1'agriculture, de
l'alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West
Guelph ON N l G 4Y2
Tel.: 519 826 -3433, Telec.: 519 826 -4232
Sans frais : 1 888 466 -2372 poste 6 -3433
Courriel : appeals .tribunal,omafra@ontario -ca
R 7 2fl2
TALBOT LINE DRAIN Section 54(1) Appeal
Municipality of West Elgin
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS
AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal by the County of Elgin, St. Thomas, Ontario under Section 54(1) of the
Drainage Act from the decision of the Court of Revision on the Talbot Line Drain in the
Municipality of West Elgin.
Before:
Kirk Walstedt, Chair; Enio Sullo, Vice - Chair; Bill Schaefer, Member
Appearances:
John M. Spriet, Spriet Associates London Limited - Engineer who prepared the Report
Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services, County of Elgin - Appellant
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This hearing was held in the Municipal Building, Municipality of West Elgin, (the
Municipality) in Rodney, Ontario on April 11, 2012. The County of Elgin (the County)
appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) under
Section 54(1) of the Drainage Act (the Act) from the decision of the Court of Revision,
dated July 21, 2011 from the Engineer's Report on the Talbot Line Drain dated May 5,
2011 (the Report), prepared by Spriet Associates London Limited (the Engineer), and
signed by John M. Spriet, P.Eng.
Norma Bryant, Clerk of the Municipality, performed the duties of the Clerk of the
Tribunal.
Preliminary Matters
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or
compensated in the Report parties to this hearing. The Clerk of the Municipality filed an
Affidavit of Service with the Tribunal as proof that all parties had been served with
notice of rescheduling of the hearing dated January 16, 2012.
Background
The County of Elgin undertook a $5 million reconstruction of a 17 km section of Talbot
Line (County Road No. 3) in the Municipality of West Elgin. In conjunction with the
road reconstruction project, the County filed several petitions for drainage, under Section
4 of the Drainage Act, in order to establish, improve or otherwise legalize the drainage
outlets for the road and adjacent lands. The current Engineer's Report was prepared in
response to one of those petitions.
The Engineer's Report provides for the drainage of approximately 36 hectares of lands
and road in Lots 16 and 17, Concessions 12 and I3 in the Municipality of West Elgin.
The work comprises the construction of approximately 1,200 m of closed drain tile both
on and off the Talbot Line right -of -way for an estimated cost of $72,700 of which
$25,751 was assessed to eight private land parcels and $46,949 was assessed to Talbot
Line.
The Court of Revision for the Municipality ordered changes to the assessments: namely,
that the assessment for outlet to Roll No. 050 -142 (P. Parezanovic) be reduced to $1,363
(a reduction of $1,363) and the assessment for benefit to Ro11 No. 050 - 138-10 (T. Da
Silva & G. Norton -Da Silva) be reduced to $1,420 (a reduction of $3,000). In both cases,
the reductions were reapportioned as increased assessments to the County of Elgin.
Issues
Should the assessments against the Appellant be amended?
Evidence
Engineer — John Spriet, P. Eng.
Mr. Spriet testified that he prepared the Report pursuant to a Section 4 petition for
drainage filed by the County of Elgin, being the road authority for Talbot Line. He
explained that the petition was one of several filed by the County seeking legal status for
the drainage of the road and adjacent private lands as part of the road reconstruction of
Talbot Line. He described the work proposed by his Report as being the construction of
a closed tile drain with an outlet to Brock Creek where it crosses Talbot Line in Lot 16.
He said that he designed the tile using a 38 mm drainage coefficient to handle the flows
from the entire 36 hectare watershed, which includes both the road and private lands. He
further testified that parts of the drain associated with the crossing of Talbot Line were
previously constructed by the County so he did not include this work in his Report.
Mr. Spriet went on to testify that he routed the new drain tile along a low run on the Da
Silva property that was originally part of the adjacent farmlands Roll No. 050 -138 (D.
Small). He explained that when he started his Report, the Da Silva property was
comprised of approximately 1 acre of land but later increased to approximately 5 acres as
a result of a 4 acre land severance and conveyance from Small to Da Silva. Mr. Spriet
said that there may have been an old "award" drain in the same location but he was
unable to verify its existence. Mr. Spriet added that among other things, his Report
addresses the concerns expressed by the Conservation Authority with respect to ongoing
damage to the surface drainage caused by livestock on the Da Silva property.
Mr. Spriet testified that he used the Todgham method to calculate the assessments. He
explained his methodology in detail by referring to a series of 10 calculation sheets that
he put into evidence. In general, he said that he divided the drain into five sections,
assigned a cost to each section and then apportioned each section cost to special benefit,
benefit and outlet assessments. He explained that in calculating the benefit assessment to
the County, he considered what it would cost the County for a hypothetical drain located
along the road to drain the road only. He said that he gave the County a special
assessment because they were the petitioner for the drainage and also to make the project
more palatable to the other landowners. With respect to the Da Silva property, he said
that he assigned 47% of the costs in that section as a benefit to Da Silva because of the
low run on those lands.
With respect to the $1,363 reduction in outlet assessment by the Court of Revision to Roll
No. 050 -142 (P. Parezanovic), Mr. Spriet testified that during the Court of Revision
hearing, Mr. Parezanovic presented a drawing showing that his lands had been tiled to the
Mumford Drain and not to the Talbot Line Drain. However, he said that the surface
drainage still goes into the Talbot Line Drain. Mr. Spriet testified that he saw Mr.
Parezanovic's drawing for the first time at the Court of Revision hearing. Based on the
new information presented by Mr. Parezanovic, and responding to questions from the
panel, Mr. Spriet said that he now agrees and supports the $1,363 reduction in outlet
assessment made by the Court of Revision. However, he remarked that if he had been
given an opportunity to do a reassessment, he would have reassigned costs to all the
remaining affected parties, not just the County as ordered by the Court of Revision.
Appellant — Peter Dutchak, County of Elgin
Mr. Dutchak testified that the County's $5 million dollar project for a 17 km long
reconstruction of Talbot Line began with public meetings in 2007 with construction
following in 2008 and 2009. He said that as part of the project, the County undertook a
complete review of the existing drainage systems with the objective of legalizing the
outlets while maintaining the historical watersheds. Mr. Dutchak commented that the
County could have designed the new drains to serve the road only but that would have
been short sighted. He noted that although the road was high and dry and did not flood,
the County was nevertheless interested in cleaning up the area and making sure the
outlets were all legal. Accordingly, they filed several petitions for drainage under Section
4 of the Drainage Act, including the one associated with the current Report.
Mr. Dutchak testified that the County supports the Engineer's assessments which formed
part of the Report prior to the Court of Revision's decision. He said that the County
understands that roads typically end up paying the lion's share of costs as special
assessments, particularly in cases where they are the petitioner as is the case here. He
stated that the County accepts and agrees with the Todgham method used by Mr. Spriet in
calculating the assessments. He remarked that while the County does not like the heavy
assessments imposed by the Engineer, they accept the assessments as such because they
are technically concise and consistent with industry practice applied by other experienced
drainage engineers.
Mr. Dutchak testified that County Council directed staff to file an appeal to the decision
by the Municipality's Court of Revision to avoid the establishment of a negative
precedence. He said that the County objects to the unjust and arbitrary actions of the
Court of Revision in this case which imposed extra assessments to the County. He said
that the Court of Revision's actions were unfounded, unjust and lacked any clear
rationale.
With respect to the benefit assessment to Roll No. 050 - 138 -10 (T. Da Silva & G. Norton -
Da Silva), Mr. Dutchak suggested that the Da Silva's may not have realized the costs
associated with the drain when they bought the 4 acres of land from Roll No. 050 -138 (D.
Small). However, he said that does not justify the actions of the Court of Revision that
resulted in an assessment reduction to Da Silva and a corresponding assessment increase
to the County.
In summary, Mr. Dutchak asked the Tribunal to reject the assessment reductions to Da
Silva and Parezanovic. He added that should the Tribunal decide to confirm the
assessment reductions granted by the Court of Revision, then the costs should be spread
amongst all other affected parties, not just the County.
Findings
The Tribunal finds the Engineer's method of calculating the assessments to be technically
sound, compliant with the Act and in keeping with accepted practice.
The Engineer acknowledged that the new evidence provided for the first time by Mr.
Parezanovic at the Court of Revision hearing justifies the $1,363 reduction in his outlet
assessment granted by the Court. However, the Engineer testified that he would have
reassigned the assessment to all the affected parties instead of just the County as ordered
by the Court of Revision. Accordingly, the Tribunal will order that Court's decision to
reduce Mr. Parezanovic's assessment by $1,363 be confirmed but will order that the costs
be reapportioned to all remaining affected parties.
There was no evidence presented at the hearing to rationalize or justify the decision of the
Court of Revision to reduce the benefit assessment to the Da Silva property by $3,000
and impose the amount onto the County of Elgin. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal
is unable to deduce any reasonable explanation for the Court's action and is therefore
surprised by the Court's decision. The Tribunal agrees with the AppeIlant's arguments
that the Court of Revision actions were unfounded and without clear rationale.
Therefore, the Tribunal will order that the decision by the Court of Revision in this regard
be rescinded and that the benefit assessments to Da Silva and the County be reinstated to
those contained in the Report.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal orders as follows:
1. The decision of the Court of Revision to reduce the outlet assessment to Roll No.
050 -142 (P. Parezanovic) by $1,363 is confirmed. The decision of the Court of
Revision to increase the Talbot Line (County of Elgin) outlet assessment by
$1,363 is rescinded, instead, the outlet assessments shall be increased (decreased)
as follows:
050 - 078 -10 (S. & A, Simon) $280
050- 078 -20 (D. & B. McKillop) $52
050 -076 (D. & B. McKillop) $30
050 -138 (D. Small) $107
050- 138 -10 (Da Silva & G. Norton -Da Silva) $40
050- 138 -50 (C. Rybiak) $288
050 -141 (C. & R. limes) $80
050 -242 (P. Parezanovic) ($1,363)
Talbot Line (County of Elgin) $486
2. The decision by the Court of Revision to reduce the assessment for benefit to Roll
No. 050 - 138 -10 (Da Silva & G. Norton -Da Silva) by $3,000 and increase the
benefit assessment to Talbot Line (County of Elgin) is rescinded. The assessment
for benefit to Da Siva and the County of Elgin shall be reinstated to those
contained in the Report.
3. The non - administrative costs of the Municipality in respect of this appeal shall
form part of the cost of the drainage works, and it is ordered that there be no other
order as to costs and all parties shall be responsible for their own costs.
Kirk Walstedt
Chair
Dated at Maidstone, Ontario this 17th day of April, 2012.
TO:
Norma Bryant, Clerk
Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490
Rodney, ON NOL 2C0
AND TO:
Clayton Wafters
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
AND TO:
All persons assessed or compensated in the engineer's report.
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal
1 Stone Road West
Guelph ON NIG 4Y2
Tel: 519 826 -3433, Fax: 519 826 -4232
Toll Free: 1 888 466 -2372 Ext. 6 -3433
Email: appeals .tribunal.omafra ®ontario.ca
Tribunal d'appel de l'agriculture, de
!'alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West
Guelph ON NI G 4Y2
Tel.: 519 826 -3433, Te1ec.: 519 826 -4232
Sans frais : 1 888 466 -2372 poste 6 -3433
Courriel : appeals .tribunal.omafra @ontario.ca
APR 17 20r2 1
t9a
KALITA - PFEIFER DRAIN Section 54(1) Appeal
Municipality of West Elgin
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS
AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal by the County of Elgin, St. Thomas, Ontario under Section 54(1) of the
Drainage Act from the decision of the Court of Revision on the Kalita- Pfeifer Drain in
the Municipality of West Elgin.
Before:
Kirk Walstedt, Chair; Enio Sullo, Vice - Chair; Bill Schaefer, Member
Appearances:
John Spriet, Spriet Associates London Limited - Engineer who prepared the Report
Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services, County of Elgin - Appellant
Philip Pfeifer — assessed landowner
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This hearing was held in the Municipal Building, Municipality of West Elgin, (the
Municipality) in Rodney, Ontario on April 11, 2012. The County of Elgin (the County)
appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) under
Section 54(1) of the Drainage Act (the Act) from the decision of the Court of Revision,
dated July 21, 2011 from the Engineer's Report on the Kalita- Pfeifer Drain dated May 5,
2011 (the Report), prepared by Spriet Associates London Limited (the Engineer), and
signed by John Spriet, P.Eng.
Norma Bryant, Clerk of the Municipality, performed the duties of the Clerk of the
Tribunal.
Preliminary Matters
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or
compensated in the Report parties to this hearing. The Clerk of the Municipality filed an
Affidavit of Service with the Tribunal as proof that all parties had been served with
notice of rescheduling of the hearing dated January 16, 2012.
Back round
The County of Elgin undertook a $5 million reconstruction of a 17 km section of Talbot
Line (County Road No. 3) in the Municipality of West Elgin. In conjunction with the
road reconstruction project, the County filed several petitions for drainage, under Section
4 of the Drainage Act, in order to establish, improve or otherwise legalize the drainage
outlets for the road and adjacent lands. The current Engineer's Report was prepared in
response to one of those petitions.
The Engineer's Report provides for the drainage of approximately 43 hectares of lands
and road in Lots 13 and 14, Concessions 12 and 13 in the Municipality of West Elgin.
The work comprises the construction of approximately 650 m of closed drain tile both on
and off the Talbot Road right-of-way for an estimated cost of $42,100 of which $15,592
was assessed to eight private land parcels and $26,508 was assessed to Talbot Line.
The Court of Revision for the Municipality ordered that the assessment for outlet to Roll
No. 050 -161 (P. Pfeifer) be reduced to $4,000 (a reduction of $2,203) and that the
assessment for outlet to Talbot Line (County of Elgin) be increased by $2,203.
Issues
Should the assessments against the Appellant be amended?
Evidence
Engineer — John Spriet, P. Eng_
Mr. Spriet testified that he prepared the Report pursuant to a Section 4 petition for
drainage filed by the County of Elgin, being the road authority for Talbot Line. He
explained that the petition was one of several filed by the County seeking legal status for
the drainage of the road and adjacent private lands as part of the road reconstruction of
Talbot Line. He described the work proposed by his Report as being the construction of
a closed tile drain both on and off the Talbot Line road right -of -way. He said that he
designed the tile using a 38 mm drainage coefficient to handle the flows from the entire
43 hectare watershed, which includes both the road and private lands. He further testified
that parts of the drain associated with the crossing of Talbot Line were previously
constructed by the County so he did not include this work in his Report.
Mr. Spriet testified that he used the Todgham method to calculate the assessments. He
went on to explain his methodology in detail by referring to a series of 6 calculation
sheets that he put into evidence. In general, he said that he divided the drain into 3
sections, assigned a cost to each section and then apportioned each section cost to special
benefit, benefit and outlet assessments. He explained that in calculating the benefit
assessment to the County, he considered what it would cost the County for a hypothetical
drain located along the road to drain the road only. He said that he gave the County a
special assessment because they were the petitioner for the drainage and also to make the
project more palatable to the other landowners.
Mr. Spriet testified that among other things, he considered land use in calculating the
assessments for outlet. He said that he used a base factor or 1.0 for agricultural land, 4.0
for the road right -of -way and 0.5 for wooded lands. He confirmed that in calculating the
assessment outlet to Mr. Pfeifer's lands, he took into consideration that part of the lands
were wooded.
Appellant — Peter Dutchak, County of Elgin
Mr. Dutchak testified that the County's $5 million dollar project for a 17 km long
reconstruction of Talbot Line began with public meetings in 2007 with construction
following in 2008 and 2009. He said that as part of the project, the County undertook a
complete review of the existing drainage systems with the objective of legalizing the
outlets while maintaining the historical watersheds. Mr. Dutchak commented that the
County could have designed the new drains to serve the road only but that would have
been short sighted. He noted that although the road was high and dry and did not flood,
the County was nevertheless interested in cleaning up the area and making sure the
outlets were all legal. Accordingly, they filed several petitions for drainage under Section
4 of the Drainage Act, including the one associated with the current Report.
Mr. Dutchak testified that the County supports the Engineer's assessments which formed
part of the Report prior to the Court of Revision's decision. He said that the County
understands that roads typically end up paying the lion's share of costs as special
assessments, particularly in cases where they are the petitioner as is the case here. He
stated that the County accepts and agrees with the Todgham method used by Mr. Spriet in
calculating the assessments. He remarked that while the County does not like the heavy
assessments imposed by the Engineer, they accept the assessments as such because they
are technically concise and consistent with industry practice applied by other experienced
drainage engineers.
Mr. Dutchak testified that County Council directed staff to file an appeal to the decision
by the Municipality's Court of Revision to avoid the establishment of a negative
precedence. He said that the County objects to the unjust and arbitrary actions of the
Court of Revision in this case which imposed extra assessments to the County. He said
that the Court of Revision's actions were unfounded, unjust and lacked any clear
rationale.
In summary, Mr. Dutchak urged the Tribunal to reject the assessment reduction to Mr.
Pfeifer. However,.he said that should the Tribunal decide to confirm the assessment
reduction granted by the Court of Revision, then the costs should be spread amongst all
other affected parties, not just the County.
Assessed landowner — Philip Pfeifer
Mr. Pfeifer did not present any significant oral evidence at the hearing except to complain
that he was not notified of the planning meetings for this drain. However he did put into
evidence a letter dated November 14, 2011 which he had addressed to the Municipality of
West Elgin. In his letter, Mr. Pfeifer complains that even with assessment reduction
granted by the Court of Revision, the percentage of cost burdened on his lands seems to
outweigh any benefit he would receive. He argued that his assessments make the cost per
workable acre extremely expensive considering that part of his lands are wooded and part
are wetland. He went on to argue that since the County of Elgin requested the new drain,
they should pay the entire cost. He also complained that he was not consulted during the
planning stages and commencement of the work. In summary, Mr. Pfeifer requested that
the revised decision by the Court of Revision to reduce his assessment be upheld.
Drainage Superintendent —John Unger
In response to a question from the Engineer, Mr. Unger testified that all the landowners
in the watershed, including Mr. Pfeifer, were mailed invitations to the meetings
associated with this drain, including the site meeting.
Findings
The Tribunal finds the Engineer's method of calculating the assessments to be technically
sound, compliant with the Act and in keeping with accepted practice.
There was no evidence presented at the hearing to rationalize or justify the decision of the
Court of Revision to reduce the benefit assessment to the Pfeifer property by $2,203 and
impose the amount onto the County of Elgin. The Tribunal was not swayed by the
complaints and arguments put forward by Mr. Pfeifer in this regard. If Mr. Pfeifer
presented those same complaints and arguments to the Court of Revision, the Court also
should not have been swayed. The Tribunal agrees with the Appellant's arguments that
the Court of Revision actions were unfounded and without clear rationale. The Tribunal
is surprised by the decision made by the Court of Revision. Therefore, the Tribunal will
order that the decision by the Court of Revision to grant a reduction in assessment to Mr.
Pfeifer at the expense of the County be rescinded and that the assessments be reinstated
to those contained in the Report.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The decision by the Court of Revision to reduce the assessment for benefit to Roll
No. 050 -161 (P. Pfeifer) by $2,203 and increase the benefit assessment to Talbot
Line (County of Elgin) by the same amount is rescinded. The assessments shall
be reinstated to those contained in the Report.
2. The non - administrative costs of the Municipality in respect of this appeal shall
form part of the cost of the drainage works, and it is ordered that there be no other
order as to costs and all parties shall be responsible for their own costs.
Kirk Walstedt
Chair
Dated at Maidstone, Ontario this 171h day of April, 2012.
TO
Norma Bryant, Clerk
Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490
Rodney, ON NOL 2C0
AND TO:
Clayton Waters
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
AND TO:
Philip Pfeifer
14 Mountainview Crescent
London, ON N6J 4M8
AND TO:
All persons assessed or compensated in the engineer's report.
T4e unicipalit of .est
Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line
Rodney, Ontario
NOL 2C0
Dear Mayor & Council:
Re: Canada Day, Miller Park, West Lorne
Sunday, July 1st — 2012
April 26, 2012
Our Canada Day Committee will be organizing our Canada Day celebration. The following
service clubs will be participating — Optimist Club of West Lorne, West Lorne Lawn Bowling
Club, West Lorne & Rodney Fire Departments, Knights of Columbus and West Lorne Legion.
The committees will be meeting to organize the events. The following is a list of events to
date, however more activities may be organized.
Sunday, July 1st
1. Kids Country Carnival which was a huge success thanks to the local businesses;
2. Knights of Columbus - Fish Fry;
3. Opening Ceremonies;
4. West Lorne Firemen vs. Rodney Firemen Fun Baseball game;
5. Snake Lady Show;
6. Fireworks — West Elgin Fire Departments.
We are therefore requesting support for the following:
(a) Council approval to hold Canada Day celebrations at Miller Park /Rodney Park on
July 1st, 2011;
(b) Provide a grant for the use of the arena on July 1St if necessary;
(c) Authorization to request funding for the celebrate Canada Day program from
Heritage Canada;
(d) Funding to cover the fireworks expense.
Thanking you in advance.
Ann Smith
Canada Day Committee
/as
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOL 200 Tel: (519) 785 -0560 Fax: (519) 785 -0644
q3
Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line
Rodney, ON
NOL 2C0
Dear Council Members,
APR 9 201-.2
1
West Lorne has an active Scouting program that encourages youth to develop personal growth, attain life skills,
participate in community service, and be aware of environmental issues.
As an environmental project, the Cubs, would like to participate in The Yellow Fish Road Program.
"Trout Unlimited Canada's Yellow Fish RoadTM Program is a nation -wide environmental education initiative. Since 1991,
tens of thousands of Canadians have become leaders in their community by raising awareness about pollution entering
local waterbodies through storm drains." www.vellowfishroad.org
"Yellow Fish Road volunteers paint yellow fish symbols next to storm drains and distribute fish - shaped brochures to
nearby households, to remind people that anything that enters the storm drain system ends up in the local waterbody
— affecting fish and fish habitat." www.tucanada.org
The youth would like to mark as many storm drains as possible in the residential areas in West Lorne.
The Cub Leaders have already been in contact with the local conservation authority (Kettle Creek) and Trout Unlimited
Canada, implementers of the program. They are willing to provide the equipment necessary such as stencils, safety
vests, gloves, etc. However, we do need your help before we can proceed.
1) First and foremost, we require in writing, your permission to do the actual painting. We also ask that you
provide us with contact names for any private approvals we may need such as subdivision developers,
condominium associations, land owned or leased by First Nations.
2) We would need to know of any restrictions, guidelines or requirements the Municipality would have regarding
this project.
3) We will need maps and /or locations of the storm drains we could mark. Our understanding is that some are
municipally maintained and some are maintained by the county.
Once we have your permission, a Volunteer agreement is sent into Trout Unlimited Canada which covers us under their
General Liability insurance for the day(s) we are carrying out the program. We are hoping to run the program on
Saturday, June 9, 2012.
I have enclosed a copy of the program guide to hopefully answer any questions you may have.
We ask for a prompt reply and look forward to working together on this environmental project.
Sincerely,
Brenda Miller ),, li�
Group Commissioner,
1$t West Lorne Scouting Family
281 Mary St., West Lorne, ON, NOL 2P0
519 -768 -0014 c: 519 - 854 -9154
D�
Norma Bryant
Page 1 of 2
From: Bernie Wiehle [bwiehle @ elgin - county.on.ca]
Sent: April -23 -12 9:49 AM
To: Norma Bryant
Subject: Fwd: West Elgin_ Proposal_ Constrained Projects_OEM
Attachments: West Elgin_Proposal_OEM_Mayor.pdf; ATT00001.htm; sigimg1.dat; ATT00002.htm
Bernie Wiehle
Councillor, County of Elgin
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Bernie Wiehle" <berniewiehle(cgrnail.com>
To: "Bernie Wiehle" <bwiehle(elgin- county.on.ca>
Subject: Fwd: West Elgin_ Proposal_ Constrained Projects_OEM
Forwarded message
From: nhuber ontarioenergymatrix. com< mailto: nhubernontarioenergymatrix.com>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2012
Subject: West Elgin_ Proposal_ Constrained Projects_OEM
To: berniewiehle@gmail.com<mailto:berniewiehle 2 gmail.com>
Good morning Mayor Bernhard Wiehle,
Ontario Energy Matrix represents several clients who have hundreds of constrained
MicroFIT Projects that under the new rules can be moved to any eligible land (or rooftop)
within Ontario. We would like to work with the Municipality of West Elgin to place a
percentage of these Projects on lands (and rooftops) owned by the Municipality. Please see
the attached Preliminary Proposal for more details.
The great thing about this opportunity is that all of these Projects already have Contract
Offers and can be place relatively quickly (this year); however, there is a very tight deadline
to complete all necessary Feasibility Studies, Lease Contracts, and Constrained Project
Relocation Documentation (May 31, 2012).
Alternatively, if the deadline for relocating Constrained Projects to the Municipality of
West Elgin rooftops is too tight, we can help develop your Rooftop Portfolio for a lease
(and /or own & operate) under the NEW FIT Program.
We are currently working with other municipalities throughout Ontario and would welcome
the opportunity to work with the Municipality of West Elgin as well.
If there is interest, please feel free to email or call me directly with any questions you may
have.
23/04/2012
Page 2 of 2
All the best,
Nicholas
Nicholas J. Huber
Business Development Manager
Ontario Energy Matrix
Cell: 519.476.0630
Fax: 905.898.2095
Email: nhuber 2 ontarioenergymatrix .com <rnaifto:nhuber cJontarioenergymatrix.com>
Website: www. ontarioenergymatrix. c. om< http: / /www.ontarioenergymatrix.corn>
from concept to connection
This message has been scanned by LastSpam <http: //www.lastspam.com> eMail security
service, provided by Protek <http: /lwww.protek.ca >.
E1nCounty
This email may contain confidential information. if you are not one of the intended recipients, if you receive this
email or if it is forwarded to you without the express authorization of The County of Elgin, please destroy this
email and contact us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
23/04/2012
Ontario Energy Matrix
A Network for Sustainable Energy
•
NOTE: The above photos are actual Ontario Energy Matrix
FIT PV Solar installations (2009 to current ).
West Elgin,
Land & Rooftop Leases for
Constrained MicroFIT
Projects
Prepared for: Municipality of West Elgin
April 23, 2012
Ontario Energy Matrix
Attention:
Bernhard Wiehle
Mayor
Municipality of West Elgin
519.785.0560
berniewiehle@gmail.com
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
Background:
This Proposal explores the opportunity for the Municipality of West Elgin
to lease their lands (and rooftops) to OEM Clients for the purpose of
' relocating Constrained MicroFIT Projects under the Constrained Project
Ruling.
If this is of interest, there will be a significant amount of work required
(Feasibilities Studies, Contracts, etc.) in a very short timeframe.
The timeline to complete all Project Location Transfer Documentation is
May 31, 2012, after which these contracts will be dissolved by the OPA.
If completed on time, we could start building Projects this year.
All Projects will be connected under Ontario's Feed -in- Tariff (FIT) Program.
Details available on the OPA FIT website: http: / /fit.powerauthority.on.ca
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com 2
Ontario Energy Matrix
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
Proposed Ground Mount Projects:
Lease Municipal Lands to OEM Clients with Constrained MicroFIT Projects.
Example: Water Pollution Control Plant.
Table 1: Examples of usable area required for multiple Constrained Ground
Mount Projects (p).
West Elgin, Usable Area PV Solar System
Ontario (acres) (kW AC)
Example 1
Example 2
2.4 10kW x 11p = 110kW
-------------------------------------
10.5 10kW x 50p = 500kW
Eligible Lands:
- Contingent on local grid capacity and the following guidelines:
The property must meet the OPA's basic eligibility requirements. If the
project is a ground - mounted solar PV system, the property must also comply
with the following land -use restrictions:
- The project cannot be on property on which residential use is lawfully
permitted, or abut property on which residential use is lawfully permitted.
- However, for property where the lawfully permitted use is agricultural, a
solar facility that is not a rooftop facility is permitted on such property or
property that abuts such property if residential use is permitted as ancillary
to the agricultural use.
- If the property is zoned to permit commercial or industrial uses, the project
must not be the primary use of the property.
Combined projects with a capacity of up to 500 kW are also subject to all the
siting, permitting and regulatory requirements associated with locating those
larger projects on the new site. The siting requirements will include that the
land must not be CLI Class 1, 2, or 3 lands, CLI Organic lands or a Specialty
Crop Area.
Source: http:/ /microfit.powerauthority•on.ca/ sites /default/ tiles/ FAQs% 20on°%° 20constrained %20microFIT %2Oreloc
ation %20options.pdf
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com 3
Ontario Energy Matrix
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April23, 2012
111.111111111111
1
Figures 1: Photos of recommended technology package: Magna Closures
MCX -35's (tracker racking and controls) with Canadian Solar Solutions CS6P
(modules).
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com 4
Ontario Energy Matrix
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
Land Lease Overview:
Between $1,000 to $1,200 / 10 kW (AC) Project / year for the period of
20 years with options to either renew Leases OR purchase Projects
thereafter.
The Lands will be leased to Tenant(s) provided by OEM. These
Constrained Projects already have OPA Contract Offers of $0.802 /kWh.
OEM intends to develop these Projects with our Client(s).
OEM intends to EPC these Projects with our strategic partners Canadian
Solar Solutions (CSS) and Magna Closures.
OEM intends to manage the Operation and Maintenance Contracts (O &M)
of each Project for at least the first 5 years. After which time the
Municipality of West Elgin could have first right of refusal to take -over the
O &M contracts from years 6 to 20.
Projected Revenues for the Municipality of West Elgin
from Constrained MicroFIT Land Leases:
Table 2: Land Lease Revenue Opportunities for the Municipality of West
Elgin.
Revenues
West Elgin, Number of Total W Revenues over 20
Ontario Projects (AC) / year* years
Example 1 11 110,000 $13,200 $264,000
Example 2 50 500,000 $60,000 $1,200,000
TOTAL 61. 610,000 $73,200 $1,464,000
* Calculated using $0.12/W AC installed / year.
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com 5
Ontario Energy Matrix
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
Proposed Rooftop Projects:
Lease Municipal Rooftops to OEM Clients with Constrained MicroFIT Projects.
Table 3: Examples for usable rooftop surface area and size of proposed
PV Solar Systems,
West Elgin, Estimated Usable Size of PV Solar
Ontario Surface Area (sq ft) System (AC)
Example 1 Flat: 97,000 Sloped 45,000 500 kW
Example 2 Flat: 73,600 Sloped 34,200 375 kW
Example 3 Flat: 48,700 Sloped 23,000 250 kW
Example 4 Flat: 37,200 Sloped 17,400 200 kW
Example 5 Flat: 26,400 Sloped 12,100 135 kW
Example 6 Flat: 18,600 Sloped 8,700 100 kW
TOTAL "1,560 kW
Eligible Rooftops:
In order to peruse the rooftop opportunities we will need to conduct
Feasibility Studies (structural, roof condition reports, site
assessment, PV system layouts, grid capacity, etc.) for each location
before our Clients would commit to relocating their Constrained Projects to
the Municipality of West Elgin locations.
Therefore, given the tight timelines set by the OPA for transferring
Constrained Projects (May 31, 2012) we will need to move ASAP in order to
complete all the required paperwork on time.
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com 6
Ontario Energy Matrix
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
Rooftop Lease Overview:
Between $75 to $100 / kW (AC) / year for the period of 20 years with
options to either renew Leases OR purchase Projects thereafter.
The rooftops will be leased to Tenant(s) provided by OEM. These
Constrained Projects already have OPA Contract Offers of $0.802 /kWh.
OEM intends to develop these Projects with our Client(s).
OEM intends to EPC these Projects with our strategic partners CSS.
OEM intends to manage the Operation and Maintenance Contracts (O &M)
of each Project for at least the first 5 years. After which time the
Municipality of West Elgin could have first right of refusal to take -over the
O &M contracts from years 6 to 20.
Projected Revenues for the Municipality of West Elgin
from Constrained MicroFIT Rooftop Leases:
Table 4: Rooftop Lease Revenue Opportunities for the Municipality of West
Elgin.
Revenues
West Elgin, Total kW Revenues over 20
Ontario (AC) / year* years
Example 3 x 1 250,000 $25,000 $500,000
Example 6 x 5 500,000 $50,000 $1,000,000
TOTAL (refer to Table 3) 750,000 $75,000 $1,500,000
*Calculated using $0.1/W AC installed / year. NOTE: Site specific lease
rate offers will be finalize upon completion of the Feasibility Studies
(which will determine solar potential).
www.ontarioenergymatrix.com
Ontario Energy Matrix
Ontario Energy Matrix (OEM)
A Network for Sustainable Energy:
Municipality of West Elgin
Constrained Project Proposal
April 23, 2012
OEM is a full service EPC (engineering, procurement & construction) Firm
that specializes in medium to large scale commercial PV installations. OEM
has installed some of the largest rooftop (500 kW AC) and parking lot (60
kW AC) PV systems in Ontario. We are PV assessment & installation channel
partners with various Municipalities, authorized distributor and installation
partner with Canadian Solar Solutions and Magna Closures, third party PV
installation verifiers for investors, procurers and consultants for other EPC's,
suppliers and solar installation companies throughout Ontario.
Working with our strategic partners OEM also provides EPC, Consulting,
Design Charrette and Workshop services for several biocomposite building
materials and other sustainable technologies focusing on energy
conservation and generation.
www.ontarioenergymatrix.cam 8